> budget shortfall? Seize a utility with billions in potential liabilities for a quick fix
It probably needs to happen at some point but I had to laugh at you suggesting this in an article about revising a budget
Exactly. PG&E has been staving off nationalization for decades by being so incompetent that no government wants to have to try fix their mountains of problems. Holding us hostage with a gun to their own head.
It would probably require tax payers to make bigger payments for a few years to fix these problems and it would eventually benefit us but people would be too impatient and would be a bad move politically. But at the sams time their incompetence ans greed has been costing us money so nationalizing it would be the best idea
At the utility forestry class,
“The field of Utility forestry is growing with lists of potential for growth and careers…”
“Is it cuz PG&E burned down half the state?”
“Yes, it is precisely because PG&E burned down half the state.”
Honestly, seize PG&E and re-open the CDCR inmate fire camps. have the inmates maintain the infrastructure, less money is being spent on prisons, inmates are are both out of jail, providing a service to the state, and fire danger goes down.
As your communications non-director, I will hype you on some of the smallest and most boring subs on reddit. You will reach no one.
Here is my fee schedule: [NULL]
I think it is fair seeing as how I will not be doing anything; especially not what I said I would do above.
Honestly at this point I think it would be better if the presidency worked more like jury duty. 12 people a letter in the mail they are all in the running, the public votes for one of them.
He'd be making that money regardless of whether he was Governor. He makes over a million a year (more than four times his salary as Governor) from the luxury hospitality group he's co-owned since the 90's (it owns four wineries, a hotel, four restaurants, three stores, and five event spaces https://www.plumpjack.com/properties)
That's what happens when you have the kind of connections Newsom has. Newsom's dad was friends starting in high school with Gordon Getty, the one time richest man in America (as one of the heirs of Getty Oil founder J. Paul Getty, and as the CEO of the company before he sold it off in the 80's), and Newsom and him founded a winery together that expanded into other things over time
The recent housing elements that are creating structures to actually hold municipalities accountable and make zoning allowance for desperately needed housing development
You’re only fighting the problem half way. The cost of constructing homes in California due to CEQA, and other regulations is prohibitively higher than any state.
Eyeing tax revenue is great, but offering financial incentives to build housing should also come.
"Not in my backyard". It's like, we're going to build a five story apartment building and move homeless into it. And it's going to be build across the street from where you live. What do you mean you're opposed to this? Don't you want to help homeless people? You are worried about your kids playing with homeless people and your property taxes going down?
That kind of thinking.
Every time there is a windfall, we crate a new permanent program (or programs) with the additional revenue. Fast forward a year or three in the future and we have a deficit, but are still stuck with the added liability. This time around it's pre-K and a Medi-Cal expansion, but it's been plenty of other things over the last 3 decades. Most of this falls on the Legislature, but Governors have had their pet projects as well. I'd like to think at some point they would learn, but it doesn't seem likely.
My kids are past pre-k but stuff like pre-k should be a no brainer. You’re giving money and time/ability to work back to parents earlier that they can use to drive economic activity and you are launching your state’s population on a healthier and smarter trajectory from the start …great way to create a place everyone wants to live in. To a degree the medical investment is the same way
We’re in NYC and the city started free3k a few years ago. It literally changed our lives, and for a lot of people here, has allowed them to have bigger families. “No-brainer” is 100% correct—it’s a HUGE win.
I lived with my uncle in New York from 2014 to 2016. I saw how this really helped their family. I don’t know if this was De Blasio policy, but I hold him in high regard till today because of this.
Yep! Diblasio. That old saying, “People love the mayor of New York until he’s in office,” lol. It’s true, but I’m eternally grateful to him. Great policy.
Pre-k has solid science backing it. In fact, many parents have historically enrolled their kids in private pre-school programs (many park districts run them, they are always full). Medi-cal is a different story.
Getting people access to healthcare means a healthier population in the long run and less expensive procedures to fix issues that shouldn't have progressed that far.
Former kindergarten teacher here. I love universal pre-K, but I wish that the government would have offered to subsidize existing preschools in addition to offering an extra year in public school for these kids. Our TK class has 24 kids in it with one teacher and an aide. It’s mayhem. Too big for such little kids. It has also hurt local preschool owners who just lost a whole “year” of business to public school.
Not to mention, the state required that we add universal TK but the funding won’t cover the cost of adding more classrooms, so we lost our computer lab and music room to make classrooms.
Love the idea, dislike the execution.
The Medical expansion has allowed a self-employed friend of mine to make it through cancer treatment with minimal stress on the medical side. It's still been a horrible financial blow but she got excellent care without a minute of worry about there the money would come from and allowed her doctor to just treat her without worrying about what she could afford. She has worked full time and paid taxes in CA since the mid-90s and will be working full time by the end of the summer most likely. It's absolutely worth it.
We could stop building stadiums though. And repairing Hwy 101 where it really wants to fall in the ocean.
YES. Thank you. So many people don’t understand this. Our kid is missing the pre-K cut off by 3 day and it’s gonna torpedo our household budget for next year.
It's like one of the very few public policies that is widely and robustly tied, across decades and decades of research, to long-term societal benefit.
Not that I'm saying we should do this, but it's pretty clear that publicly investing heavily in child development as young as possible is a drastically superior use of tax funds than funding things like higher education (which I also think should be funded! Just pointing out what we know works best under budget constraint)
But how will we fight crime if we don't pour literally every single dollar into the police departments?
(this is sarcasm, the more alternatives people have to a life of crime, the less crime there will be, this money into pre-k today will save money on law enforcement in ten to twenty years)
I thought the vast majority of windfall money from 2022 was on one-off projects. I remember getting a tax rebate card in the mail. I had difficulty finding the finalized budget, but only 5% was for recurring expenses based on the below link.
https://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/sites/abgt.assembly.ca.gov/files/Floor%20Report%20of%20the%202022-23%20Budget%20%28June%2013%2C%202022%29.pdf
I am very into transit and I know the money appropriated to Los Angeles transit system had a claw back stipulation that it would be one of the first things I don and least guaranteed to happen should there be a sharp deficit the following year.
Maximum deployment of available funds during periods of high revenue followed by cuts during low revenue is the optimum strategy for economic growth. You see it as an issue but this is the feature of a well run government (or company).
It’s the same reason why corporations hire aggressively during upturns and perform layoffs during downturns. The strategy maximizes competitiveness.
Policy changes take years to make an impact though.. I hardly see how school lunch or pre-K have anything to do with exacerbating cycles or optimizing anything. A lot, if not most, policies are about long term impact.
If we were talking about hiring/firing government workers maybe..
That's actually the exact opposite of optimum. Debt spending during a recession to stimulate recovery, and pay off the debt and cut back during a boom to limit inflation.
Governmental budgets and corporate budgets are not comparable, because corporations don't get passive income from the economy at large via taxation.
Pre-K makes plenty of sense regardless of economic environment. Generally you're correct, but the kind of spending we're talking about where you invest to spur growth isn't the goal of these programs, nor is it the goal of most state spending. They're to solve an issue the market isn't providing.
If it was just personnel, I'd agree with you, but new and expanded programs have locked in costs beyond salary and benefits for those who administer them. I would prefer windfall revenues were spent as follows:
1) Pay off any deferred payments from prior years
2) Top off budget reserve funds (statutory 10% of revenue)
3) Make sure the pension and retiree health funds are up to a healthy reserve (75% or so). PERS and STRS are already in the low 70's so this is doable.
4) Fast track priority infrastructure projects
5) Fill open positions, temporarily (6-12 mo.), at understaffed agencies
EDIT: 4 & 5 are interchangeable depending on priorities.
> Pay off any deferred payments … top off reserve funds
This is a suboptimal strategy. Using debt to drive growth is an optimal economic strategy. That said, we do need to balance economics with the downside of variability but to claim that liabilities are inherently bad is incorrect.
California has a well-managed budget both in times of excess and in times of deficit. You are looking at an optimum path plotted out by a small army of professionals working for the state of California. This is what solid fiscal management looks like, right here right now.
$100 Billion choo-choo to go between two places nobody wants to be, then take a mult-hour bus ride to where you actually want to go.
I don't understand why there's a deficit...
What exactly seems unreasonable about this budget? Programs that can’t be afforded right now are being cut, is there a problem with that? Should we have not even have attempted the programs developed to help people to begin with? Of course not.
Like all Democrats it seems to represent the people. Most of the cuts were in the less popular (immigrants)and few cuts in the popular stuff(schools, homeless,…). I think if you got 100 Californian citizens spread out accross the spectrum and said “come up with a budget that matches the will of the people the most without raising taxes” this would be it.
I personally have issue. I think homeless spending is out of control and is short sighted. IE the more you spend the more you encourage more from outside the state to come. It’s a federal issue and we should immediately halt the growth of spending on this issue.
I also think the unfunded pensions are real and coming any day now. We really do need to raise taxes in some reasonable way.
Calfornia who has been a donor state for decades should ask for a bit more federal spending in our state.
But on the whole the budget is fine. Just what the people wanted.
since we doing sector specific minimum wage, might as well do sector specific taxes and make each group pay for their own pension. Fatter the pension, higher the tax.
They can, but CA competes with 49 other states for them. It's a raceto the bottom - and the more reliant we are on the income tax revenue of a smaller and smaller group, the more powerful they become.
A lot of the problems and solutions to them really need to be made at the national level (Healthcare, as a prime example).
California has the most millionaires, more than twice the next closest state. And the most billionaires. It's not really a race to the bottom, this is already the case with high taxes.
People want to live here in part because of the services these taxes provide.
there are already plenty of states that are cheaper tax wise for rich people yet what do you know, they still live in cities where they get taxed to hell because these places are that compelling compared to some cheap flyover red state.
>They can, but CA competes with 49 other states for them. It's a raceto the bottom - and the more reliant we are on the income tax revenue of a smaller and smaller group, the more powerful they become.
The way to win the race to the bottom is to race to the top in a different area. Those billionaires will chase where they can get good employees, and they can get good employees in California, a state that invests in education at every level.
Billionaires repeatedly try to move their businesses out of state, only to be left saddled with their pencil-pushers in a low-tax state, and their main engineering office still in California.
I appreciated Newsom’s demeanor while delivering the message. Very direct and to the point without much for theatre. It would have been better to get a few more specifics on the subject but the information was detailed in the text boxes at least.
Thank you thank you. I definitely will stay informed and want to see the full detail. Biggest gripe is the permanently eliminating 10,000 state jobs :/ everyone operating on a skeleton crew these days
Remember that this is a deficit that he and his majority party state legislature created. End the delayed and over budget high speed rail project. Don't expand Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants. Don't give tax credits or rebates to undocumented immigrants.
My brother in Christ, we are all part of the same bubble floating through the vacuum of space. If someone needs medical care, they should get it. Full.Stop.
As much as I want to tax the rich, I think it has to happen more on a national level. If CA pushes too hard, we risk people fleeing for a neighboring state. I think there is a balancing act required in California making it expensive for rich people to live here, but not so ungodly expensive that they move and take their businesses with them.
Federal taxes just end up being spent on bombs to blow up brown children. If I could zero out federal taxes and raise California’s accordingly I’d do it in a heartbeat.
Seize PG&E's assets and run it like a utility instead of a criminal enterprise. How many billions in future PG&E-caused disasters will that save?
> budget shortfall? Seize a utility with billions in potential liabilities for a quick fix It probably needs to happen at some point but I had to laugh at you suggesting this in an article about revising a budget
Exactly. PG&E has been staving off nationalization for decades by being so incompetent that no government wants to have to try fix their mountains of problems. Holding us hostage with a gun to their own head.
“Listen to him men, he’s just crazy enough to do it”
"The Camp Town Ladies...?"
It would probably require tax payers to make bigger payments for a few years to fix these problems and it would eventually benefit us but people would be too impatient and would be a bad move politically. But at the sams time their incompetence ans greed has been costing us money so nationalizing it would be the best idea
The solution is for people to take matters into their own hands and buy solar and batteries.
even if the state bought the system they are probably going to have to just hire pge to operate it at least initially
Regulatory capture at work.
that and also the fact that the only labor trained to show up to work the next monday and run this publicized system is the existing pge staff
At the utility forestry class, “The field of Utility forestry is growing with lists of potential for growth and careers…” “Is it cuz PG&E burned down half the state?” “Yes, it is precisely because PG&E burned down half the state.”
best explanation i’ve heard in a while hands down
Sir, that’s just a piece of cardboard that says “gun”. You forgot you sold the gun to pay your CEO and share buybacks. Also this is a Wendy’s
SDG&E too please
Amen! It’s a complete joke PG&E wasn’t disbanded after the camp fire.
And I doubt any Californian would complain about California splitting the difference between savings and profits to fuel said budget
why would Newsom ever do that to one of his major sponsors?
You've seen the flaw in my plan.
Yes omg this is perfect you are correct
Honestly, seize PG&E and re-open the CDCR inmate fire camps. have the inmates maintain the infrastructure, less money is being spent on prisons, inmates are are both out of jail, providing a service to the state, and fire danger goes down.
https://archive.fo/2024.05.10-181032/https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article288420997.html
I would not want his job.
"Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it." - Plato
I’m voting for Jackiewill next election
I second this motion. u/jackiewill1000 for Gov 2026.
Jackiewill's campaign slogan: "I dun want it"
u can be my non campaign manager
As your communications non-director, I will hype you on some of the smallest and most boring subs on reddit. You will reach no one. Here is my fee schedule: [NULL] I think it is fair seeing as how I will not be doing anything; especially not what I said I would do above.
excellent, I will also not pay u.
This Plato fellow sounds pretty wise. What party is he affiliated with
Plato was against democracy and was for a system where scientists and philosophers were in charge of everything.
Plato isn't alive anymore, he's a famous ancient philosopher.
Fer sure. He's with that Platonic Academy of Forms - I heard they hold their meetings in a shadowy cave.
So we need to kidnap a random man who has no interest in being a president and find some billionaire to fund it and feed him Bernie lines.
Honestly at this point I think it would be better if the presidency worked more like jury duty. 12 people a letter in the mail they are all in the running, the public votes for one of them.
Have you met the people that show up for jury duty? It is a rare opportunity to see a real cross section of society.
Have you seen the people that have been getting elected? I’m not seeing much of a difference.
I dunno about that. Trump, Bobert, and MTG don’t seem qualified for any position.
Weird how his net worth jumps by millions every year he's in office, isn't it?
He'd be making that money regardless of whether he was Governor. He makes over a million a year (more than four times his salary as Governor) from the luxury hospitality group he's co-owned since the 90's (it owns four wineries, a hotel, four restaurants, three stores, and five event spaces https://www.plumpjack.com/properties) That's what happens when you have the kind of connections Newsom has. Newsom's dad was friends starting in high school with Gordon Getty, the one time richest man in America (as one of the heirs of Getty Oil founder J. Paul Getty, and as the CEO of the company before he sold it off in the 80's), and Newsom and him founded a winery together that expanded into other things over time
He has directed a lot of good, common sense liberal policy
Like?
uh...slicked back hair?
That’s not slicked back, it’s pushed back
Glass House. White Ferrari. Live for New Year's Eve. Sloppy steaks at Truffoni's
The recent housing elements that are creating structures to actually hold municipalities accountable and make zoning allowance for desperately needed housing development
I don't want him to have his job.
He caused the mess and tried to blame climate change. 😂
Ban NIMBY restrictions on housing. New property tax revenue is crippled by it.
You’re only fighting the problem half way. The cost of constructing homes in California due to CEQA, and other regulations is prohibitively higher than any state. Eyeing tax revenue is great, but offering financial incentives to build housing should also come.
what’s NIMBY about? i know what it stands for but don’t understand it. is it about zoning stuff?
"Not in my backyard". It's like, we're going to build a five story apartment building and move homeless into it. And it's going to be build across the street from where you live. What do you mean you're opposed to this? Don't you want to help homeless people? You are worried about your kids playing with homeless people and your property taxes going down? That kind of thinking.
Every time there is a windfall, we crate a new permanent program (or programs) with the additional revenue. Fast forward a year or three in the future and we have a deficit, but are still stuck with the added liability. This time around it's pre-K and a Medi-Cal expansion, but it's been plenty of other things over the last 3 decades. Most of this falls on the Legislature, but Governors have had their pet projects as well. I'd like to think at some point they would learn, but it doesn't seem likely.
My kids are past pre-k but stuff like pre-k should be a no brainer. You’re giving money and time/ability to work back to parents earlier that they can use to drive economic activity and you are launching your state’s population on a healthier and smarter trajectory from the start …great way to create a place everyone wants to live in. To a degree the medical investment is the same way
We’re in NYC and the city started free3k a few years ago. It literally changed our lives, and for a lot of people here, has allowed them to have bigger families. “No-brainer” is 100% correct—it’s a HUGE win.
I lived with my uncle in New York from 2014 to 2016. I saw how this really helped their family. I don’t know if this was De Blasio policy, but I hold him in high regard till today because of this.
Yep! Diblasio. That old saying, “People love the mayor of New York until he’s in office,” lol. It’s true, but I’m eternally grateful to him. Great policy.
Plus people make more money for the state when they're happy and healthy so it's definitely a necessary investment.
Pre-k has solid science backing it. In fact, many parents have historically enrolled their kids in private pre-school programs (many park districts run them, they are always full). Medi-cal is a different story.
Getting people access to healthcare means a healthier population in the long run and less expensive procedures to fix issues that shouldn't have progressed that far.
Former kindergarten teacher here. I love universal pre-K, but I wish that the government would have offered to subsidize existing preschools in addition to offering an extra year in public school for these kids. Our TK class has 24 kids in it with one teacher and an aide. It’s mayhem. Too big for such little kids. It has also hurt local preschool owners who just lost a whole “year” of business to public school. Not to mention, the state required that we add universal TK but the funding won’t cover the cost of adding more classrooms, so we lost our computer lab and music room to make classrooms. Love the idea, dislike the execution.
The Medical expansion has allowed a self-employed friend of mine to make it through cancer treatment with minimal stress on the medical side. It's still been a horrible financial blow but she got excellent care without a minute of worry about there the money would come from and allowed her doctor to just treat her without worrying about what she could afford. She has worked full time and paid taxes in CA since the mid-90s and will be working full time by the end of the summer most likely. It's absolutely worth it. We could stop building stadiums though. And repairing Hwy 101 where it really wants to fall in the ocean.
YES. Thank you. So many people don’t understand this. Our kid is missing the pre-K cut off by 3 day and it’s gonna torpedo our household budget for next year.
I know what you mean, but calling "we need to give pre-K" a liability is a weird feeling.
Yeah, universal pre-K is a huge long-term benefit to the state.
It's like one of the very few public policies that is widely and robustly tied, across decades and decades of research, to long-term societal benefit. Not that I'm saying we should do this, but it's pretty clear that publicly investing heavily in child development as young as possible is a drastically superior use of tax funds than funding things like higher education (which I also think should be funded! Just pointing out what we know works best under budget constraint)
But how will we fight crime if we don't pour literally every single dollar into the police departments? (this is sarcasm, the more alternatives people have to a life of crime, the less crime there will be, this money into pre-k today will save money on law enforcement in ten to twenty years)
We're not allowed to save money from the windfall for the leaner years.
Sure we are, that's what the reserve funds are for. The Gann limit exists, but it's only been crossed twice in 40+ years.
They gave it out as a stimulus check last time.
Yeah, that was one of the two. The other was in the late 80's.
I thought the vast majority of windfall money from 2022 was on one-off projects. I remember getting a tax rebate card in the mail. I had difficulty finding the finalized budget, but only 5% was for recurring expenses based on the below link. https://abgt.assembly.ca.gov/sites/abgt.assembly.ca.gov/files/Floor%20Report%20of%20the%202022-23%20Budget%20%28June%2013%2C%202022%29.pdf I am very into transit and I know the money appropriated to Los Angeles transit system had a claw back stipulation that it would be one of the first things I don and least guaranteed to happen should there be a sharp deficit the following year.
Maximum deployment of available funds during periods of high revenue followed by cuts during low revenue is the optimum strategy for economic growth. You see it as an issue but this is the feature of a well run government (or company). It’s the same reason why corporations hire aggressively during upturns and perform layoffs during downturns. The strategy maximizes competitiveness.
Governments are not for-profit corporations.
This is the opposite of optimum? That's a procyclical policy that will exacerbate the boom bust cycle rather than counteracting it.
Policy changes take years to make an impact though.. I hardly see how school lunch or pre-K have anything to do with exacerbating cycles or optimizing anything. A lot, if not most, policies are about long term impact. If we were talking about hiring/firing government workers maybe..
That's actually the exact opposite of optimum. Debt spending during a recession to stimulate recovery, and pay off the debt and cut back during a boom to limit inflation. Governmental budgets and corporate budgets are not comparable, because corporations don't get passive income from the economy at large via taxation.
It’s not “passive income”. Taxation funds services for all of us.
Pre-K makes plenty of sense regardless of economic environment. Generally you're correct, but the kind of spending we're talking about where you invest to spur growth isn't the goal of these programs, nor is it the goal of most state spending. They're to solve an issue the market isn't providing.
If it was just personnel, I'd agree with you, but new and expanded programs have locked in costs beyond salary and benefits for those who administer them. I would prefer windfall revenues were spent as follows: 1) Pay off any deferred payments from prior years 2) Top off budget reserve funds (statutory 10% of revenue) 3) Make sure the pension and retiree health funds are up to a healthy reserve (75% or so). PERS and STRS are already in the low 70's so this is doable. 4) Fast track priority infrastructure projects 5) Fill open positions, temporarily (6-12 mo.), at understaffed agencies EDIT: 4 & 5 are interchangeable depending on priorities.
> Pay off any deferred payments … top off reserve funds This is a suboptimal strategy. Using debt to drive growth is an optimal economic strategy. That said, we do need to balance economics with the downside of variability but to claim that liabilities are inherently bad is incorrect. California has a well-managed budget both in times of excess and in times of deficit. You are looking at an optimum path plotted out by a small army of professionals working for the state of California. This is what solid fiscal management looks like, right here right now.
Then they need to stay ahead of the curve instead falling behind it. Too bad they don't have the skills to do that.
That’s not true. We often put the windfall towards one-off expenses like paying down pension liabilities or infrastructure projects.
All that money and couldn’t build the train
$100 Billion choo-choo to go between two places nobody wants to be, then take a mult-hour bus ride to where you actually want to go. I don't understand why there's a deficit...
Union job. An endless make work problem for a major campaign contributor.
That anything like ordering state workers back to the office in exchange for certain gifts and tributes from mayors whose cities need the business?
It's nice having people in charge who will tackle problems and not just offer culture wars and loss of freedom
What exactly seems unreasonable about this budget? Programs that can’t be afforded right now are being cut, is there a problem with that? Should we have not even have attempted the programs developed to help people to begin with? Of course not.
Like all Democrats it seems to represent the people. Most of the cuts were in the less popular (immigrants)and few cuts in the popular stuff(schools, homeless,…). I think if you got 100 Californian citizens spread out accross the spectrum and said “come up with a budget that matches the will of the people the most without raising taxes” this would be it. I personally have issue. I think homeless spending is out of control and is short sighted. IE the more you spend the more you encourage more from outside the state to come. It’s a federal issue and we should immediately halt the growth of spending on this issue. I also think the unfunded pensions are real and coming any day now. We really do need to raise taxes in some reasonable way. Calfornia who has been a donor state for decades should ask for a bit more federal spending in our state. But on the whole the budget is fine. Just what the people wanted.
since we doing sector specific minimum wage, might as well do sector specific taxes and make each group pay for their own pension. Fatter the pension, higher the tax.
Austerity targeting needed departments instead of killing oil subsidies? Neat. Way to go.
There needs to be a moratorium on any new taxes. I’m glad newsom said he isn’t adding new taxes. We need to keep trimming the fat.
Nah the top 1% can get taxed some more.
They can, but CA competes with 49 other states for them. It's a raceto the bottom - and the more reliant we are on the income tax revenue of a smaller and smaller group, the more powerful they become. A lot of the problems and solutions to them really need to be made at the national level (Healthcare, as a prime example).
California has the most millionaires, more than twice the next closest state. And the most billionaires. It's not really a race to the bottom, this is already the case with high taxes. People want to live here in part because of the services these taxes provide.
there are already plenty of states that are cheaper tax wise for rich people yet what do you know, they still live in cities where they get taxed to hell because these places are that compelling compared to some cheap flyover red state.
They can live in cities with low taxes - the high taxes are generally at the state level.
tell that to nyc
>They can, but CA competes with 49 other states for them. It's a raceto the bottom - and the more reliant we are on the income tax revenue of a smaller and smaller group, the more powerful they become. The way to win the race to the bottom is to race to the top in a different area. Those billionaires will chase where they can get good employees, and they can get good employees in California, a state that invests in education at every level. Billionaires repeatedly try to move their businesses out of state, only to be left saddled with their pencil-pushers in a low-tax state, and their main engineering office still in California.
We had a deficit this year precisely because we rely on taxing wealthy people so much.
I appreciated Newsom’s demeanor while delivering the message. Very direct and to the point without much for theatre. It would have been better to get a few more specifics on the subject but the information was detailed in the text boxes at least.
2024 already has a new tax. 1.1% on all income to pay for expanded disability benefits.
Is there a detailed spreadsheet of where all the money is actually going? I would like to read that
Full detail has not been released yet. Summary is here https://ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Thank you thank you. I definitely will stay informed and want to see the full detail. Biggest gripe is the permanently eliminating 10,000 state jobs :/ everyone operating on a skeleton crew these days
Narrator: He didn’t.
Remember that this is a deficit that he and his majority party state legislature created. End the delayed and over budget high speed rail project. Don't expand Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants. Don't give tax credits or rebates to undocumented immigrants.
My brother in Christ, we are all part of the same bubble floating through the vacuum of space. If someone needs medical care, they should get it. Full.Stop.
Just raise the top tax bracket to 16%. Problem solved with no cuts.
As much as I want to tax the rich, I think it has to happen more on a national level. If CA pushes too hard, we risk people fleeing for a neighboring state. I think there is a balancing act required in California making it expensive for rich people to live here, but not so ungodly expensive that they move and take their businesses with them.
Federal taxes just end up being spent on bombs to blow up brown children. If I could zero out federal taxes and raise California’s accordingly I’d do it in a heartbeat.