Memo 1: 04/09/2010

The California Budget Committee had many options to reduce California expenditures, and achieve a balanced budget.  For this reason, it is important to explore why among the many alternatives, welfare programs for legal immigrants were among the first to appear on California’s decision agenda.  In Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, John Kingdon explains: “There are three families of processes in federal government agenda setting: problems, policies and politics […] the key to understanding agenda and policy change is their coupling.”[1] Kingdon explicates the role that each of these families takes in the government’s deliberations, and how the separate streams can join to change policy agendas dramatically.  He often refers to a “policy window”[2] as the opportunity for policy enactment created by the coupling of these separate streams, and its placement on the decision agenda. The decision agenda is defined as small set of proposals that is currently being debated and decided on by politicians in positions of power.  One can apply these same ideas to California’s budget and program cuts to examine their role in catalyzing immigrant welfare to the forefront of policy change.

The first process stream that Kingdon discusses is that of problem recognition. He says that “we need to understand how and why one set of problems rather than another comes to occupy the attention of government officials.”[3] For the California government, the main problem is balancing the state budget.  Since 2004, and the passage of Proposition 58, the California governor has always been required to propose a balanced budget[4].  However, for the year of 2010-2011, California faces an estimated deficit of $19.9 billion[5], which must be made up either via additional revenues or decreased expenditures.  This deficit was propagated by an unexpected deficit of over $6 billion from 2009-2010 budget shortcomings.  Because it is difficult to increase revenues, Governor Schwarzenegger was forced to decide on a mix of state-funded programs to cut.  For California citizens this issue is extremely important.  In fact, in a recent poll taken by the Field Corporation, Californians rated the budget deficit as one of their two most important issues, second only to the current economic crisis as a whole.  A full 68% of Californians consider a balanced budget as an important issue in deciding whom they will vote for.[6] Thus, it is obvious that the budget deficit is a major problem affecting not only government officials, but also the entire California public.

The formation of policies as solutions naturally follows the recognition of problems, and is the second process stream that Kingdon discusses.  This stream is particularly important in understanding why welfare cuts for legal immigrants moved to the top of the decision agenda.  According to the California Immigrant Policy Center, immigrants constitute more than one-third of California’s workforce and account for approximately one-third of California’s GDP.[7] Because the immigration population is so relevant in California, policymakers see great potential for reducing expenditures by cutting welfare programs even for legal immigrants. Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed elimination of CAPI and CFAP would cut crucial welfare assistance to over 40,000 legal immigrants and save the state of California approximately $120 million dollars per year.[8] More significantly, the proposed elimination of CalWORKS would affect 24,000 legal immigrants and save California $1.2 billion in 2010-2011.[9] The appeal from the policy point of view is that these program cuts would affect only a small proportion of the state population, while reducing the deficit substantially in a quick time period.  More significantly, the elimination of these programs would encourage (force) impoverished immigrants to seek Federal aid, effectively passing the responsibility on to the national government.

Kingdon’s third and final process stream is politics, which analyzes the feasibility of passing a given proposal into law.  Having explored the problem of the budget deficit and the proposed policy solutions to cut welfare programs, the only missing piece is the political viability of such policy solutions.  With the politics of immigrant welfare proposals, it is necessary to examine the image in which immigrants are portrayed in California.  Because California has received such a large influx of illegal immigrants in recent decades, many Californians have become increasingly concerned with the immigrant population.  In a poll from the Field Corporation, 57% of Californians said that “illegal” immigrants have a negative impact on the state.[10] Moreover, 77% of Californians said that “illegal” immigration is still a serious issue.[11] Although these polls did not directly concern legal immigration, it is inevitable that all immigrants have become associated with undocumented immigrants, and much of the California population views immigration assistance in a critical light.  In their book Agenda and Instability in American Politics, Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones argue that this has significant political connotations: “When an issue emerges on the national agenda in an atmosphere of criticism […] conditions are ripe for the destruction or dilution of any policy subsystem that may have been created in the past.”[12] In this case, CAPI, CFAP, and CalWORKS are all “ripe” for dismantling.  Governor Schwarzenegger recognizes this situation, and takes advantage of his position by pushing his budget cut reforms through entrepreneurial politics.  That is, he pushes for the propositions as having widespread benefits, but only concentrated costs to a small population, as described in the Wilson-Lowi matrix.  Schwarzenegger also capitalizes on the fact that these immigrants, while legal residents, are not citizens and therefore cannot vote.  It is thus very difficult for the affected populace to make their voice heard on the ballot, and easier for the legislature to ignore their needs.  Although the magnitude of the costs to this impoverished and vulnerable immigrant population will be enormous, Governor Schwarzenegger focuses only on the benefits of a balanced budget for the state as a whole.

The policy window for immigration welfare reform has been opened by a combination of the problem, policy and political streams in California.  Governor Schwarzenegger has already submitted his proposals to take advantage of this policy window.  He hopes to make huge cuts to welfare programs for those legal immigrants who currently benefit from CAPI, CFAP and CalWORKS.  By doing so, he will come closer to a balanced budget for the state of California.  However, the effects on the immigrant population will be disastrous, particularly if they are not able to secure Federal aid.  Given these effects, it remains to be seen whether the political incentive is strong enough for California government officials to pass into law these budgetary reforms.

---

[1] Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984. Print. 87-88

[2] Kingdon. 166

[3] Kingdon. 87

[4] “Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act.” California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/58_03_2004.htm>.

[5] “2010-11 Budget Proposal: Solving California’s $20 Billion Deficit – Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.” Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/14147/>.

[6] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Majorities Rate Jobs/the Economy, the State Budget Deficit, Education and Health Care as Top Issues in This Year’s Governor’s Race. Rep. no. 2334. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[7] California Immigration Policy Center. The Cost of Cutting Immigrant Welfare Programs. Berkeley: California Immigration Policy Center, 2010. Print.

[8] The Governor’s Proposed Cuts to the SSI/SSP and CAPI Programs Would Affect Nearly 950,000 Californians. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

[9] The Governor’s Proposed Budget Would Eliminate CalWORKS Cash Assistance. Rep. Sacramento: California Budget Project, 2010. Print.

[10] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Growing Differences between Voters and Non-voters about Perceived Impact Illegal Immigrants. Rep. no. 2185. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[11] DiCamillo, Mark, and Mervin Field. Voters Favor Creating Opportunities to Legalize the Status of Illegal Residents and Back Policies Aimed at Reducing the Flow of Immigrants into the Country. Rep. no. 2229. San Francisco: Field Research Corporation, 2010. Print.

[12] Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print. 84

Advertisement