BUDGET WOULD CUT STATE DEEPLY BUSH PLAN TO HURT POOR, YOUNG HARDEST, LIBERAL GROUPS' STUDIES SAY.

Byline: Lisa Friedman Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - The $2.77 trillion budget President George W. Bush proposed for 2007 would slash $230.4 million from California's coffers, with the state's young and poor feeling the hardest pinch, studies by two liberal economic watchdog groups show.

With 141 domestic programs slated for deep reductions or elimination - and nondefense discretionary spending headed for a $15 billion nose dive - economists predict that state and local governments nationwide will face a $6.7 billion loss for everything from vocational education to low-income housing.

And Los Angeles could face a $17 million hit to the Community Development Block Grants that fund public services to low-income residents.

``Although states are no longer in the depths of a fiscal crisis and revenues have again begun to grow, state and local services still have not returned to their pre-recession levels,'' said a report by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

``With few exceptions, state and local governments would not be able to absorb the proposed continuing reductions in federal aid without instituting program cuts or tax increases,'' analysts wrote.

Other cuts proposed in the 2007 budget would mean further local hits:

--The White House aims to cut $200 million from the Women Infants and Children program that provides food, nutrition education and access to health care to low-income pregnant women and infants. That could mean about a $30.4 million loss to California counties.

--The budget calls for ``level funding'' for many programs, including the childhood development program Head Start. Analysts with the National Priorities Project predict 2,080 California children will not be able to enroll.

--A number of education-related grants face cuts, and money for vocational education would be eliminated. California last year received $127.6 million for everything from classroom equipment upgrades to faculty training. The program, according to the budget, ``has produced little or no evidence of improved outcomes.''

While states like Alaska and West Virginia that receive large percentages of federal aid would suffer the greatest financial losses in the proposed budget, California would experience the 11th largest cuts in the nation, according to the center.

Although the hard numbers call for $230.4 million in cuts for California, analysts estimated that over time, after adjusting for inflation, California could lose out on $917.1 million, or about $25.40 per person.

The proposed cuts have provoked outrage from Democrats throughout the state.

California Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, accused Bush of ``turning his back on our seniors, our children, our veterans, our police and our firefighters.''

And congresswoman Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood, called the budget ``fiscal recklessness that leaves our children and grandchildren with debt for many years to come.''

Republicans, however, have applauded Bush's budget for fiscal responsibility and vowed to make the president's tax cuts permanent.

``The 2001 and 2003 tax relief unleashed the economy, and by making tax relief permanent we will create more jobs and a better quality of life for all Americans,'' said Rep. David Dreier, R-Glendora.

While acknowledging the need to face ``tough decisions,'' Dreier said he believes Congress will reduce the deficit ``while funding priorities that will keep the country safe and prosperous.''

Brian Riedl, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, predicted that despite the GOP's rhetoric of fiscal conservatism, Republicans and Democrats alike will ignore many of Bush's recommendations.

Last year, he noted, Bush proposed eliminating 99 programs and cutting from 55 more to save $15.8 billion.

Congress agreed to cut $6.4 billion but shifted it to other parts of the budget. It eradicated 24 programs, and reduced funding for 37 more.

And in 2005, Congress slashed only five of the 65 programs Bush had targeted for elimination.

``Unfortunately, Congress has an abysmal track record terminating wasteful spending and outdated programs,'' Riedl said.

By the time Congress gets done, he predicted, ``it will be a status-quo budget where across-the-board spending increases are held down, but very little reforms or terminations take place.''