[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Nathan Newman
Policy Director
Progressive States Network

The budget news is grim in some states. Twenty states face a combined budget shortfall of at least $35 billion for 2009, according to analysis by the Center on Budget Policy & Priorities (see CBPP graph below). Another 8 states will likely have budget problems next year or the year after.

The impulse by some state leaders is to slash state spending, but that could be disastrous for the economy if multiple states lay off state workers and cut-off help to those in need just as private spending is falling.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

The signing today of the bipartisan economic stimulus bill spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi means that 14,700,000 families in California will receive tax rebates of up to $1,200 per couple, plus $300 per child as early as mid-May. While most of Washington, D.C. came together to provide much needed assistance to the many California families struggling to cope with higher cost of living expenses, stagnating wages, job losses and a mortgage crisis that threatens the economic security of countless Californians, one Republican in Washington was too worried about his presidential campaign to show up for a crucial vote.
 
Last week Republican frontrunner John McCain -- who recently told reporters he "doesn't really understand economics" -- was too busy campaigning and too afraid to alienate the right wing of his party to vote on a key element of the stimulus package. Despite being just miles from the capitol building, and despite the fact that fellow senators who traveled with him on the campaign trail made it back to the Senate in time to vote, McCain was the only senator to miss a vote on whether to improve the economic stimulus package by adding assistance for 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans to the package. Because of McCain's absence, the measure fell one vote short.
 

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert B. Reich

[Editor’s note: This article discusses mandates in the context of the Democratic presidential race, but has direct relevance to the debate on AB X1 1 being considered by the California Senate Health Committee on Monday.]

Democrats should be celebrating. Their three major candidates have put health insurance front and center on the domestic agenda, and with plans that are remarkably similar. They've done so at a time when the public seems readier than ever before to embrace universal health insurance, and readier to trust a Democratic president to put it into effect.
But instead of celebrating, the candidates and left-leaning pundits are squabbling over whether the plans should include so-called mandates that require everyone to purchase health insurance. Talk about self-inflicted wounds. Mandates are a sideshow, and fighting over them risks turning away voters from the main event.

by awright [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

A new comparative analysis shows that the pending California Health Security and Cost Reduction Act, AB x1 1, takes major steps in health reform far beyond the much-discussed Massachusetts reform of 2006. A full copy of the 8-page analysis is available HERE at the Health Access website.

The analysis, entitled "Health Reform in California and Massachusetts: Different from Start to Finish," concludes that AB x1 1 would provide a broader benefit to California consumers than what was passed in Massachusetts. The report lists "top ten" major differences between the California 's AB x1 1, and the health reform law, Chapter 58, passed in 2006. In contrast with Massachusetts, the California proposal includes:

1) New, Broader Financing, including a Tobacco Tax

2) A More Meaningful Employer Contribution

3) General Fund Protection

4) Significant Cost Containment

5) Subsidies up to and above 400% of the federal poverty level

6) Key Differences in the Individual Mandate, Affordability and Enforcement

7) A Transition to Guaranteed Issue

8) Medical Loss Ratios and Increased Insurer Oversight

9) Not Just a Connector, but a Negotiator

read more »

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

Governor’s Plan Likely to Cost the Average Middle Class Family Between $8,100 and $13,000 a Year

By Frank D. Russo

The California Labor Federation released a report yesterday that finding that Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposed health care plan looks like it will cost the average middle class family between $8,100 and $13,000 a year, forcing many Californians to choose between their financial security or breaking the law.

The report, is titled “Unfair, Unaffordable, and Unacceptable: An Analysis of the Schwarzenegger Health Reform Proposal’s Impact on Low and Middle Income Families,” and can be read online and printed out.

The Labor Fed has been criticized by groups such as the Bay Area Council which is supporting the Schwarzenegger plan as "swinging their hammer against Governor Schwarzenegger’s healthcare reform efforts, possibly shattering the last great hope for healthcare reform in California and perhaps nationwide." And the Schwarzenegger Administration has issued statements that the report is based on "fuzzy math" and is based on the proposal they made in June.

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

In this week’s Democratic weekly radio address, Assemblymembers Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) and Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) discuss legislation that would investigate “hot fuels,” a phenomenon where fuel is sold under the assumption that it is a lower temperature than it really is, distorting the price in the process.

You can listen in English or in Spanish.