California justifiably takes pride in being consistently among the top states in per-capita income. And while it can do better, it ranks in the middle of states for the share of people living below the poverty level. (It was 23rd nationwide, with 12.4 percent in poverty in 2007).
So when the governor and other California leaders go to Washington asking for a federal bailout, they ought to expect skepticism. They also might acknowledge that California is getting $85 billion in federal stimulus funds, more than any other state.
Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s column in The Bee on Tuesday made a case for federal help, but it reflected a tone of entitlement that is unlikely to wring a dime out of Washington.
Two issues stand out:
• Medicaid: Wilson and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believe the formula for reimbursing states for providing health care to lower-income people – known as Medi-Cal in California – is flawed. States with higher per-capita income get less than states with lower per-capita income, they argue.
Mississippi, at the bottom in per-capita income, gets 75 cents for every dollar it spends. California, near the top in per-capita income, gets 50 cents.
What’s unfair about that?
The problem is not the formula itself, but the timing of it. The current reimbursement rate relies on income data for 2004, 2005 and 2006, when California’s per-capita income grew at above-average rates. The next update isn’t scheduled for three years, using 2007, 2008 and 2009.
California, and other states, should insist on an immediate update to the formula – to take into account the economic free fall. California’s per-capita income has dropped.
A speedy update would maintain the fairness principle.
• Undocumented criminals: California has long paid its prison guards far more than other states. Even so, it continues to gripe that the federal government doesn’t adequately reimburse the state for prison costs involved with incarcerating undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes in California.
These prisoners must serve their state prison sentences before being deported. For the 2009-2010 year, California will get $112.5 million from the federal government to cover prison guard costs for 19,000 inmates. That’s about $6,000 per inmate, only a small portion of the prison guard cost.
So California has a real complaint, up to a point. Wilson and Schwarzenegger believe California should get $970 million – or more than $51,000 per inmate to cover costs.
The question then becomes: To what extent should other states subsidize the cost of California’s out-of-whack prison guard contract – where most guards earn more than $73,000 a year in base salary, an average of $16,000 in overtime and retire as early as age 50 with 90 percent of their final pay?
California should get its prison guard contract in line with reality if it hopes to make a case for better federal reimbursement.
California is not the only state suffering budget woes. Schwarzenegger and lawmakers would do better to join forces with other states – rather than seeking special favors for California – in seeking federal aid to get on the road from economic downturn to recovery.