.
June 9th, 2009
05:35 PM ET

Should states reduce or eliminate welfare benefits?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Facing a staggering $24 billion dollar budget deficit, California is considering making cuts just about everywhere - including social programs for the poor, elderly and frail. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposals could:

Demonstrators call on Schwarzenegger to reverse $170 million in proposed budget cuts in HIV/AIDS services as he seeks to close a $23 billion deficit in California's budget.

– End the welfare-to-work program for mothers and their children - affecting more than 500,000 families.

– Eliminate health insurance for 1 million children from low-income families

– Greatly reduce services for Alzheimer's patients and others receiving in-home care.

Schwarzenegger acknowledges these proposals would be painful, saying: "It's an awful feeling, but we have no choice." The governor has said he won't raise taxes again, which leaves lawmakers with few other alternatives.

Critics say they are in shock at the idea of getting rid of the state's welfare program and the results could be devastating - forcing thousands of families into homelessness.

But supporters say that states still have many other assistance programs and few people would be left without any help... For example, federally mandated programs like food stamps, low-income housing and Medicaid would continue.

California isn't the only state cutting back in these difficult economic times. Arizona reportedly cut funding for a rehab program for almost 5,000 children with chronic or disabling conditions. Georgia has cut back services for the elderly; and Nevada will make it harder for low income families to apply for cash assistance and health insurance.

Here’s my question to you: Should states reduce or eliminate welfare benefits as a way of balancing their budgets?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Charlette writes:
You have got to be kidding. The state of California has the wealthiest of all Americans living in it and they are going to make cuts to low income families. Governor, you should be ashamed of yourself! But hey, you were in Hollywood. Ever watch ‘Trading Places’? Maybe you should try it!

Ron from Key West, Florida writes:
Reducing welfare, disability and a host of other benefits could save a lot of money if those who unfairly abuse these programs were cut off. I've met far too many people on assistance programs who live better than I do, and are able-bodied adults who can take care of themselves. And many of them do. They work full time jobs, are paid off the books and ice the cake with the government benefits.

Giorgio from Italy writes:
States should increase welfare benefits! There are many poor and lower middle class people who can barely survive on current welfare benefits. Please, there are many unethical events that led to the current, ongoing economic crisis in the United States, but welfare benefits and other social entitlements had nothing to do with it!

Susan from Tuscaloosa, Alabama writes:
We should eliminate welfare benefits to the defense contractors, the worthless politicians, the Wall Street thieves, the incompetent corporate CEOs, and other rip-off artists who stay fat and sassy and pay little or nothing for the privilege of getting obscenely rich in America, but as usual the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer.

Peter writes:
This is the best course to financial stability. California taking $100 from the 5 million below the poverty line is a lot easier and more reliable than trying to take $5 million from the top 100 earners in the state, because then those top 100 earners won't live in the state anymore. Taxing the rich is fun to say, but eventually you have to get down to business and make ends meet.

Tom from Fort Lauderdale, Florida writes:
Jack, If we eliminate welfare, what would AIG, Citibank, Bank of America, General Motors and Chrysler do?


Filed under: Economy
soundoff (200 Responses)
  1. JD in NH

    So what's Plan B for the people who can't get by without welfare benefits? Do we let them die in the streets or reinstitute the poor farms? If there were more jobs available, maybe some could be moved to the workplace. Sadly, we've outsourced millions of jobs many people at all levels of education might be capable of doing. Until other arrangements are made to be sure children are fed, clothed and housed, we need to continue paying welfare benefits.

    June 9, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
  2. AndyZ Lynn, MA

    That's not the real question. You should be asking if the entire welfare system; state and federal, should allow the homeless, the unemployed, the ill, the mentally challenged to suffer in their private hells because no one will help them. And while you're pondering the answer to that question, answer one more question for me: why does America send billions overseas in foreign aid when we turn our backs on our own people here in the good, old U S of A? Let's start by taking care of our legal citizens and whatever is left over we can dole out to the rest of the world.

    June 9, 2009 at 12:54 pm |
  3. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Do you mean to eliminate all the tax loopholes available to industries.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm |
  4. Lynne Parker in N. Augusta, SC

    I have a better idea. How about if we slash the military budget and give that money to the states? This whole "building empire" thing is not working.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
  5. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    Only to illegal immigrants and then those citizens who refuse to look for work and are able to work or won't go to a school to learn a trade or get their high school diploma.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:04 pm |
  6. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    The elderly and truly disabled can keep their welfare benefits. All other benefits should be cut because I think the entire country qualifies right now.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
  7. Rob of Brooklyn

    At this time maybe they should only be given out if you do volunteer work or something so that its not freely given. Those days are past ans we have no money

    June 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm |
  8. Chris in Philadelphia

    Welfare was a safety net program to help in times of hardship. It has become a lifestyle and handout for too many. So yes the benefits should be cut. Make them temporary in association with job training. If the recipient isn't motivated enough to do their part why should my tax dollars fund them sitting on the couch ... the handouts should stop.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  9. Peg from NY

    No, there have been enough cuts to last us a few lifetimes. Welfare is a must during these economic woes, etc. This is no way to balance a budget. Try cutting all white collar employment 10K per employee; many are cutting salaries.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  10. Lady from Fayetteville, NC

    I listened to a program recently talking about MEDICARE AND MEDICAID. I learned a lot. Medicare is for people who have paid into the system. In President Johnson's time, they named MEDICAID that because they didn't want people to feel bad about taking aid. I don't know how it works now regarding the feds or the states but I would say that in this time of budget concerns, if you don't pay, you don't get. Some of this STUFF would cease and desist and we might again have a balanced budget. Let people who have no insurance and did not pay into social security go to some hospital which ONLY treats people who didn't pay and that way we would know real quickly what it is really costing us, the taxpayers. BUT, there are some people who came into the world like they are and can't work and are citizens. THOSE PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE CARED FOR as DO OUR VETERANS.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  11. Martin in Shoreline, WA

    We should eliminate any programs that give healthy, able-bodied people money without requiring work. No more subsidizing broke people because they decide to breed. Even unemployment benefits should require work, like maintaining our parks. Far too many union members (electricians, heavy equipment operators, etc.) view unemployment benefits as a paid vacation.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  12. david from virginia

    No. We'll pay more in increased crime and hospital care than we'll save.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
  13. Michelle in PA

    That depends which benefits, Jack. A lot of services could be considered "welfare". Should they cut food stamps? Maybe. Some states give away much more than is needed for sustenance, and place few or no restricions on what they can be used to purchase. Should they cut day care subsidies for people who are working and paying taxes? No, that would be counter productive.

    June 9, 2009 at 1:17 pm |
  14. Dominic Gardunio

    Jack, states should not eliminate welfare benefits, but reduce the benfits who doesn't make a living and make them GET A JOB!!!!! The only people who should get welfare benfits is the one who makes a living, but loss their job from this crisis. Thank You

    North East, PA
    Dominic Gardunio

    June 9, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  15. Jim from Alabama

    Yes, the states should have power to make whatever cuts it deems necessary to stay within the budget. Having said that, those cuts should NOT be directed only to those less fortunate and without other means of providing for the services and care that they need.

    June 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  16. chuck b / coastal n.carolina

    no, neither. what the staes should do is make it where you don't have people milking the system (make them progress to get off welfare, not make it a career choice).

    June 9, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  17. Melissa

    No, never. As we can see just from the last 6 months, those things are desperately needed because you cannot count on companies to do anything right for the people. Removing those would bring us back to what happened during the Great Depression. The reason we are weathering the recession so well is because of things like welfare. Changes just need to be made to the welfare system that won't allow so many abuses.

    June 9, 2009 at 3:57 pm |
  18. Franky, Land of Lincoln

    Good lord, you gotta be kidding me. You know Jack and I use to not care about California but until the weekend. And I even make fun of the ladies over there(by the way, my friends lil bro is going over there today, LOL!). Come on, Pelosi, Paula, Britney, etc. The list is on and on baby. But after the weekend passed, California...love is powerful, you know Jack? LOL!!! 🙂

    But for real, I don't wanna see this, is terrible. And the difference between those numbers and the others is that Cali will take a big hit, it ain't right. I just have a lot of questions, I really do. It ain't no joke, I ain't playing around. But I have to look more info into it, but good lord, hopefully it ain't as bad.

    We'll see Jack, we'll see what happens.

    June 9, 2009 at 3:58 pm |
  19. John in L.A.

    They should increase welfare benefits and increase taxes on the wealthiest 1% who pay less now than 10 years ago.

    In tough times, people in poverty need MORE help, not less.

    June 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  20. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    Jack, let's cut all social programs period. We need to get the old, the sick and the children off their collective duffs to do some work. No more free handouts, just a good old fashioned dose of "Compassionate Conservatism" will make them feel better about being at the bottom of a society that just doesn't care anymore.

    June 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  21. Don (Ottawa)

    Are you kidding? Tax cuts for the rich got us into this mess; if states want to balance their budget, tax the rich, don't punish the poor.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm |
  22. Richard-Arkansas

    First you cut 'things"-highways, subsidities for rapid transit and the rail system, and all construction before you cut things that touch people.

    I would hope that those who are impacted, who probably out-number those who are not impacted, remember who the people who put them in this situation. Seniors vote in much higher numbers than the rest ofteh population. There aren't enough charities to pick up the pieces and things like child health will come back to cost the state in future years.

    This is what happens when you imbalance the tax structure of the state with amendments and then get a cadre of loud people yelling "no more taxes". Personally, with so many freeways, I would cut all highway work first. Let them pay in gasoline bills what they weren't willing to pay in taxes. I would also cut the pay for all legislators to zero including any per diem.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  23. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    If a person is able bodied and could work, they should be taken off the welfare role. California has a lot of free programs for illegals and that should stop immediately as I believe it is the major reason their astronomical deficit. This should not have to apply to the elderly, who have worked all their lives and may now need some assistance.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  24. Ruty

    Do away with welfare and open soup kitchens. I know of women who will not work because they can get more on welfare than to work. I think welfare is the biggest cause of poverty in this country. Why work when the government will pay you to stay home–have more kids and have the easy life. I heard a white woman make that statement.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  25. Jen B

    Welfare should be decided case by case. Illegal aliens who collect welfare shoulld be sent back to their home Country.
    Jen B
    WI

    June 9, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  26. Patricia

    Isn't life hard enough for those people who have lost their jobs? What little they do recieve isn't enough to live like a human being. No, I think they need to leave these so called benefits alone.
    Patricia

    June 9, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  27. Chris

    Sure, lets balance the budget on those who can lest afford it. While we're at it, lets raise bus fares and raid pension funds.

    Chris
    Lathrup Village, MI

    June 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  28. cherie

    no the welfare benefits should not be reduced or eliminated. These programs are introduced so that the social enviorment staves off civil unrest. America should find other ways of inventing knew social policies for itscountry. Same old habits. You must have and sustain social programs for the development of the underclass and the better way of life.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  29. Cindy M from New Bern NC

    Absolutely Jack. Anyone who is illegal should not be receiving any
    benefits. Maybe then they will leave the State and legal citizens who
    are unemployed just might pick up a job. You know, the ones that
    Americans won't do.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  30. Matt

    Jack,

    Welfare was designed as a way to be a stop gap from when someone lost a job, to when someone was well enough or able to find another. We have created a society dependant on welfare. Granted there are varying shades of grey as to who recieves it and why. Some of them are very deserving, but others are making no attempt to get off. On bad apple spoils the bunch in my book, and there are a lot of bad apples on welfare.

    Cut it, and start from scratch in a more cost effective & stream lined plan.

    Matt,

    Minneapolis, MN

    June 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  31. Nancy from Arizona

    Definately NO! Why should the poor, elderly and disabled pay the price of balancing a state's budget? What about the Rich, Celebrities, Professional Sport Athletes? They can afford to...where the poor can't. Why is it always those on the lower end of the spectrum that get hurt and blamed for the problems of a state's budget woes? How many "millionaires" are being blamed for the budget shortage?

    June 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  32. JS

    I guess they think if you ignore the poor they will eventually go away (or more correctly – die)

    June 9, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  33. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    This is one of the craziest ideas I have ever heard. These programs cost pennies now and save dollars later. Training Mothers to work gets them off Welfare. Providing Health Care for Kids keeps them out of the Emergency Rooms. And eliminating Health Care for patients with Alzheimer's is just plain wrong. How about you eliminate the Health Care for All Elected Officials first.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  34. Chris D., NYC

    As one who's mother recieved welfare for three years of her life in the early 80's (under Ronald Reagan). The assistance was greatly needed at the time. Welfare is for those who honestly need help making ends meet over a period of tough economic time.......It is not to be frowned on, or taken advantage of....... Today my mom is a certified accountant, a Reverend, and a proud grandmother. Two of her sons are involved in protecting and serving the people of our Great Republic, (the Army, and an NYPD officer respectfully).
    Me myself I'm in the great private sector ( it's ok, a job is a job)currently sending this email to you.
    So no....welfare should never be eliminated in any state. Regulated and perhaps reduced yes. According to each states budget, except in tough, tough times.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  35. Eric VanSickle, Cedar Falls, Iowa

    I think cutting back as much as California is planning to do is the wrong thing to do. However, you get these fiscally-conservative people who don't want to raise taxes or find other means of revenue. If the states cannot keep its books balanced, it deserves the fate it eventually has befallen upon it. Taxes are not all bad, GOP members!

    June 9, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  36. Pugas-AZ

    Everthing on the table in these tough times. This would also be a good time to eliminate the fraud and wasteful spending that is so pervasive in the wefare system. It's easier to clean out a barrel when it's almost empty.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  37. Barbie from Hollywood, CA

    Each State has different issues with respects to Welfare Recipients.

    But the one issue that seems most important is cutting off Welfare Payments for women who continue to have children without a spouse–the ones who never use birth control or self-control, and seek to collect more money for each child they bring into the world.

    Being single and having your own money to support your decision to have children is one thing... but being single and giving birth to child-after-child when you can't hold a job or support your children by any means other than State Distributed Welfare dollars is selfish and unfair to the children; they grow up having far less, being picked on, going to bed hungry, and are far more prone to become gang affiliated, or abused and neglected.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  38. Linda in Arizona

    We're going to have to face the fact that higher taxes are necessary. One way to save money would be to make welfare recipients prove they are US citizens. If not, they should not be getting any benefits whatsoever. Good luck with that one though, especially in California.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  39. Jeff in E. Lyme, CT

    Smarter & more careful administration of these programs is essential, and long past due. There are too many cheats and too many ineffective state employees. Here in Connecticut I know a family where a mother & her 3 children are living rent-free courtesy of the state. They also get food stamps & 100% medical care. The mother works as a home health care aid (presumably under the table) while the "boyfriend" is a painting contractor. This family has a wide flat-screen TV & 2 Jet Skis. It's too damned easy for the unscrupulous to cheat the system while those of us who play by the rules suffer. Here I am with NO health insurance & close to foreclosure. Sure, I could "work the system" but I wouldn't be able to live with myself. I'd rather work.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  40. frankie

    The only answer to these problems is fixing the economy from the ground up as Obama is working towards. Running the country, educating people, caring for the sick etc. etc. takes a certain amount of money no matter where it comes from, when the economy is better these things will cost less. Right now, if you take health insurance from poor people, and so they must go to the emergency room who must pass the costs on to others, nothing is being solved.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  41. Ed from Southwest Colorado

    Sure, eliminate all welfare benefits and cut taxes as well. Maybe we could just gather up and move al these welfare cases to Canada or Mexico and be rid of them for good.

    June 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
  42. Amalor

    How about instead of eliminating the welfare-to-work altogether, mandate random drug testing to continue receiving benefits. That's what people who work have to do. Why should they not have to for not working?

    June 9, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  43. Arthur

    The states choose these programs because they know that the cities and counties will fund them, if they can, by raising things like property taxes. California has a long history of "balancing" the budget or not raising taxes at the state level, only to pass the buck on to the locals. Seems to me that this is an example of Schwarzenegger's ideals conflicting with reality and the losers are the most vulnerable among us.

    Iowa City, Iowa

    June 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm |
  44. Anthony Smoot ( California )

    Hi Jack Welcome Back

    No No No, I live in California and I have to tell you that if that happens as bad as our budget that cause a lot of kids and single moms to put out on the streets. What we need to do if find a way to bring more money into the state. Now you say how are we going to do that, will here in California the 2/3 rule is what we need. Just look at last year budget mess. Now a lot of people are talking about making POT legal
    which would bring in a lot of money, plus we would not have to spend all of that money fighting a drug war that we are not going to win, plus the way ou

    June 9, 2009 at 5:56 pm |
  45. kris

    Well Jack, If California cuts the welfare system the californians will have to move to another state, then they will cut theirs, then you can see what happens from there. It's just a matter of time before we are in trouble that is just how it works. But I say we must take care of eachother, we are all in this mess together.

    June 9, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
  46. Robert Clayton

    Reduce welfare? Yes - starting with the welfare of offering tax breaks to industrial/commercial businesses to relocate or stay in-state. When the rich get payoffs, it's not "industrial policy," but when the poor get a pittance, it's "a welfare ripoff," or similar language. If the state legislature gives away the store just to get a company to locate there, what incentive will they need to come up with to keep it?

    By the way, with the attempted rescue of the automobile companies, we at long last see that a "welfare Cadillac" is, of all things, a Cadillac!

    Bob Clayton

    June 9, 2009 at 5:58 pm |
  47. Linda Dallas, Tx

    They could do away with welfare, medicare and implement a the one payer system and all of who can't afford health care could all be covered. Oh yes, and it should be for U.S. citizens ONLY.

    I think we the American people are really tired of picking up the tab for Corporate America and everyone who enters this country ILLEGALLY getting everything the average Joe can't.

    June 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  48. William H. Smith

    Now is a bad time to fix welfair problems. too many people can just get by now. dont had to it. . the poor come first , the rich have plenty

    June 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  49. jeanise

    Why when it comes to cuts it is always the programs that help the most people. find some of those expensive programs that don't help anyone but hose who already have. cut some of those subsidies to the government and other businesses who really don't need them. why would someone cut welfare or HIVAIDs, where will the people get the help. government does play a big role in taking care of the people who pay the most.

    June 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm |
  50. Peter, KC

    I can't wait to see the comments that people write against this topic...

    But yes, this is the best course to financial stability.

    California taking $100 from the 5 million below the poverty line is a lot easier and more reliable than trying to take $5 million from the top 100 earners in the state, because then those top 100 earners won't live in the state anymore. Taxing the rich is fun to say, but eventually you have to get down to business and make ends meet.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm |
  51. Dee in sunny (and wet) Florida

    Well, this would be a way to save a lot of money for the states.

    However, what then would be done with those who are surviving on welfare benefits? Will the savings be used to set up the gas chambers?

    How about instead, we TAX the rich at a fair rate. After all, they have all the money. Would that make the rich angry?

    Well, I am pretty angry already! Since my husband lost his job over a year ago we have NOT spent our entire life savings YET, but we are pretty close to that. So what's next for us? We are both at retirement age.

    Is our society prepared to eliminate all old people? Will we get rid of the sick? Whether it is called "welfare" or some other program society MUST take care of the poor and the old and the sick, or it must have another "solution".

    June 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  52. jeanise norfolk, va

    Why ,when it comes to cuts it is always the programs that help the most people. find some of those expensive programs that don’t help anyone but hose who already have. cut some of those subsidies to the government and other businesses who really don’t need them. why would someone cut welfare or HIVAIDs, where will the people get the help. government does play a big role in taking care of the people who pay the most. another thing with all the money in california why is this state strugling? they make movies for christ sakes. I do not understand. they pay 20 million or more for an actor to play a role. How do you not have money!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  53. Chris (Norway)

    Absolutely not!

    THe GOVernator as well as most of the other self serving politicians are showing absolutely No leadership...they are all sitting on their hands waiting for the federal government to come along with yet another bailout.

    Poll after poll show that most Americans are willing to pay extra (higher taxes) for this or that if it is for the good of the people and for something that is truly needed...if they can SEE where the money is going and if it is doing good.

    If the bill is due ...taxes should go up and the posturing should stop.

    BUT, when the bill is paid , those same taxes have to come down without any mystery (Gas companies take note!)

    June 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm |
  54. jared-San Diego

    Does it really matter? No matter what programs are cut, Obama will get blamed for Bush's side effects. I wonder what McCain /Palin would have done differently?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
  55. Elisabeth, Bloomington, IN

    Why is it that the poor continue to be the ones devastated by governments as it attempts to reconcile the books? To cut the poorest and weakest in our society is barbaric. There are other options, including raising taxes on the wealthiest, tax marijuana, cut sporting events at least. I hear that the poorest of schools are the ones being closed, while the rich neighborhoods, keeps their schools and high paid teachers. How do we as a nation, expect these chikdren to become productive members of society, when they can't get basic needs met? In these economic times, welfare and similar programs cannot be cut.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm |
  56. Anthony Smoot ( California )

    Hi jack

    We need a leader that is for the people of california instead of there selfs. I live here and we are in bad shape out here and I'm not sure what can be done. I do know that if he cut out welfare alot of moms and kids are going to go hungry and be homeless. How about we cut the State Lawmakers wages in half. that would be a great place to start and it would save the state alot of money. Because they have not earned it and maybe we can find someone that will think outside the box and stop thinking the next election.

    HELP HELP.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm |
  57. maria, california

    Schwarzenegger needs to be recalled! He wants to also cut state employee benefits while continuing to fund a whole slew of benefits and services for illegal aliens.

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday disputed claims that illegal immigrants caused California's $24.3 billion deficit, while he praised their economic contributions and said he is "happy" they have access to services. He said the cost of services to illegal immigrants, which has been estimated at $4 billion to $5 billion annually, is a "small percentage" of the deficit California faces.

    Since when is 4-5 billion (and it is actually about double that once you get education and healthcare etc. into it) a "small percentage" for any state? Before ANY services are cut for U.S. citizens they should be cut for people illegally here. What part of illegal does he not understand?

    He also said "You know something, as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy that they can get the services," he said Friday. "Because I would like to have the services if I'm somewhere in another country … if I have an accident with a motorcycle and I go to an emergency room, I don't want someone to say, is he here legally?"

    Emergency medical care is not the issue (but what other country in any case goes ahead and pays for medical care? When I traveled I had to take out travel insurance) the issue is the healthcare, education, food stamps, housing etc. etc. etc. that we are paying out. Enough is enough! Let's make sure that our own citizens are the ones we help first!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  58. Susan Frost

    We should eliminate welfare benefits to the defense contractors, the worthless politicians, the Wall Street thieves, the incompetent corporate CEOs, and other rip-off artists who stay fat and sassy and pay little or nothing for the privilege of getting obscenely rich in America, but as usual the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer. It's too bad the Pro-Life extremists can't work up any concern for people who've already been born, which is precisely why I (as a pro-life Catholic) got out of that nutball movement a long time ago.

    Susan
    Tuscaloosa, AL

    June 9, 2009 at 6:09 pm |
  59. James

    HEY Here's a really good IDEA!!!! How about those welfare "takers" actually get a job and give up there cell phones and Air Jordans???

    June 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  60. Brandon Henry | Patterson, LA

    I think this should be one of the last things that states cut in order to save money. I think that the politicians' payroll and benefits should be the first thing on the chopping block since its their fault for getting the government into the predicament its in now.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  61. Delilah

    Do the same in all states

    June 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  62. Shirley

    Jack, California should be ashamed of themselves, they have the lottery and many casinos why don't they tax those casinos? And what they also need to do is get rid of inmates in their over crowded prison system that have drug charges but are serving life sentences. They don't have to touch the welfare system, and I feel for the thousands of people who will suffer behind it.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  63. Mary Jo

    Only if you're a Republican.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm |
  64. Bryan Lovsness

    The BIBLE says whatsoever you do to the least of these you do to Me."What California's Governor IS doing and wants to do is hurting the poorest of the poor. He will get His reward someday and soon in kharma.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  65. Barb

    Jack;
    If the budget needs balancing; lets try cutting the numerous perks we pay to our lawmakers who are going to "protect our interests". It makes me sick to hear about cutting help to handicapped, school teachers jobs being cut and help for the elderly.
    LETS CUT HELP TO THE SUITS IN OUR GOVERNMENT>

    June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  66. MJ

    Eliminate them to bare bones....call Arnolds bluff. He is not interested in serious reflection on his bloated budget. So he simply cries foul and banks on resonable voters changing their vote...don't fall for it.

    CALL THEIR BLUFF !!!

    TAKE BACK THE STATE from these lying thieves.

    MJ

    June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  67. Charlette

    so you have got to be kidding...the state of california has the wealthiest of all americans living in it and they are going to make cuts to low income families...Governor, you should be ashamed of yourself! But hey you're into hollywood...ever watch trading places...maybe you should try it!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  68. Tom Lindzon

    Penny wise and pound folish. Take away the direct help to the poor and frail and they get instutionalized which costs ten times as much. Don't they get it?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm |
  69. jlrc

    Don't take money away from the children that need it (welfare). Quit spending $10 billion a month in Iraq for a country that does not even want us there for the most part. The money that has been spent on the war would have kept this country from the financial quagmire that we now find ourselves in.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  70. Laura See

    Hermosa Beach, CA

    The collect to work programs for welfare and general relief payments in this state have been one of the few successful long term programs I have seen actually work. Of course they need to get rid of these cost effective type programs and instead, focus on no layoffs for their "clique". Politicians know who really votes them in this state.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  71. william mcmillan

    how about not giving free benefits to illegal aliens
    tell your viewers how much that costs
    11 billion in california i hear

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  72. Chris E. Virginia Beach

    No. Eliminating any form of welfare doesn't fix problems. It forces the tax dollars to other locations. Take food and housing away from the poor and the crime rate will rise.

    It never ceases to amaze me conservatives and the rich are more interested in taking from the poor than to worry about the society they leave in ruin.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  73. sandra bocchicchio

    Yes, It is about time for people to understand that they need to take care of themselves. If people can't afford to have children, they should not have them. We should also cut healthcare for prisoners.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  74. Ann Hughes

    Absolutely not. We cannot fix our states' budgets by hurting the poor! However, since the needy cannot afford to have good lawyers who will speak for them, they and their lives are greatly at risk.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  75. Brian Jarvis

    Of course states should cut back on the welfare programs to save money. But only to those who make careers out of being on welfare, not the individuals who truly deserve it. The welfare system in the USA is much like Europe it becomes more profitable not to work than to work. The well is running dry !

    Brian Jarvis
    Greenville, SC

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  76. Johannah

    Penalizing the chronically ill won't cost the governor votes and he can then say before the next election that he saved so much money he should be re-elected? Politics once again winning out over chronically ill children.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  77. Joseph Kraatz

    I live in San Diego County. All we have to do is eliminate all the benefits to illegal aliens and we will be home free. They have destroyed the benefits systems and education. Alas, I live in a fantasyland because government here loves the illegals.

    Joseph Kraatz
    Oceanside, California

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  78. Linda in Arizona

    Actually, it's pretty smart of Arnie. He knows the things he wants to cut funding for will get picked up by the feds. In-home-care, for instance, wouldn't be at risk of ending. What are they going to do, let people die unattended in their homes? Institutionalize everyone? Of course not. This way, Arnie doesn't have to raise taxes either. Just another political ploy by the governator, but he looks so sincere, not.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm |
  79. Kevin

    Of course it is not ideal, but options are limited. Obviously they should reduce the size of the bureaucracy, but come on, let's get practical here. Why don't we scale back the size of both, in smaller amounts? We don't need governmental agencies with vice-deputy assistants to the vice-deputy assistant director. That is ridiculous! But also spending such an extravagant amounts on "entitlements" is also irresponsible. What happen to living within our means? Give the people that actually need the assistance the help they need, but don't give it to them to gain political favors with the electorate; we all now that is happening.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  80. Janet B from Medway MA

    Jack
    If you want to cut the US population, eliminate welfare

    Janet B
    Medway MA

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  81. Lisa tx

    Jack thats a real good idea lets kick them while they are down.maybe we should also bring back poorhouses sounds like we are going to need them.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  82. Alia

    One way to pinch a few pennies in California would be preventing illegal immigrants from benefiting from social welfare programs; after all, they don't even pay taxes.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  83. Luke

    No, Jack. They shouldn't be eliminated, but here's a very un-P.C. idea: put a limit to the amount of children that someone can have based on the whether or not they can afford to raise them. Birthing children should not be an acceptable profession.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  84. Janne from NC

    NC Is cutting $101.00 per month off the measly amount assisted living facilities (NOT NURSING HOMES) receive putting an estimated 25000 elderly people at risk of becoming homeless. Most of the elderly welfare residents don't vote and they don't pay taxes so the politicians feel there are no repercussions to endangering them. Jack, you want to do the poor a favor, contact me and let me fill your ears with the problems of the elderly poor in the real world.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  85. Deb

    We all know that the first thing they do is raise their own wages....
    the next is to slap the poor.....
    Deb
    Iowa

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  86. Kevin

    Of course it is not ideal, but options are limited. Obviously they should reduce the size of the bureaucracy, but come on, let's get practical here. Why don't we scale back the size of both, in smaller amounts? We don't need governmental agencies with vice-deputy assistants to the vice-deputy assistant director. That is ridiculous! But also spending such an extravagant amounts on "entitlements" is also irresponsible. What happen to living within our means? Give the people that actually need the assistance the help they need, but don't give it to them to gain political favors with the electorate; we all know that is happening.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  87. dean Osterman

    we must eliminate welfare for the poor and we must keep welfare for millionaire farmers, airlines, railroads, and all other businesses that are getting subsidies.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  88. Molly Harper

    Cutting welfare benefits is a politically popular move, as welfare recipients and immigrants are always easy targets. however to call for the elimination of government jobs isn't a solution either, as people do not want to deal with the resulting cut in services – like standing in line for hours at the DMV, or waiting months for a court date.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  89. Antonio

    It is a shame just the though of letting millions of people, whom most are children go to bead hungry, In this great nation of ours, because our goverment at state and federal level can not set the right priorities for the nation.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  90. cindy

    Illinois cut the length of time people can get cash from welfare years ago and they also gave it out less readily but yet the state is still deep in debt and we have some of the highest taxes in the nation. States and companies always cut from the bottom and save very little, maybe they should cut from the top first. And maybe politicians should live for a year on what they give the people on welfare and see how they would fare.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  91. Rick Patterson

    Jack.....Jack.......

    Let's punish the poor. Do away with welfare and crime will become so out of control that we will have to build 10 new prisons and hire 2000 new officers....or, there will be chaos in the streets of LA and Frisco and San Bernardino and Pomona. Let's get real. Get rid of the DMV. Get rid of State Parks. Get rid of the State sponored "Find Elmo" program.......that would be a start.
    I do not mean to threaten anyone, but this will be bad.....very bad. Lock yur doors, folks........we are coming!

    Rick, Vallejo

    June 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
  92. Ray

    Jack,yes welfare should be eliminated. I am sick and tired of the working man being taxed more to pay for those who don't want to work. No one gave our great grandparents a dime when they came here. People think that our government owes them a way of living. Lets get rd of the rid of the secertaries in our government builings and postal carriers and tell the welfare recipiants to work there for there checks. They can also be told to do the jobs the illigal immigarnts are taking as well. Enough is enough.
    Ray in Wisconsin

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  93. Ted H

    Het Jack. How about we stop paying out millions of dollars ro support the illegal aliens we have in jail. Give them a bus ride to the border and leave the people on welfare alone.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  94. Cameron

    Jack,

    Cuts have to be made, but I think it is despicable that states are looking at cutting welfare programs. I think the wealthy should be taxed more, they have had too much of a break under the Bush administration and now they are forcing the poor to pay for their mistakes. I am sympathetic and hopeful for the poor and I hope someone comes to their rescue soon.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  95. Kenza Hadj-Moussa

    No. We, the people of privilege, have a communal responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. All humans deserve to live with dignity. I would be happy if my taxes were raised if I knew it would be helping other people.
    St. Paul, Minnesota

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  96. Lisa in Grand Rapids, MI

    No there are lots of other places cuts can be made before targeting those on the edge. If they have all these other programs in place why aren't the people already using them? It's because they don't exist. Why not use the law makers salaries and perks to help bridge to gap. Or better yet, try actually taxing the rich without giving them lots of loopholes.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  97. Amos Annan

    No. Stop punishing the poorest for economic failures of the rich and powerful.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  98. Concerned Citizen

    Hey Jack – are you referring to corporate welfare, or the assistance our lower-income neighbors receieve. There have been many tax credits/loopholes over the years that have disproportionately favored the wealthy and corporations. What has occured in our tax structure over the years has indeed been a redistribution of wealth upwards. I'm all in favor of correcting that injustice by eliminating many forms of corporate welfare.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  99. Eric in PA

    How about eliminating services for illegal aliens. The money saved from educating, feeding, and providing healthcare for those who jumped the fence should saved Californians millions. I don't think any increase in the cost of tomatoes, and lettuce worth bankrupting the economy of an entire state.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  100. Larry Shaw

    welfare porgrams need to be eliminated. if they really need help, get a job; free simply motivates the want for more free & more dependance on the rest of us; the governor is looking at the right cuts!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  101. Trevor

    When economic push comes to shove, insolvent governments forced to cut spending or raise taxes consistently do so not at the expense of those most able to provide, but those least able to protest.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  102. Martha

    Of course, don't the Repubs always pick on the young, old ,most vulnerable first?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm |
  103. Tristan

    Funny that the Republicans are so upset about this, even though their party platform calls for this. Perhaps it's time we call out the GOP on this double standard of saying "don't raise taxes to fund welfare, unless of course it's our own welfare!"

    June 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  104. Bruce

    I think we have a serious responsibility toward others, but let's abandon dependency on the state and figure out a better vision to help others. We can do it via a new paradigm of thinking, without the current useless fraudulent structure which is driving us toward a fascist slave encampment state.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  105. Mich

    I live in California and people here abuse welfare. We have people who end up buying houses with all of the welfare that they have obtained. They don't work and live off the government and the working peoples tax dollars. We have people paying off of W.I.C. and are getting pedicures and spoiling their children ridiculusly. Some people need welfare we just don't like the abuse of it.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  106. Anna Olson

    If the governor plans on cutting the help for the poor and the women, children. While the politicans in the state capitol sits high on a hog with all there money and benefits.
    Then they will be seeing more tent cities and crime will go up.
    Also keep in mind that they also plan on cutting law enforcement, fire. and the school teachers.
    All after school programs.
    So what will the people have to do but survive.
    This state is going to turn into the land of survival.
    Crime will go up and so will more tent cities.
    What is this state coming too.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm |
  107. Chris and Mary Fogarty

    Have the predators taken over our economy and government?
    Who, but some monster, would cut aid to the poor while spending $billions on fun wars?

    Where are the traditional Americans; those with consciences?
    One of America's sources of hope is you; Mr. Cafferty. You speak for millions of us. Thanks for existing.

    Chicago, Illinois

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  108. Meredith

    There is going to be a BIG amount of discrimination if they dare cut welfare benefits that benefit everyone who pays taxes! The lower income people will have a large amount of discrimination along with the DISABLED DISCRIMINATION, which is against the Disability Rights Act.
    If they are not thinking of the amount of discrimination that will happen by doing this, they are not in touch with reality!
    All of our legal residents pay taxes and are eligable to receive welfare beneifts when they qualify for them. Taking them away is going to put this country into a major depression.
    I can not stand seeing people go hungry. That is why I took my 2007 stimulus check and bought a ton of food and fed over 200 people.
    Maybe a large lawsuit against the discrimination decisions made will help wake many people up to federal disability act rights laws.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  109. Russell

    Yes, we should elemininate benefits to persons too ignorant or lazy to get a job. If they are sick and cannot work, have a loved one take care of them, not me and every other TAX payer.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  110. James Allen

    The working poor have always been a prime target for politicians when it comes to reducing or eliminating assistance. Unlike the wealthy, the less fortunate don't have the financial wherewithall to hire lobbyists to protect their interests. Oops, I thought elected officials were to represent ALL constituents.

    James Allen
    Euless, TX

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  111. Tim from Hot Springs, AR

    If the government cuts funding for helping those who need help, then who will it be helping? If I need to feed my starving child, I wouldn't stop feeding him now so that I can feed him later...after its too late.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  112. Reg

    Yes – They should cut back on welfare... I think there are too many people on welfare and we are spending way too much for welfare. The rules have to be more tighter, deserving people should get it.

    Working people are paying enough and more on taxes... it is unfair to be spending money in welfare!!! Do something more productive or give a tax break.

    Greg
    Connecticut

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  113. Carl from San Diego

    Health, education and the elderly should not be touched. The welfare system has been corrupt and abused for years and should be eliminated for restructuring (starting from scratch). I think then we will find where a lot of money has been slipping through the cracks. The states also need to eliminate political perks, like politicians flying on private jets, first class on commercial flights and/or limousines/private drivers all at taxpayers expense. How much would that save?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:16 pm |
  114. harold vineyard

    pay up all doctors and business people from foreign countries, that go back to there homeland ever year for 30 days and are exempt from paying federal income tax they work here pay here.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  115. Michael

    Welfare benefits should not be eliminated entirely. There should be harder guidelines in order to obtain welfare and keep receiving benefits. Hmmm.... how about making all welfare participants take a DRUG TEST at random once or twice a year before they are allowed to receive their check.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  116. Craig

    Welfare was never intended to be a permenant salary, it was temporary assistance. Wefare parents befgot welfare babies, who begot welfare babies and on and on. It has become a way of life. It is time to end this once and for all. We still nedd a temoporary system to help, what we dont need is a permenant sugar daddy to teach people they just do not need to make any contribution whatsoever, End it. Its time.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  117. flavio.mendoza

    Neither, not everyone on welfare is using the system to "just get by" There are real genuine cases out there of real people who need the welfare program because of bad economic times, which include loss of jobs, not getting payed enough, taking pay-cuts in order to have a job, but not making enough to pay all the bills and buy groceries. Why should everyday people pay the price for the past administrations poor planning and focusing on a war that should have been over years ago. Flavio in Oxnard, CA

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  118. Randy dahl

    Every group needs to take their share of cuts. The problem is that politics will play a bigger part and the poor will pay worse. that way the people will get angry and a they can push their tax cut easiler

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  119. Lauren Blumenthal

    Jack,

    You hit the nail on the head. There is so much money hiding in plain sight in Sacramento. But, yet they have raised our taxes, I cannot get my State Tax Refund check and they have taken so much away from our schools. What happened to our future as a competing Country? Our children are our future. I guess the politicians/legislators in California are telling us we do not have a future. The Governator/Terminator shall not be back!

    PS. Love your commentary. You bring a breath of fresh air and REALITY.

    Lauren B.

    Thousand Oaks, CA.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  120. Eileen

    If we were to examine just how much money is spent on Illegal aliens and how many pregnant teens don't just have one child but multiple and we pay for it maybe we wouldn't have this problem in our country. We seem to care more about making sure people not born in our country have and the ones who have helped to make our country have not. It's a shame in our society we don't stand up and make people accountable. Go to Mexico to live and see if they care if you eat. They aren't just taking over welfare in this country, but our jobs..look and see how many office jobs say must be "Bilengual" and yet if we did that they would hollar discrimation. Hello Folks is this still AMERICA.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  121. Dawn

    Jack,
    I think instead of reducing or elimination welfare benefits the states should review the cases they currently have. I know several people who get welfare benefits that shouldn't. It makes me mad to hear these people joke about all the government help they get.
    I know there are a lot of capable people just sitting around doing nothing because the government is supporting them.

    If the people who don't need the benefits were kicked out of the system then I'm sure there would be enough money for those who do and no cuts or eliminations would havae to be made.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
  122. RON, key west, fl

    Reducing welfare, disability and a host of other benefits could save a lot of money if those who unfairly abuse these programs were cut off. I've met far too many people on assistance programs who live better than I and are able-bodied adults who can take care of themselves. And many of them do. They work full time jobs, paid off the books and ice the cake with the government benefits.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  123. Choppy Smith

    Jack, We all know that there is abuse in the welfare system,
    especially here in Louisiana. People that also qualify for medicare
    and medicade in this state are abusing the systems. The systems
    should be purged and the ones that can be productive should have
    to go out and find a job.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  124. Mohammed Kazzam

    Of course they should. The government using tax money to help the poor, NO WAY. That is evil European socialism. Instead cut of the little help the lower class are still getting, in the middle of the recession. How does that make any sense? American politics always amuses the rest of the world

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  125. N. Jones

    The fat cats always hurt the poor, while there are lots of other things that could be cut, but they don't have to worry about where their food, lodging and medications are coming from!! The poor and the kids are always the ones to be hurt. The New Illinois Governor is threatening too, sounds like we have another crook in the works!!! Where is all the money that we were to get to help the poor??? Sounds like the people have taken it for other things too, just like when they " borroweed " all the social security years ago, which never got paid back either, therefore hurting the poor again!! N.Jones

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  126. michael LV,NV

    Look Jack in the case Schwarzenegger no one in California wants him
    to raise taxes so Schwarzenegger has no other choice but to make cuts.
    You don't want cuts then taxes have to be raised. Money doesn't grow
    on trees Jack.

    As the answer to your question : No I don't want the states to reduce or eliminate welfare benefits as a way of balancing their budgets.

    So it's pretty obvious Jack , taxes will have to be raised.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  127. Georgia for Change

    Instead of looking at "Welfare-to-Work"; how about trimming the cost of beauracracy and the free services to illegal immigrants. Don't penalize those hurting the most during this down turn. Actions like those proposed by Schwarzenegger, will result in a new generation of disenfranchisement. These external stressers will ultimately doom any type of cohesion within dependent families. There really should be another way. This just isn't the right time.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  128. Joe - Chicago, IL

    Sure, we're a civilized industrial nation, nothing like letting the poor, injured and mentally ill die a slow death on the street. Only crazy third world nations take care of their less fortunate, we Americans know its survival of the fittest.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  129. Karolyn in Michigan

    Hi from Michigan, where the rate of job loss will sky rocket once the auto bankruptcies are complete. Removing the safety net of the poor and weak is a slap in the face to those who are already defenseless.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  130. Gayle, Amherst NY

    There is an old saying that says a society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members....
    Where are our priorities, as a society, that we would plunge more families, children and elderly into further financial despair and possible death in order to save a few bucks? Why not make spending cuts in other sectors of the states budget?

    I live in NY State ...our state spends ridiculous amounts of money on state workers salaries...their salaries and benefits are out of line with what would be paid in the private sector due to the strength of the public workers union...(I'm not talking about professional civil servant positions such as; teachers, or police, but rather secretaries and clerical workers who work within the system, their compensation packages based on seniority is absurd!). How about getting rid of the many layers of bureaucracy in our states? Now there's a thought! Why not fix the system...get rid of pork and patronage jobs and make people accountable within the states for doing their state jobs properly. Consolidate services, buy in bulk, etc. I am sure we can come up with other ways to balance the budgets than hurting those who can't help themselves.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:18 pm |
  131. greg vajner

    Hey Jack;

    How about we eliminate welfare and food stamps for illegals in the system whoever they are! That would probably save 40-50% and still take care of those who really deserve it.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  132. Rob, Las Vegas, NV

    Yes, they should. Maybe if these people who are on welfare and are sitting home watching morning talk shows every day would get up and do something we wouldn't have to do this to the people who actually need it, but because its gotten so out of hand, it must be done.

    -Rob, Las Vegas, NV

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  133. carl vanderheyden

    Hey Jack. With all the illegal Mexicans living on welfare in California getting free education and medical care why won't the governator ask el presidente Caulderon of Mexico for some financial stimulous?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  134. sarah

    Arnold is THE MOST UNCREATIVE decision maker ever.

    He is bleeding the people of California...I live in Los Angeles, a parking ticket costs $48, plus the quarters you poured in before your meter runs out. They've put cameras above many red lights, and if your car happens to be underneath it costs $350! If the traffic slows in front of you unexpectedly, you get a ticket. It is ABSURD. The other day I got a ticket for making a U-Turn – on a dead end road. I pleaded with the officer, but they seem to be robotic about doling out tickets, no warnings anymore, no consideration...just writing away.
    Now he wants to take away welfare benefits...evidently the Governor has little concern for the public. If he had any guts at all, he'd legalize marijuana, which most people want. That would solve so many problems. He just doesn't have the same savvy to help the public, as he did to build his own financial portfolio. I can't afford to live in Los Angeles anymore, maybe he is trying to make it a state just for affluent people...class selection. His term needs to be terminated. Pun intended.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  135. Patricia Pope

    Yes! The welfare benefits should be cut in all states. When I have a daughter who can"t get a job, never has collected welfare benefits, has no medical insurance, has collected no unemployment, etc. and it doesn't seem she has a chance over the illegal immigrants. Someone is always looking out for them. Do away with the welfare system in the United States. I'm sure there has been a lot of fraud within the system.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  136. phyllis

    welfare was not ment to be forever. there is alot of waste in the welfare system. perhaps the politicians do not understand. but some one like me, who have seen the waste would know how to cut with out hurting. but like cafferty stated the gov. of ca. should look with in for cuts

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  137. Ray

    Jack , The poor and children have no one to lobby for them,so the govenator will take from them! He should step-up and represent them.
    He should start by cutting the state payroll !

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  138. Joanne,Pleasant Valley,NY

    Its about time. Yes it will hurt but welfare is not used the way it was intended to. It was to be short term help. It wasn't suppose to have 3 or 4 generations on it. Also, it shouldn't be going to illegal aliens when people in our own country need it. If its cut, maybe it will help limiting how many kids people have or any who wants to come in our country. Get rid of it!!!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  139. Johnny Jones

    Why are we chipping away at the bottom of the totem pole as opposed to the top? It's like grabbing at pennies while there are dollars to be saved. It's easy to be tough when nailing the helpless against the wall. If the governer were a real leader, then he'd nail the real culprits..the wealthy of California who have absconded with the wealth of a state. Stay away from the poor, the teachers (is that redundant?) and the state employees....go after the greedy....or again is that redundant??

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  140. Kelli, Ashland,Virginia

    They can probably cut expenses from other areas of the the state budget-but they won't. I have a better idea. Lets take that $25 billion we gave to GM-the same GM that has filed bankruptcy and will still ultimately put thousands out of work. Lets give just half of that to Cali to prevent teacher layoffs, the closing of schools and all of the other programs that can potentially be downsized or eliminated that you mentioned. I can appreciate everything that this new administration has done and are striving to accomplish-But those billions toward a company that everyone knew would go under was STRIKE 1 in my book. That money could have been used for just such a serious emergency as Cali is facing.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  141. Ann Mason Green Valley, AZ

    When it comes to California, eliminating Prop 13 would be step number one. Think of the millions that have been lost to education etc. in the past 30 years. Prop 13 was the beginning of California's downward spiral.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  142. Terri - Tulsa

    I couldn't tell you how else to fix the financial situation in California, but THIS IS NOT IT! Why not cut the fat from the government office. For example, cut out the middle man. Put money directly into the schools and cut out the many steps it normally takes from the state level through the boards of education and district offices. People would lose jobs, but they'd save millions! Having said that, Californians are now dealing with the effects of having elected a man who refused to return to his hometown in Austria to serve as mayor, saying that he was not a politician. Go figure.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:19 pm |
  143. Taylor

    I believe that welfare benefits should be the last thing states should cut to save money. First, raise taxes on the rich, on cigarettes, whiskey, and the movie industry, cut office holders' salaries, cut the number of state employees, reduce the number of administrators in the school system, and eliminate state vehicles.

    Houston, TX

    June 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  144. Christine

    Schwarzenegger can start balancing the budget by firing his rude staff members who answer the phones. I called last week and was appalled at the callous regard in which Californian's are treated if they try to voice their concerns.

    If he really wants to save some cash, then I suggest that lawmakers buy their own second homes, their own cars and their own gas instead of passing the bill onto taxpayers. No one buys those things for me.

    And as the mother of an autistic young adult, who had to depend on welfare for a few years because doctors told me not to work in order to help my son, I'm disgusted that Arnold's answer is to punish the poor, elderly, disabled and children because he repealed the car tax for popularity points...

    Gray Davis, we miss you!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  145. Tesa Hayashi

    End welfare? What is CA going to do with the money they take from welfare recipients? Welfare is at a bare minimum already – what's going to happen to all the children whose families are suddenly completely broke, instead of mostly broke? Schwarzenegger should give his money to the people whose money he takes away. EVERYONE with a >$100k income should be made to try and live on welfare benefits before they can have a say about whether or not they should be ended.

    A failing economy is no different from war: the biggest victims are the children, the women, the elderly and disabled. What's wrong with raising taxes? Why should the people at the very bottom of the economic ladder be forced to be the solution to a problem that was caused in the first place by the very rich?

    Tesa (pronounced TAYSA) Hayashi
    Falmouth, MA

    June 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  146. debbie

    I think that they should first keep the elderly who rely on it for extra insurance or who dont have any have any coverage. Then they should cut all the freeloaders off. I knw of people who have fulltime jobs both man and woman have a home and drive decent cars.Get them off the system then make them pay back some of the money.Also they need to hire somebody to redo the system and do follow ups to make sure that they are using themoney the right way .

    June 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  147. Karen California

    Chris (Norway) Here in California we just voted NO to more taxes. So, you are dead wrong that we want to keep on paying more for entitlements. Nice to think you are helping people, but we are just enabling. Yes, there are some truly needy people out there, but that margin is slim, most are capable of working, but choose not to. Heck, why get a job and go to work when you get a paycheck for doing nothing. Get real, taxpayers are sick and tired of this crap. Like Octomom!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:20 pm |
  148. joey

    the terminator should cut his paycheck and take all the millions from his bank account to feed the homeless then he would know how it feels to be poor when he runs out of cash,and just maybe his ice cold heart would melt away. it is easy for those who are rich and wealthy to look down upon others and never know what it feels like not being able to feed your family let alone put a roof over their heads.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  149. Nasrin

    This is rediculous idea to eliminate health insurnace for low income family or eliminate the wellfare.
    I believe Governor can save money if he looks somewhere else.

    Nasrin
    Tustin, CA.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  150. Amos Annan

    No. Stop punishing the poorest for economic failures of the rich and powerful.

    Amos
    Portland, Oregon

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  151. gloria richards

    Governor Schwarzennegar of California is lying through his teeth. He and his party, the GOP, have pushed through three tax breaks for corporations doing business in this state in the last year. If he really wanted to avoid dumping programs for our schools, health and welfare programs and protecting the state's sagging credit rating, he could go to the state's legislature and ask for a reversal of those tax reductions. Those propositions recently put before the voters of California by Scharzeneggar were designed to further protect the interests of big oil, tobacco and alcohol corporations, not our schools and social services. The fact that the ad campaign promoting those props was paid for by those interests tells the story, doesn't it?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  152. Joe Wehr

    Jack

    States should NOT eliminate welfare benefits as a way to balance their budgets. They might be able to eventually reduce the cost of welfare benefits, or slow its growth, by making the programs more effective & efficient.

    I agree all states, not just California, should look first to save money by reducing the bloated bureaucracy and outrageous benefits provided state employees. Here in CT the unions representing state employees complained about the increase in their prescription copays, from $3 to $6.

    And you wouldn't have to look very hard to save lots of money!

    Joe in Ellington CT

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  153. JC-KCMO

    Stop all assistance for illegals, let their government take care of them. Then they could afford it for our citizens. We already have the mentally ill wandering around until they are jailed, because they stopped that aid. No sence adding the eldery and disabled who helped pay for the benefit to the streets too.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  154. Kay

    Yes, cut welfare and cut it now in all states. When people are forced to work, they will live more responsibly. You don't know what mad is until you teach students who look you in the eye and say, "I don't need an education. I plan to draw welfare." That's what they have learned from the state and federal government. As a result, they are unprepared for any job and have nothing to fall back on but welfare. It's got to end somewhere and sometime, so there is no time like the present.

    Longview, Texas

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  155. David P. Vernon

    Tucson, AZ – No. Welfare benefit payouts are a spit in the bucket compared to the executive perquisites offered to senior civil servants, elected executives, and legislators in California. There are also State building programs, office furniture programs, and public information programs that render zero value to individual citizens and whose cancellation would not be noticed except by the bureaucrats who carry them out. Cutting welfare hurts actual poor people (who do not always vote!) How about cutting the accounting paperwork in triplicate that absorbs 80% of welfare program funds anyway? How about just giving the money to people who say they need it, and not waste five times that amount trying to prove they don't?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  156. Shamus McDougal

    It is morally, ethically, theologically, and religiously incorrect to reduce or eliminate public welfare benefits. Scripture in any way size, shape, or form from any religion has always mentioned the importance of continuing to assist the poorest and most helpless people around us. To not provide such ongoing services is just one more way of rewarding the rich while cheating the poor, and continuing to expose the most apparent and biggest weakness of the Republican party.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:21 pm |
  157. TZ

    jack its over. California is out of cash actualy worse they have negative cash. so if you have no money how can you pay money? all the politcians do in cali is kick the can down the road i would rather cut the poor of now in selected areas. In particularley the ones that waste money. of course mr. cafferty is not smart enough to reaslize you cant pay what you dont have. Jack why dont you invest some of your capital in california if your so concerned your better off buying up the swamp land in arizona.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  158. Anne in AZ

    Might want to think two, three four or five times before cutting benefits like these. There was never a problem with this kind of benefit, until the republicans lost so much money they qualified to receive these kinds of benefits! Leave the poor and disabled people alone. Blame Madoff! He put the people in this position, along with the former president who decided to pump large amounts of money into a war that would have kept us out of this situation.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  159. Glenda

    Cut the benefits for all illegal aliens in California! My God is the Govenor that stupid....Geezzz, that was a stupid question..all of them are

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  160. Annie, Atlanta

    Taking from those who can least afford it instead of considering cutting their salaries and travel is so typical. This “let them eat cake” mentality is out of control. Do we have to start dying en masse in the streets before someone actually gives a darn?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  161. Jermaine

    No states should not eliminate benefits. Doing that will only cause more problems and put a greater strain on an already hurting economy. States taking this kind of action will only see a rise in people doing other things to try and provide for their families. I am sure their are other ways to balance their budgets, but creating more homeless people is not the way to do it.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  162. Obama

    Its quite absurd that the state government tries to justify its own spending by trying to cut down welfare and other pertinent attributive spending in the state that will help the poor. They need to start cutting down their salaries and start thinking about the people they serve!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:22 pm |
  163. Billie Jelks-Hood

    No Welfare benefits should NOT be cut. There are people I know that truly need the benefits, since they have lost their jobs, and all their benefits and several children to take care of. I am sure our "DUMB" Governor could find other ways to find monies to help the State budgets.
    He should take away some of those high profile jobs where people do nothing like Nicole Perara, where he invented a new position for her for $115,000 per year and what does she do?????????????????????? there are lots of those kinds of jobs,
    None of the legislatures were willing to take a pay cut, per yesterday
    Fresno Bee, a couple gave up the cars allowance. Now is that concern for thier state or their own Political Greed.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  164. Star Auburn Ohio

    cut everyones salary 50% for government workers. only allow one job per house hold cut out spending on anchor babies and the illegal parents here.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:23 pm |
  165. Kristie from Rancho Cucamonga, CA

    The governor has made it clear in his budget proposals that he will continue to scapegoat and penalize the weak (disabled, elderly) and or the disenfranchised innocent for the financial crisis. It is up to the California budget committee to decide if they will follow his lead or remember their humanity and remember the promise that California made to the disabied in the Lanterman Act as citizens of this state when they accepted “responsibility for persons with disabilities” and agreed they had “an obligation to them which it must discharge.” (California Welfare and Institutions Code 4501).

    June 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  166. Jeff from Chisholm, Minnesota

    Vote Democrat. It,s easier then working!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm |
  167. Susan Brucklacher

    Jack,
    I think California has many a problem without creating more on the low-income. Maybe a new governor?
    I am very dissapointed with Arnold as govenor, and maybe he should go back and make some movies and donate all procedes to the low-income programs. I have not gone to his movies either, but maybe...

    He thinks he is such an indispensible person. Any time they tell us there are still programs for low-income time to start worring. Why would any idiot want to end welfare to work programs that are accountable, and that was my career, and it works.

    Susan
    Sioux Falls S.D.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm |
  168. Star Auburn Ohio

    nothing but a ponzie scheme all of it. we have paid into a system and now nothings left because george used it on a war shame on us

    June 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  169. cy gardner

    In our country all the money we borrow to fix the problems caused by the rich, go to the rich. In other countries stimulus packages include tax incentives that help people buy cars, help people pay bad mortgages. You know, all those countries that use national health care to insure more people for way less money. We keep electing officials who take our money and give it to the rich. When it comes to the people's representatives representing the people's best interests, we have the worst democracy in the world. cy gardner, arlington, va

    June 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm |
  170. Shareen Huber

    Here in Illinois we had to oust another bad dirty gov. now Gov. Pat Quinn and our legislators have cut Foster Child care aid, Home Health Care aid, Mental Health aid, and College Students Grants. They still want to raise taxes saying there is nothing else to do. Really can you only cut these programs? Why are the ones without the funds for a voice and no place else to turn targeted. Why can't our Politicians take the pay cut and perk cut?

    Shareen
    Danville, IL

    June 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  171. Barbara NY

    Here's the hard truth that no one wants to hear. States need to reduce welfare to people that can't prove that they're a U.S citizen and to people that cross the border just to have their children in the U.S. More than, probably any other state, California has paid out billions in education, welfare, medcial and other expenses for people that are not citizens of the U.S.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  172. peggy minnesota

    Yes Jack,Welfare needs a major makeover,my middle class family is suffering greatly.From 401's to houses and we range in age from 25 to 60 and thats just a few of us.You can go to any elerdly high rise and find men and women in their 50's on welfare, social security disability, food stamps, medical the list goes on.They drink do drugs and can't be helped!!This is a fact across America.I for one am sick of it I work to hard and I'm sick of it.I want to stay home and take the free bus to the Casino,and spend the money that I never earned.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:28 pm |
  173. Clark

    Yes.

    Charity is not a proper function for government. Charity should be from individual or private group to needy individuals .... while holding the recipients accountable for what they are receiving and helping them to get out of the situation that requires them to need charity.

    When I give a $100.00 to somebody in need ... they have the entire $100.00. But when the government takes the $100.00 out of my pocket they keep some of my $100.00 to pay for additional government employees, and give maybe $80.00 to the person in need .... and never hold that person accountable to grow to their potential.

    Governments are supposed to provide for law and order, safety, national defense ..... they are not supposed to provide social welfare programs ... that do little for the welfare of anybody anyway.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  174. Jim Doanld

    This is simply the way the rich keep their money. Instead of raising taxes on the celebs on california (who have worked so hard for those millions- Paris and their hilt) they simply want to keep making peple choose between those who simply can not affird basic living and healthcare. they want to end a program like welfare to work and such to pay for healthcare. I guess everyone will need health care after they can't afford to feed themselves. Taxes to provide services is not a sin it's the idiots in government wasting tax payer dollars in futile projects.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  175. Bryan in Colorado

    Yes, and states need to start with corporate welfare because they are mostly responsible for this bad economy. Then states need to make cuts in wastefull spending including elected officials salaries. I quess
    you could go the obama way and help bailout all unionized companies
    so that the only employed citizens are union workers. I really believe we cannot get a handle on this economy until both republicans and democrats stop playing politics with fixing it.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  176. mark in tacoma wa.

    I lean to the left but I think Californians need to reflect on the amount of tax dollars being spent in there state. It's out of control.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  177. letskeepitreal

    I think all income redistribution programs should be eliminated. The treasury should not be plundered to support poorly managed corporations or poorly managed lives.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:29 pm |
  178. Pierre FRAYSSE

    Should states reduce or eliminate welfare benefits?
    Obviously NO !
    But let's tell the truth: CA is into this desesperate financial mess because of REPUBLICAN legislators who refuse to do their job right and reform the CA taxation system:
    Prop 13, which exempt businesses for paying their fair share of property Tax , and Income Tax that priviledge the rich and wealthy.
    How much more pain are we going to tolerate from theses NO-TAX ideologues... Let's get ride of REPUBLICANS once and for all !
    San Francisco,CA

    June 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  179. Jodie

    All the bleeding heart Liberals, you seem to think we are helping nice people who are having a tough time. When the majority of recipients are either here illegally or just don't want to work and have to support themselves and their brood of kids. People make their choices and they choose to suck off the system rather than work hard. We're the fools for bothering to work hard and try to earn a living. Sure make those who pay taxes, pay more. Great solution, but we are sick and tired of it. You want to pay for Octomom and all her kids. She's a fine example of our current system and the abuse. We pay her to have kids.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  180. Jason

    There is a difference between circumstances brought on by lack of responsibility, and that brought on by disabling conditions. Until politicos learn that difference, hands off the benefits!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm |
  181. Nancy, Tennessee

    I don't understand why government immediately thinks of cutting welfare programs when they need to save money. States need to look at government contracts and see which "fat cats" are overcharging for products or services. The states could balance their budgets if money was spent on worthwhile projects that were priced competively. It's time to find other lines in the budget and work on them instead of immediately looking at welfare.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm |
  182. Wiseone

    Jack:
    This business of welfare reduction is clearly political. This is an attempt to force states that are controlled by Republicans to give up the ghost by doing what will insure they may not be reelected. Arnold in California is just one. I agree that his best bet is to remove a lot of the government blot in California and that would make the budget balance. Who ever said a Democratic cared about people other than to use them including taking money and welfare from them to get what they want.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:32 pm |
  183. SLM

    Love the Tax the rich comments. What exactly is a fair rate to tax them at? 95% is that enough for the Liberals to take and give to the poor people who prefer not to work? Let's tax the middle class at 75%, yeah, they don't need it. How about taxing Actors, since everyone else paying taxes will leave this over taxed state that the Liberals have run into the ground. Sick of the illegals getting everything for free while we pay for their freebies.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  184. John from Florida

    Governor Schwarzenegger HAS been raising taxes, there was a one cent increase in the sales tax passed in February, and he is trying to raise them further with prop 1A. The special interests, state legislature, and California voters have been blocking tax increases for years, and with no "rainy-day" fund to pool from what choice do they have but to cut these expensive programs?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  185. DawnL,CA

    Why isn't the governor talking about the "Elephant in the room"? Illegal immigrants are using our schools, hospitals, roads ,SSI benefits,food stamps and now they want to attend our colleges as an in-state person(lower tuition).All this is paid for by MY TAXES.California will never be out of the hole if this continues.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  186. Kristie from Rancho Cucamonga, CA

    Repeal tax cuts to wealthy corporations and large businesses and their subsidiaries that are made year after year including 2009 in California!

    June 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
  187. jesse redden

    the gov. does not understand that the same people that he is cuttting out are the people that voted him in office. He is an ACTOR you know like ronald regan or john wayne. u get what you vote for. Vote in your best interest not who you are interested in.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:35 pm |
  188. Adam from California

    Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have morphed into an arbitrary agent of conservatism. As a student majoring in Political Science, I’ve had allot of conversations with fellow classmate about his extravagant actions of reduction in places of necessity. One of them being the reduction of state subsidies allocated to community colleges. If the lower class cannot not afford a proper education or admittance to welfare can Mr. Schwarzenegger lead us out of a deficit unburdened or unchanged?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:37 pm |
  189. Jenny Murray, Weiser,Id

    If the states just eliminated welfare and medical benefits for the illegal aliens that would greatly reduce their budget crises.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm |
  190. ben stockton, calif

    i have for many years wondered why there are so many healthy young people on welfare ..as a senior citizen, i see young people driving better cars than i do,, paying for groceries with food stamps..there are a lot of seniors that are being neglected and fall through the cracks when it comes to helping them..i am a advocate of this phrase.. if you cant feed them, dont breed them..as a californian,its going to get tough for all of us . our governor needs to go through every program with a fine tooth comb and cut any excess..including the bloated school system,,cuts in salary for state administrators etc .. he has his work cut out for him ben stockton, calif

    June 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  191. Donald in CA

    America should take care of its less fortunate, period. You never know when you will be one of those.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  192. Jan Kenosha WI

    The state of California will do what other states and the federal government have been doing for many years. The elderly, the poor, children etc, people at the bottom loose their safety net. After all business, upper incomes groups do not think they should have to pay taxes. They are allowed their entitlements because they think they deserve them. Everyone else just doesn't deserve decent housing, education or health care.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:39 pm |
  193. VIVIAN-LOS ANGELES

    Welfare:
    I am for Welfare reform. I don't mind offering a helping hand, but looks like many are receiving Welfare are also making an occupation out of receiving Government Money, and offer nothing in return.
    1.) I would like to have a 2-3 yr term limit.
    2.) If you are in this country illegally, you should NOT receiving any government funding.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  194. Ali from Switzerland

    Isn't it ironic that a country has not enough money to provide its citizens with minimal health and social care when it has the luxury to have a higher defense budget than China, Russia, France, UK, Japan, Germany, India and Italy altogether.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  195. Kathy Collins

    No ,I do not think cutting aid to the needy is the answer. However......We need to seriously look into weeding out those who use and abuse this program. There should be limits on how long an individual can be supported by the government. There should be mandatory drug testing for aid of any kind. Sorry, if you can afford drugs, you don't need gov aid . You can buy a lot of food with the cost of a bag of weed.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  196. James, Minneapolis

    State taxes, workers, and departments should be cut and in some cases eliminated so that private citizens can allocate their resources however they see fit, including giving to charity, thereby replacing welfare programs.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm |
  197. Kristie from Rancho Cucamonga, CA

    The people with the signs on your page Jack that say "Don't Kill Me" it's real. Without some of these services/programs that are facing cuts there will be deaths among the disabled, the poor, the elderly.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:44 pm |
  198. Adam from california

    Mr. Schwarzenegger seems to have morphed into an arbitrary agent of conservatism. As a student majoring in Political Science, I’ve had allot of conversations with fellow classmate about his extravagant actions of reduction in places of necessity. One of them being the reduction of state subsidies allocated to community colleges. If the lower class cannot afford a proper education or admittance to healthcare can Mr. Schwarzenegger lead us out of a deficit unburdened or unchanged?

    June 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm |
  199. Gary Meixell

    Jack,
    to solve the budget crisis in California, just raise the taxes on the "Hollywood" crowd who waste millions on themselves. That would solve the crisis easily.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:46 pm |
  200. Arizona

    The Disability Rights Act will be effected by the cutting of welfare benefits. The retired and disabled will not be able to make a living and will have a large amount of discrimination issues if these programs are cut. Help save lives by keeping the welfare programs going. Will the states be held responsible for all of the elderly and disabled who are not able to receive these benefits anymore? If the answer is yes, then it will trickle down to the government, who wont be able to afford a discrimination lawsuit of this size.

    June 9, 2009 at 6:46 pm |