[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Advocates Sue The "Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator"

by: David Dayen

Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 11:08:48 AM PST


You may remember that in August, Gov. Schwarzenegger used his line-item veto pen to cancel $55 million in funding for the treatment and care of mentally ill homeless people.

If you don't remember it, shame on you.  It should be the only thing you think of when you think of this governor.  He should be forever known as the "Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator."

The claim was that Prop. 63, passed by the voters, adequately funded this need, and so the dedicated funding that passed the legislature as AB 2034 could be eliminated.  That's not true.  What was actually going on was that the governor was trying to limit political damage by cutting funding for people who don't vote and therefore aren't of his concern.

Well, now some advocates of the homeless are suing this governor's ass.

Advocates for the mentally ill filed a lawsuit Thursday alleging that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger subverted the will of voters when he eliminated a $55-million program for the homeless mentally ill -- a program he himself had touted as a success.

The suit asks a judge to restore the eliminated funding, order the state to continue paying for the program and declare that the governor acted illegally -- an important provision, the advocates said, in establishing precedent for future disputes over mental health system funding.

The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, chosen because the plaintiffs include several mentally ill people in the county who credit the program with improving their lives -- helping them kick a drug habit, for instance, or move from the streets into their own apartment.

Allow me to file an amicus brief:

The Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator is a callous, small man.

David Dayen :: Advocates Sue The "Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator"
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hmmm (0.00 / 0)
I agree with this specific case, but is it wise to establish a precedent to sue when your funding gets reduced? Especially given what's looming next year?

Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
If the legislature is not willing to resolve the structural revenue shortfall, and if the Mentally Ill Homeless Terminator wants to balance the budget on the backs of the most needy among us, then we're quite right to resort to whatever means we have at our disposal to protect basic needs and government services.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the courts will do what the leg won't.

Can we ask them to fix our tax code?

I think?


[ Parent ]
Heh (0.00 / 0)
Wasn't that how Connecticut finally got an income tax - or was that Tennessee - through the court system?

We used to talk about that back in Washington State, which also lacks an income tax.

While it's obviously much more ideal to use the legislative process to craft a long-term fix for our structural revenue deficit, if they and the governor fail to provide leadership, then it makes sense for us to use other means at our disposal to protect our needs.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
My point (0.00 / 0)
Is less about where responsibility lies and more about promoting a less-enlightened perspective that people should just be concerned about protecting their own financial turf.  Like I said, I support this move in the specific case and, relating to what Dave said, in response to this sort of tactic.

My concern lies more with the abstract message that is sent.  I think it could go the way you suggest or towards increased territorial selfishness and that the latter is easier.


[ Parent ]
also (8.00 / 1)
at issue here is that he used an initiative that provided additional funding and made it the sole funding source.  This is a really pathetic trick that does in fact subvert the will of the voters, and we should either stop ballot-box budgeting, or actually follow initiatives.  You can't do both.

This is also the problem with saying "10% cut" because there are so many pieces of funding that are protected or mandated by law.  You actually can't cut across the board unless you pass a new law changing that whole apparatus.


[ Parent ]
Yup (0.00 / 0)
And the law would require a vote of the people. I'm guessing CTA would not be down with cutting 10% off of education.

I think?

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox