As California struggles financially, "live within our means" is a popular chant in some political circles. This slogan sounds reasonable but in practice is meaningless.

California faces a budget gap of more than $20 billion. We could fire every state worker, close every university or shut every prison and still not close the deficit.

To "live within our means," the governor proposes eliminating services valued by Californians across the state. He proposes eliminating Cal Grants that help lowincome youths attend college, health care for nearly a million children and welfare-to-work programs needed now more than ever with unemployment above 11 percent. He proposes virtually eliminating In-Home Supportive Services, a decades-old program that enables the disabled and the elderly to live in their homes instead of institutions. The governor proposed to close nearly every state park and proposes suspending Proposition 98 (the minimum guarantee for K-12 education funding) for the second time in his tenure.

Eliminating these programs does more than affect the bottom line of the state general fund. For every dollar California spends, we receive $1 to $9 in federal matching funds. When we cut our investment in these programs, we turn away those federal dollars. Studies show the money distributed through these programs is spent immediately in local businesses, benefiting local economies and, ultimately, the state's treasury. Closing state parks would harm entire communities that are dependent upon tourist dollars. Eliminating state programs will contribute significantly to the state's already high unemployment rate, both in the public and private sectors.

Yet at the same time that the governor and legislative Republicans propose eliminating services in the name of "living within our means," they support massive giveaways to special interests. This is what renders the slogan meaningless.

California is the only state in the nation that does not tax extraction of oil from our lands. Yet when a small tax was proposed to avoid more cuts to education, the governor threatened a veto. Democrats proposed to enforce laws to collect taxes from out-of-state Internet retailers such as Utah-based Overstock. Although this levels the playing field for local businesses, which do pay such taxes, the governor threatened a veto. To avoid throwing nearly a million children off health insurance, Democrats proposed closing recently adopted corporate tax loopholes that cost the state $2.5 billion annually. Again, the governor threatened a veto.

And how does the slogan "live within our means" apply to lower- income counties? Many counties receive state services that cost far more than the taxes they generate. Modoc County, for example, annually consumes per person $1,135 in K-12 education, $658 for Medi-Cal, $113 in state supplemental payments for seniors and the disabled, and $34 in IHSS. But its residents pay only $769 per person in state personal income and sales taxes, the largest two contributors to the general fund, which pays for these services. Taxes from wealthier counties enable Modoc to consume more state services than its own means could provide. Other counties that use more state services than their own means provide include Fresno, Tulare and Kern.

Since 2003, the state has passed a budget primarily through borrowing and cuts. In six years, the Legislature has cut more than $26 billion in services and this year proposes another $12.5 billion in cuts. The state's refusal to fully fund necessary services has serious consequences. One federal judge is threatening to release prisoners due to overcrowding; another federal judge threatens to seize billions of dollars from the state for prison health care. The National Park Service recently warned us it would take over several state parks if the governor closes them. The state is paying its debts with IOUs, and our credit rating is the lowest in the nation.

Local governments are already cutting services, including police and fire, road maintenance, and even turning off street lights. One city has declared bankruptcy and others are on the verge of doing so. Yet the governor proposes raiding local government funding so the state can "live within its means."

The debate over our current deficit is really a debate over our future. Do we want a state in which our elderly rot away in nursing homes like they once did? Do we want our disabled to return to living in state institutions, closed off from their families and their communities? Do we want a state in which only the wealthy can afford college? Do we want a state where low-income children cannot see a doctor when they are sick? Do we want homeless mothers and children?

Californians expect a lot of services, including good public schools, inexpensive colleges and universities, beautiful parks, safe communities, clean air and water, reliable transportation, compassionate care for our elderly and disabled, and functional local governments. It is the duty of the governor and the Legislature to make every attempt to meet these expectations. So, let's leave slogans behind and govern.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. She maintains a blog about the budget at http://californiabudget.blogspot.com