Skip Nav
Nostalgia
Lisa Frank Obsessed? These 17 Items Will Fuel Your Inner '90s Girl
Advice
Have Better Sex TONIGHT With These Foreplay Ideas — You Deserve It
Sex
50 States of Hot Guys

Schwarzenegger to Eliminate All Funding to Domestic Violence Shelters in California

California to Eliminate Funds to Domestic Violence Shelters

They don’t call him the Terminator for nothing.

The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, decided that one way of dealing with California’s budget crisis is to eliminate — not reduce — state funding for domestic violence shelters. The state’s budget for agencies that provide domestic violence services is typically $20.4 million. Agencies braced for a 20 percent reduction but had no idea how bad it could be.

A spokesperson for Catalyst, a nonprofit organization which provides, among its many services, a 24-hour crisis hotline, emergency shelter for victims of domestic abuse, counseling, a children’s program and legal support, says their volunteers are still in shock. 35 percent of their budget relies on state funding, and now it’s gone.

"We were bracing for the 20 percent cut,” said Executive Director Anastacia Snyder, “but did not believe the governor could, with a clear conscience, cut 100 percent of funding for services that keep women and children safe and alive." (You can go to Stop Family Violence if you’re a California resident and want to find out ways to take action.)

This is going to be devastating to some of the most vulnerable women and children in California. What do you think about Schwarzenegger’s decision?

Image Source: Getty
Around The Web
Join The Conversation
dikke-kus dikke-kus 6 years
It doesn't sound good to me. It seems there could be some other choices. Roads and construction? Agriculture? Banking? Tourism? How about the lottery there? How about all that wine country? Could you raise taxes from wine exports? I don't know much about budgets. I assume there are other shelters they could go to? I hope women won't be found killed on the side of a road there. Get ready for the news on that one. Pretty soon it'll be a mass exodus into Canada, or Mexico. Even Europe.
dikke-kus dikke-kus 6 years
It doesn't sound good to me. It seems there could be some other choices. Roads and construction? Agriculture? Banking? Tourism? How about the lottery there? How about all that wine country? Could you raise taxes from wine exports? I don't know much about budgets. I assume there are other shelters they could go to? I hope women won't be found killed on the side of a road there. Get ready for the news on that one. Pretty soon it'll be a mass exodus into Canada, or Mexico. Even Europe.
GKitty GKitty 6 years
Slashing Federally funded programs to save the state of California money? NOT. Well I guess no one in his family needs any of that stuff anyway...
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
"That is not fair at all to say that it's on the directors to make sure the people they're serving don't suffer because of the morons running the state government." Well I do agree that the people who continue to run our budget into the ground are morons. As for the Directors of these facilities it is the Directors responsibility to deal with a given budget just like any other Director. If one cash cow isn't lactating it is their responsibility to respond to the given circumstances and find another means of funding their respective programs. As I suggested in my last comment it is not the States obligation to fund such a program they do it as a service to the State community. The sad fact of the matter as so many have mentioned the people who depend on these types of programs are the one's who suffer in a budget crisis all the more reason for Directors to have alternatives locked and loaded. They know they are at high risk when it comes to State budget cuts and again it is their responsibility to come up with a plan of action if such a cut should fall in their laps.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
"That is not fair at all to say that it's on the directors to make sure the people they're serving don't suffer because of the morons running the state government."Well I do agree that the people who continue to run our budget into the ground are morons. As for the Directors of these facilities it is the Directors responsibility to deal with a given budget just like any other Director. If one cash cow isn't lactating it is their responsibility to respond to the given circumstances and find another means of funding their respective programs. As I suggested in my last comment it is not the States obligation to fund such a program they do it as a service to the State community. The sad fact of the matter as so many have mentioned the people who depend on these types of programs are the one's who suffer in a budget crisis all the more reason for Directors to have alternatives locked and loaded. They know they are at high risk when it comes to State budget cuts and again it is their responsibility to come up with a plan of action if such a cut should fall in their laps.
pandacn pandacn 6 years
That is not fair at all to say that it's on the directors to make sure the people they're serving don't suffer because of the morons running the state government. I used to volunteer at a rape and domestic violence hotline/educational organization in LA, and I know exactly how hard everyone works at these organizations. Even with government money, it is still hard to help and educate all the women in need, and they still take private donations, so it's not like those sources of funding will suddenly skyrocket just because the government isn't doing its share. Further, the people who run these organizations don't get paid nearly as much as they deserve, but they are so passionate about the cause, despite all the setbacks they face. They are heroes, and they should not shoulder the responsibility on this one.
Phil Phil 6 years
The thing about these cuts that Schwarzenegger made is that they all affect the most vulnerable Californians--those with lower incomes, children, seniors, students--and those more autonomous and able to survive through the worldwide economic difficulties come out largely unscathed by Schwarzenegger and the republican minority. So, instead of equally distributing the costs of the state's programs--which help many who truly need them and serves the long-term well-being of the state--by incrementally and proportionately raising taxes, he would rather sacrifice the meek to save the well off.Fuck you Schwarzenegger.
Phil Phil 6 years
The thing about these cuts that Schwarzenegger made is that they all affect the most vulnerable Californians--those with lower incomes, children, seniors, students--and those more autonomous and able to survive through the worldwide economic difficulties come out largely unscathed by Schwarzenegger and the republican minority. So, instead of equally distributing the costs of the state's programs--which help many who truly need them and serves the long-term well-being of the state--by incrementally and proportionately raising taxes, he would rather sacrifice the meek to save the well off. Fuck you Schwarzenegger.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
I think this sucks but to suggest that the governor did it with a clear conscience is silly.Because this type of funding is a more or less a gesture of kindness by the state services like this always suffer when the going gets tough. If I were in the shoes of the directors of all of these facilities I would get together with my counter parts and say look $20.4 million is a lot to the average Joe but $20.4 million divided between a few dozen well to do celebrities is pocket change. Hell it's one pay check for Angelina... Let's get to work. If the directors do their job these people won't have to suffer so I suggest they make sure it doesn't happen.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 6 years
I think this sucks but to suggest that the governor did it with a clear conscience is silly. Because this type of funding is a more or less a gesture of kindness by the state services like this always suffer when the going gets tough. If I were in the shoes of the directors of all of these facilities I would get together with my counter parts and say look $20.4 million is a lot to the average Joe but $20.4 million divided between a few dozen well to do celebrities is pocket change. Hell it's one pay check for Angelina... Let's get to work. If the directors do their job these people won't have to suffer so I suggest they make sure it doesn't happen.
filmgirl81 filmgirl81 6 years
I've been hearing terrible things about the California budget cuts lately. they're really doing a terrible job at it. Overspending in some areas, and cutting funds in areas that really need the money.
PiNkY-PiNk PiNkY-PiNk 6 years
i HATE that people voted him into office. idiots! whoever you are, i hope you're happy. he has NO business in politics and he had no business trying to handle a beautiful state and throwing it in the dumpster. this is extremely upsetting.
PiNkY-PiNk PiNkY-PiNk 6 years
i HATE that people voted him into office. idiots! whoever you are, i hope you're happy. he has NO business in politics and he had no business trying to handle a beautiful state and throwing it in the dumpster. this is extremely upsetting.
genesisrocks genesisrocks 6 years
Harsh. I understand the budget cuts but the fact that he decided this was what needed to be cut is devastating. That's a huge chunk of money for those shelters.
sham28 sham28 6 years
That's heartbreaking.
sham28 sham28 6 years
That's heartbreaking.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jimmy Fallon Brainstorm Video
Arnold Schwarzenegger Prank Video at Madame Tussauds
Terminator Genisys Pictures
Maggie Movie Trailer
Top That! Tyler Oakley Reacts to His Birth
Celebrities at the 2014 Jameson Empire Awards | Pictures
Bud Light Super Bowl Commercial 2014

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X