- NEWS
- Chapman adds $204 million to O.C. economy 2 hours & 17 minutes ago
- Man stabbed outside home in Costa Mesa 1 hour & 23 minutes ago
- 1-in-4 O.C. offices to be empty next year 1 hour & 54 minutes ago
- Got an extra toy or can of food?
- SPORTS
- UCLA takes advantage of Arizona State 2 hours & 1 minute ago
- Bruins tailgate: 11-21-09 1 hour & 58 minutes ago
- Fundamental error sinks Ducks
- Ducks are running on empty
- BUSINESS
- New bills would extend COBRA subsidy 1 hour & 46 minutes ago
- Here's what $1 million will buy you in Irvine
- Poll: How common are violent co-workers? 2 minutes ago
- Got an extra toy or can of food?
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Spitzer: Spending addiction requires tough-love treatment
August 30th, 2008, 7:00 am · 6 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Each week, The Watchdog asks this question of one elected official:
If you could cut one thing from the budget, what would it be and why?
OUR DISCLAIMER: The Watchdog does not agree or disagree with the opinions expressed by said elected officials; we simply serve as the conduit between you, the people, and the folks you have elected to represent you. As the saying goes, the people get the government they deserve!
Background on state Assemblyman Todd Spitzer:
- Represents the 71st Assembly District (including parts of Tustin, Orange, Anaheim, Mission Viejo, Coto de Caza, Las Flores, Rancho Santa Margarita and Riverside County).
- Chair of the Select Committee on Prison Construction and Operation, and the Health and Human Services, Revenue and Taxation and Joint Legislative Audit committees; co-chair of the High Risk Sex Offender Task Force
- Bachelor’s in English, UCLA; master’s in public policy, Cal Berkeley; juris doctorate, UC Hastings
- Taught English in East Los Angeles; Orange County Deputy District Attorney
- Reserve police officer, Los Angeles Police Department
- Wife, Jamie; son, Justin; daughter, Lauren.
WATCHDOG: Todd Spitzer, if you could cut one thing from the budget, what would it be and why?
SPITZER: If you look at government spending over the past four years, you’ll find that it has increased by 44 percent while revenues during that same time period have increased by only 40 percent. Simply put, we are spending more than we take in. It is clear that lawmakers have a spending problem; one that is systematically unsustainable.
I believe government should manage its finances like hardworking families do - only spending what it has while saving for the future. Republicans have proposed a spending limit plan which will allow us to pay down budgetary debt, maintain a stable level of funding for state programs, protect the budget from revenue volatility during tough economic times and allow us to save money for times of emergency. Under this plan, the Legislature will be forced to stay within the spending limit by restricting state spending increases to annual growth in population and the rate of inflation. Any additional revenues above and beyond the spending limit will go into a rainy day fund and be used to pay off debt.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, continue to reject any plan that sets limits on their out-of-control spending, instead choosing to turn to the already cash-strapped taxpayers to fund their spending addiction.
Liberals will have you believe that any cuts to the state budget will decimate social programs and leave people on the streets without food and housing. That is simply not the case. We need to make responsible cuts by streamlining duplicative state agencies and eliminating programs that don’t work.
In 2005, the California Performance Review evaluated more than 300 state boards and commissions, examining their necessity and effectiveness, and recommended the elimination of 88 of them. Not only did these recommendations fall on deaf ears, but since this report was released, state government has dramatically grown. In fact, since the Governor took office, the state has added nearly 700,000 jobs.
There are many things California pays for that are simply unnecessary. For example, we spend approximately $600 million per year on the Air Resources Board, a board whose responsibility largely duplicates that of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We opted out of the federal Welfare-to-Work program that would have allowed California to receive $500 million from the federal government to fund welfare, instead choosing to foot the bill ourselves. What about illegal immigration? It’s hard to know how much California spends on healthcare for illegal immigrants, but a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state’s estimated annual cost at about $1.4 billion. Furthermore, we spend about $150 million a year to pay for in-state college tuition costs for illegal immigrants.
In addition to rolling back our over-inflated government, we need to be smarter about the money we spend. When I was a high school English teacher at Roosevelt High School in East Los Angeles in the 1980s, the school’s dropout rate was 50 percent. Since then, the state has implemented program after program and allocated billions of dollars to Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to help improve that number. In fact, between 1990 and 2004, LAUSD’s budget increased by nearly 50 percent, and yet the dropout rate for Roosevelt High School has remained virtually unchanged, reporting 49.6 percent for 2007. Clearly, just throwing more money at this problem is not going to solve it, as history has shown. We need real education reform which reflects merit-based compensation for teachers and gives school districts more flexibility in spending by freeing up strict state mandates and reducing the number of categorical programs.
In short, what we need is a fiscally responsible budget that puts state spending in check. It is absurd to think that raising taxes will solve our problems. The State Board of Equalization recently released a report which indicates the Governor’s 1 percent sales tax increase will actually result in decreased revenue for the state, due fewer people making large purchases and substantial losses in business investments. More significantly, the report also suggests raising taxes will result in the loss of more than 50,000 jobs. We must learn from Governor Wilson’s flawed tax formula and come to an agreement that raising taxes is not the answer; limiting government is. After all, even Governor Wilson now admits raising taxes was his biggest mistake as Governor. We can’t afford to make the same mistake.
6 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Follow this blog:
-
More from OC Watchdog reports-
ADVERTISEMENT
You can follow this blog: on 
As the saying goes, the people get the government they deserve!
The correct statement is they elect
Let us again start with the simplest facts even in our so called disclaimers.
Let’s start by looking at where the tax payer money goes.
I have never seen a rank list of the 100 highest paid corporations by state government.
I do know that the hospitals are consuming alot of budget. We looked at one hospital, CHOC, alone. It looks like they are claiming $300-$400 MILLION dollars of tax payer funding alone. So, basically, even if you guess low and say $250 MILLION, they have cornered ONE BILLION TAX PAYER DOLLARS in the last 4 years.
THIS IS ONLY ONE HOSPITAL IN OUR AREA.
While I am certain that saving kids lives is important, the issue is how much work did this facility really do for ONE BILLIONNNN DOLLARS?
Did they save ONE BILLION kids?
no
We’re going to be looking at other hospitals in this area over the next weeks by looking at their tax returns also.
I’ll bet there is a billion here and a billion there… pretty soon it really ads up.
And, what about the hospitals in the other counties? I’ll bet this is a big problem across the entire state.
So, while the governator is talking about raising our taxes and while Spitzer is spouting, the reality is that they are BOTH still in office.
If someone wants to talk about stopping the financial bleeding, maybe they should put away the pen and stop signing the contracts?
Then, you look at the salaries of these people. You find out that while they post billboards about saving the “kids”, the only thing being saved is the bank (Wells Fargo?).
To answer Alan’s question yesterday about the posted salaries of CHOC executives. The listing I wrote was ONLY based on the guidestar published 2005 tax return.
I do not know Dr. Minon but I assume that if she had those other roles, then she is being paid by those other organizations also. I have no idea what is contained in the CHOC figures or if CHOC is interlacing their accounts with Latino Health Alliance and other organizations.
Minon does not strike me as a doctor though. Minon appears to be an administrator and director of the hospital.
There were only a few directors who were paid, and she was one.
I will do more homework on this person and see what I dig up.
For the benefit of the blog readers…
CHOC is a major advertiser in OC Register and their community papers too.
So, they won’t post these things without having a phone call from their PR team.
The top paid executives at CHOC consume $4,369,374 in tax payer funds. The top paid independent contractors consume another $28,180,343 in tax payer funds.
Highest paid executives (consuming $4,369,374.00 in 2005)
(Page 9 of 32 appears to list Kim Cripe and Kerri Ruppert salary as zero. This unusual statement is also reflected in a statement on the Board of Directors. However, if you look at the tax return for Children’s Healthcare of California (a related organization), you will find the pertinent information. It appears that Ms. Ruppert chooses to post her salary related to CHOC on the CHC return. It is also interesting that the Children’s Healthcare of California return lists that Kim Cripe spends 2 hours per week working on the non-profit.
$1,101,159 - Kim Cripe - Chief Executive Officer - $846,394 in compensation, $215,965 in benefits, and $38,800 in expense accounts
$679,794 - Kerri Ruppert - Chief Financial Officer - $517,989 in compensation, $136,561 in benefits, and $25,244 in expense accounts
$630,424 - Maria Minon - Ex-officio Director - $441,664 in compensation, $168,489 in benefits, $20,271 expense account
$400,223 - Mark Headland - VP & Chief Info Officer - $311,194 in compensation, $79,342 in benefits, $9,687 expense account
$387,372 - Dana Bledsoe - VP Patient Services - $292,566 in compensation, $79,415 in benefits, $15,391 expense account
$384,629 - Margaret Conk - VP Business Development - $277,699 in compensation, $87,209 in benefits, $19,721 expense account
$280,331 - Theresa E. Gianfortune - VP Human Resources - $220,109 in compensation, $70,254 in benefits, $9,968 expense account
$271,990 - David R. Schinderle - VP Finance - $196,870 in compensation, $61,107 in benefits, $14,013 expense account
$233,452 - Steve O’Kane - Ex-officio director - $213,000 in compensation, 0 in benefits, $20,452 in expense account
Some fundamental errors on how hospitals are funded, folks….
The overwhelming majoritiy of CHOC’s $343.3 million in revenue, for example, comes from what it charges for services. This money coming from insurance companies and patients.
You’ll note that CHOC lists NO income from Medicare/Medicaid and NO income from government contracts.
The “fundamental errors” are yours Ms. Forza.
CHOC lists revenue. That revenue comes from more than private insurance companies and patients.
Our sources tell us that the hospital gains significant revenue from MediCal patients.
MediCal has hospital risk pools which are gargantuan.
Our source says that the hospital gets $75 to $100 per month for each child enrolled in CHOC Health Alliance.
So, when OC Register reported that Kerri Ruppert was shifting 20,000 patients from St. Joseph’s Hospital’s Medi-Cal contract to her own CHOC Health Alliance contract… do the math Teri.
20,000 patients x $100 per month = $2,000,000 per month in revenue or $20,000,000 per year.
CHOC Health Alliance does not release publicly the number of patients enrolled through Cal Optima.
Assume CHOC Health Alliance has 100,000 children enrolled.
That would be $10,000,000 per month in revenue, or $120,000,000 per year.
Now, that adds up because the Income number on the CHOC tax return suggests income of $340 million per year.
Our physician sources indicate that half the hospital is filled with Medi-Cal patients. CHOC collects revenue for those services from Cal Optima.
It’s the whole reason that OCMA sent the letter to Cal Optima. Some one is hunting for facts.
You are not reporting facts accurately.
If CHOC wants to release more information on their tax returns, that would be great. But the OC Register should take better precautions when only printing what Kerri Ruppert or Kim Cripe or their marketing team reports. After reviewing their returns, they are lying and misrepresenting their revenue if they are stating what you report.
It is particularly sad that people lose their independence and begin doing CHOC’ management’s dirty work and taking career risks when they should not.
The sideswiping of Anaheim Memorial Foundation by OC Register is intriguing. Will you post similar facts about the CHOC Foundation?
How about publishing the facts on ALL hospital foundations, including the result of the Western Medical Center merger with Tenet?
In a study conducted by the Kansas City Veterans Administration Medical Center, the VA reported on three groups of substance abusers. Group One received no treatment at all except for a 15-minute appointment each month with a doctor. Group Two was given Antabuse, a drug that causes a severe reaction when combined with alcohol, and Group Three received the full range of treatment including outpatient programs, individual counseling and therapy, family counseling programs, vocational and rehabilitation guidance, access to Alcoholics Anonymous, and the option of taking Antabuse. The group that had no treatment at all did significantly better (by 20 percent) than either of the two treated groups.
============
Brukewilliams
Alcohol Addiction Treatment