Arnold can’t do math:
“In the short-term, expenditure reductions in any of these programs (CalWORKS, etc.) have significant implications for the state economy. The multiplier effects for these programs are found to range between 1.05 and 1.44, meaning that output and employment resulting from human services program expenditures are greater than the expenditures alone would suggest.
“In particular, In-Home Supportive Services are found to provide in excess of a 40 percent boost to the local economy. The multipliers for CalWORKs and Food Stamps are also significant and comparable at 1.34 and 1.37, respectively. Other programs, those that provide primarily services and less in the way of cash benefits, are found to have a smaller multiplier effect. The importance of these services, however, should not be diminished by the smaller multipliers that were found. This report discusses the likelihood that service reductions in many of these programs may result in the following: a higher incidence of homelessness, poverty, malnutrition, substance abuse, violence, and negative health outcomes for toddlers and infants. Aside from the toll these harmful circumstances have on the individuals involved, a higher incidence of these maladies produces not only higher economic costs today, but in the future as well. This suggests another sort of multiplier that ought to be included in the analysis – the indirect effect of reducing the demand for services tomorrow by providing them today.
“Finally, many of these programs are funded by federal in addition to state expenditures. These federal dollars are often only available as matching funds to state expenditures. The effect of matching funds was found to raise the multiplier for some state spending as high as 7.35. With matching funds, $1 in state spending translates into between roughly $3 and $5 in total spending on most of these programs. The effect on output and employment, and on the economic stimulus effect of state spending on these programs, is thus significantly magnified.”
SPENDING ON COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS IN CALIFORNIA: AN EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS (pdf), By Jon Haveman, Ph.D., Beacon Economics, Eric O’N. Fisher, Ph. D., California Polytechnic State University, Fannie Tseng, Ph.D., Berkeley Policy Associates, Presented to Child and Family Policy Institute of California, March 17, 2009 (via, which has more links and is a faster read)
$1 CA dollar can, with matching funds, turn into up to $5 spent in grocery stores, doctors, public transit, etc. in California. I’m not very good at math either, so bear with me:
$1M = $5M, so $500K = $2.5M, $0.50 = $2.50, but $0 = $0, which is what I think the heartless bastard rightwingnuts in California ultimately want. Don’t any of those people have businesses, homes or investments in California? Or, y’know, humanity? Because sinking the whole State to gratify some sick fear and loathing of children, disease and poverty seems pretty crazy to me.
So, really, the only reason Arnold is going after these programs is because they have no powerful advocates. And he’s a heartless bastard placating heartless bastards.