Connect with us

Politics

How Newsom plans to fix California's projected $37.9-billion budget deficit

Published

on

How Newsom plans to fix California's projected .9-billion budget deficit

Gov. Gavin Newsom asked California lawmakers on Wednesday to dip into the state’s rainy-day reserves, and signaled his desire to potentially delay a minimum wage increase for healthcare workers as part of his plan to offset an expected $37.9-billion deficit.

A confluence of weaker-than-expected state revenues, delayed tax deadlines and overspending based on inaccurate budget projections created the budget shortfall. Newsom’s new deficit estimate is more than double the shortfall he and lawmakers anticipated last June, a tacit admission of how badly the state underestimated the size and scope of the budget hole, and marks substantial disagreement within California government about the depth of the financial problem.

Newsom described his plan as an example of resilience as he outlined the $291.5-billion budget proposal for fiscal year 2024-25 during a presentation Wednesday in Sacramento. His proposal to offset the shortfall includes declaring a budget emergency in order to dip into reserves; cutting $8.5 billion in spending from programs that support climate change efforts, housing and other services; and reconsidering the healthcare wage increase.

“This is a story of correction and normalcy, and one that we in some respects anticipated — the acuity perhaps not — and one we’re certainly prepared to work through,” Newsom said.

The deficit deepens state government’s economic challenges and could pose political problems for Newsom this year as he grapples with lawmakers and interest groups about his proposed cuts.

Advertisement

His budget proposal indicates that he wants to work with lawmakers to add funding restrictions to a law he signed last year that increases the minimum wage for healthcare workers to $25 per hour. Such changes could delay the pay hike from taking effect if state revenues drop below a certain level.

The governor’s plan seeks to maintain funding for many of his expensive policy promises, including the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility to all immigrants regardless of legal status.

But his decision to dip into the budgetary reserves sounds a new alarm for the Golden State. Until now, Newsom has rebuffed calls from Democratic lawmakers to tap into the state’s rainy-day fund and other reserves, which act as a piggy bank that can be cracked open during a financial crisis to avoid sweeping cuts to critical services and social safety net programs.

The governor is proposing that he declare a budget emergency this summer, which is required by law to draw down the reserve accounts. His plan to spend $13.1 billion of the reserves means less funding will be available to backfill spending if revenues continue to decrease, possibly forcing more painful and drastic cuts in the years ahead.

Newsom is also looking to dip into the reserves at a time when he’s proposing decreased annual spending. The 2024-25 budget marks a decline of nearly $20 billion in spending from the budget lawmakers passed last June for the current fiscal year.

Advertisement

California’s budget difficulties were compounded last year when the state and federal government delayed the deadline to file 2022 income tax returns from April to November due to winter storms that pummeled coastal California and flooded parts of the state. The extended deadline affected more than 99% of California taxpayers in 55 of the state’s 58 counties, according to the state Department of Finance.

In a typical budget year, state government has tax receipts in hand before the governor unveils a revised budget proposal in mid-May and before reaching a final spending agreement with lawmakers in June. The tax delay forced lawmakers and the governor to enact the current budget in July based on estimates of how much money the state would collect in tax revenues by the November deadline.

“If you recall, this time last year we were dealing with unprecedented flooding,” Newsom said. “Little did we know that those extreme weather patterns would lead to this extreme volatility in financial projections.”

The Department of Finance anticipated last year that there would be a nearly $32-billion shortfall in the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30. That forced lawmakers and the governor to trim their spending plans.

The state budget is highly dependent on income taxes paid by California’s highest earners. Revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings.

Advertisement

Newsom and lawmakers anticipated additional revenue declines driven by a declining stock market, high interest rates and increased inflation. But Newsom’s new estimate indicates the deficit is much worse than lawmakers and the governor planned for in June.

Now state leaders must cut spending further in the upcoming fiscal year to make up for last year’s actual revenue shortfall and an anticipated deficit in the coming year.

“The timing challenge related to this deficit estimate is definitely unique,” said Gabriel Petek of the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

In December, the office projected the budget deficit would be $68 billion — much higher than Newsom’s estimate. The governor chalked up the difference to the Department of Finance anticipating greater revenues than the Legislative Analyst’s Office, among other accounting discrepancies.

“We just are a little less pessimistic than they are about the next year,” Newsom said.

Advertisement

Despite the budget challenges, there’s no indication of a larger economic crisis in California.

“Until now, California has been growing faster than the U.S., on a per capita basis, and has been one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S.,” said Jerry Nickelsburg, an economics professor and director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast. “And now it’s growing at about the rate of the U.S., as really everyone sort of slows down a bit.”

He noted that there’s more geopolitical risk worldwide and that the presidential election could affect U.S. economic policy in the near future.

But Nickelsburg added that the slow growth is expected to be short-lived, with economic growth accelerating later this year and into 2025.

Newsom’s January budget proposal begins a six-month process of hearings and negotiations with the California Assembly and Senate, both of which will have new leaders by the time the budget talks intensify.

Advertisement

He promised to provide a more complete fiscal plan in May when the state has a more accurate understanding of 2023 income tax collections.

Newsom shot down the idea of California enacting a wealth tax to address the shortfall.

K-12 schools somewhat relieved

The budget proposal was something of a relief for schools: no major cuts, no major step back of priorities and expanded efforts such as free school meals for all and gradual expansion of transitional kindergarten that will allow all 4-year-olds to attend public school by the start of the 2025-26 school year.

But funding for facilities to improve early-education classrooms is delayed for a second straight year. The total for public school funding is $109.1 billion, about 40% of the state budget.

Overall, the funding level guaranteed under the state’s complex formula works out to $8 less per student over last year, to a total of $17,653 per student — a small difference but one that adds up with nearly 6 million public school students. The funding level also becomes potentially significant coupled with inflation and employee wage increases. School districts also are anxious over the expiration of COVID-relief funding that had led to record, but temporary, revenues for schools.

Advertisement

“This certainly takes the cake on being the best bad-year budget” for K-12, said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a firm that lobbies on behalf of school districts.

Delaying increases for universities

Newsom proposes deferring a 5% budget increase for the University of California and California State University, and providing two years’ worth of increases next year. In 2022, he pledged five years of 5% annual base funding increases to deliver long-sought financial stability in exchange for gains in access, equitable student achievement, affordability and training for state workforce needs.

A highly anticipated measure to help address the need for new affordable student housing with a zero-interest revolving loan fund would be suspended under the proposed budget.

On financial aid, the proposal forgoes a planned one-time investment of $289 million for the middle-class scholarship program. And a sweeping plan to significantly increase Cal Grants for needy students will not kick in this year due to the budget shortfall.

Sonya Christian, chancellor of California Community Colleges, said Newsom’s proposal maintains key investments, such as the $60-million expansion of nursing programs in community colleges.

Advertisement

Cuts to social services

Newsom’s budget proposal includes backtracking or delaying planned funding for numerous programs serving vulnerable Californians.

Child-welfare advocates were stunned Wednesday by a proposed $30-million reduction in funding for an urgent response program that helps youth in foster care and families in crisis, a move that could eliminate the service entirely.

“While we recognize the large deficit affecting the administration’s budget proposal, we can’t continue down this path of deprioritizing kids that has led to alarmingly poor outcomes,” Ted Lempert, president of the nonprofit group Children Now, said in a statement.

Other funding planned for this year has been delayed to make up for the shortfall.

That includes delaying $80 million for a program meant to reduce the number of families in the child welfare system experiencing homelessness, and $50 million for a program that helps homeless Californians with disabilities. The funds would be delayed to the 2025-26 budget under Newsom’s proposal.

Advertisement

And Behavioral Health Bridge Housing program designed to provide shelter to homeless Californians with serious mental health issues would see $235 million in funding delayed.

Some homeless funding delayed

Newsom proposed more than $1.2 billion in total cuts to a variety of housing programs, including regional planning grants, low-interest development loans and assistance for first-time home buyers, and suggested delaying payments until next year for several programs that address homelessness.

His plan would maintain $3.4 billion for homelessness, including funds to dismantle encampments and provide grants to local governments to prevent people from losing their homes.

Newsom spoke forcefully about the public’s demand to see results from the billions the state spends on homelessness.

“People have just had it,” he said. “They want these encampments cleaned up. They’re done. They’re fed up.”

Advertisement

Cuts to environmental programs

Newsom proposed cutting the state’s multiyear climate budget by 11% from the $54 billion approved in 2022, including reductions to clean-transportation programs and others that address forest maintenance, watershed resilience, coastal protection and rising sea levels.

“We would have hoped for a little bit more of a courageous proposal — something that is more creative and solutions-oriented about how to fund the transition that is so desperately needed toward clean energy and resilience,” said Mary Creasman, chief executive of California Environmental Voters.

Newsom acknowledged that 2023 was the planet’s hottest year on record, and vowed to “hold Big Oil accountable” for its role in the climate crisis. That includes a recommendation in the budget to eliminate some subsidies that benefit oil and gas corporations, such as funds geared toward intangible drilling costs and allowances for economic credits.

In a statement, Barry Vesser, chief operating officer with the Santa Rosa-based Climate Center, said that was a wise recommendation, but that the governor should go even further and eliminate all tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel corporations.

Times staff writers Mackenzie Mays, Queenie Wong, Hayley Smith, Howard Blume, Jenny Gold, Teresa Watanabe, Debbie Truong, Andrew Khouri and Doug Smith contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Published

on

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.

A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.

The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”

The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.

Advertisement

A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House.  (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)

“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.

What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.

“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.

BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING

Advertisement

The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)

The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024. 

“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.

Advertisement

DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED

President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.

Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Advertisement

The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Related Article

Top Biden officials questioned and criticized how his team issued pardons, used autopen: report
Continue Reading

Politics

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Published

on

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

Advertisement

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

Advertisement

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

Advertisement

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

Advertisement

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

Advertisement

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

Advertisement

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending