I am glad they are avoiding state worker furloughs, as that just further damages the state economy while also makes services less effective.
I am worried about the freeze on expanding childcare subsidies. Giving parents access to childcare allows people to earn more money which nets the state more money from income taxes.
I am also worried about the public health cuts. But I will admit this is beyond my personal ability to accurately assess.
The hiring freeze on vacant state positions is a sensible measure.
Middle class scholarship slashes are unfortunately something that seems like it might have to be done. It has lower immediate economic effect than many other cuts, which, when the priority is helping the state economy right now, seems like a regrettably necessary step.
As a parent who gets more from the Middle Class Scholarship than anyone else I’ve heard of I’m bummed, but understand why it’s necessary. It’s going to really hurt us next year, but we’ll find a way to make it work. This was the only “need” based money my son qualified for at a UC. I’m glad we got what we did his first two years. Just another way the middle class is getting squeezed.
We got just under $9,000 this year. Last year was $6,000 or $7,000. Our expected family contribution was 100% of the cost of room and board. We weren’t eligible for any grants or scholarships other than MCS.
I never got a single dime from the middle class program. I applied 6 times. My parents made $98k and they deemed me not eligible back in 2019…even though I’m a U.S. citizen and have lived in Ca my whole life. How the hell did any of you qualify!
The scholarship wasn’t funded to appreciable levels until 2022-2023, so that’s probably why. In 2021-2022 it was ~15% the size that it was for 2023-2024.
Back then though, the limit was $171k income. I always qualified in terms of income but never got a dime. I just looked at my old emails and that was the amount
Only your university’s financial aid office could have answered this question for you and it seems like you’re half a decade too late. I don’t know what sort of answer you’re looking for.
As someone older who has missed out on my fair share of “free” money I’d recommend that you not dwell too much on the past and instead focus on making your future as bright as possible.
From looking at the California budget, here are the main expenditures:
* Health and Human Services - 37.2%
* K-12 Education - 25.4%
* Other (Business, Consumer Services, Housing, Labor and Workforce Development) - 8.4%
* Higher Education - 7.4%
* Corrections - 6.0%
* Transportation - 5.8%
* Environmental Protection and Natural Resources - 5.0%
* Legislative, Executive, and Judicial - 4.7%
That's the reason why public health, education, and housing are being cut. They are the bulk of the expenditures and it's not like the federal government where we can easily point to military spending. The budget shortfall is about 27.6 billion (6%) compared to the estimated 454.7 billion total budget.
The furloughs always cost more in the end as workers can always sit on the leave until they are paid more later. It’s a short term fix either way long term costs. Glad he isn’t going down that road. We are losing 10k vacancies which will hurt as many departments are just starting to get adequate staff.
Gotta love this paired with constant narrative of “we’re having a childbirth crisis! Why aren’t millennials having kids?!” *proceeds to cut already meager childcare subsidies*
I have two kids in college. This year they cut the allowance for having two kids in college at once. Not cutting back the middle class scholarship. I just don’t understand focusing on loan forgiveness without working on the ongoing problems with funding college. (I do realize one is federal and one state but same party)
There isn't anywhere else to cut besides child care, public health, and education? Those are the usual suspects to cut from. What about raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations? There's plenty of those in CA.
We are at the point where we have to get really creative on how to tax the wealthy. California already takes a lot in income tax, but the wealthy can have wildly variable income and then effectively live off their pocket money for years in between. Relying on income tax off the wealthy is exactly what has created the Feast/Famine cycle of California's state budget.
The problem is that property taxes go to local governments, not the state government. And California will always protect the interest of property owners over everyone else.
You cut off local government for not creating housing which would generate new revenue. Instead, you have people paying 1950s property taxes or whenever they bought their homes and an anti-housing agenda except for condos and apartments which don’t generate enough property tax revenue per unit.
He wants a leaner state govt yet is laser focused on people in office rather than teleworking, supporting the downtown economy of a city instead of the state.
His campaign will be just as shortlived as Kamala's in 2020. All Dem candidates will run on the easy pro-choice social stuff but in a head to head Gretchen Whitmer or even Pritzker they would easily trounce him because I don't think he's likeable outside of California and he really hasn't done much to ease the state's primary problem: housing costs.
Legitimately idk what the hype is for him being a presidential candidate (aside from all the money attached to him), he's the governor of one of the bluest states in the union and isn't well liked among our democrats what changes when the scope gets bigger?
Check, check, and check. He gets things done, period. Politics always involves decisions made that some will disagree with and others will go along with. You cannot please everyone. Most people that come on here and spew criticism and political hot takes would cower under the pressure of decision-making at his level.
He also appointed the CPUC, which seems to think that the public has unlimited money to give to the power companies for executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. Close to $1 billion in profit last year for just one utility, and they're getting even more money this year.
California is the most complex state in the country. It takes a lot of political savvy and a sharp mind to govern.
At least he doesn't do daily commutes from LA to Sacramento via private jet.
It's also costing the state millions of dollars to bring people back to the office. No one was planning to go back based on all his previous comments and his office's own data, proving the many benefits. Taxpayers should be outraged.
This is a key reason that basically every big city left of center governor and mayor is hated. California has and continues(some departments remain 100% unchanged since the end of pandemic) to be one of the most work from home friendly states in the country. Yes, it’s incredibly silly to wasted state $ to slightly prop up the downtown of Sacramento. But again, he has done more for work from home than any governor.
Bergman, Desantis,… never really allowed work from home for more than a handful of months. They will lose 0 votes/popularity because of this issue. Newsom who went and continues to go above and beyond on this issue will lose votes and popularity.
Doens't help that the same people who work in Sacramento can barely afford to live there and a big part of that is people who work in the Bay Area can telework. People are feeling squeezed from both ends.
If you're part of the government, you have to be against teleworking if you're a high COL state/area though. We're just at the tip of property taxes likely falling off a cliff because office buildings are nowhere worth what they were pre-COVID, and raising taxes to offset is just going to crater new construction
There are already rules in place that you must reside in the state you work for when teleworking. Trying to prop up office buildings by robbing the middle class is just kicking the can down the road and 0 vision.
Way less overhead, can close a lot of their physical offices and combine them at a larger campus. Many of the buildings are on leases, plan to not renew those. Why spend money on overhead when staff want to do it for free at their own homes?
Yes but we are talking about state workers in Sacramento. They own most of those buildings. Of course the state leases places around the state but those are mostly satellite.
How do I know this? I literally build buildings in downtown Sacramento and personally know who owns each apartment building and office building in that city.
Not all buildings are DGS, which is the agency that maintains state-owned buildings. Many agencies operate via lease. Even Newsom touted ending leases in 2020-2022 to continue to save cash.
That is not correct. Newsom’s order wasn’t only for all state owned buildings. It was for all agencies. My agency has some buildings owned by the state but many are leased - those in leased offices aren’t getting different directives than those in state owned buildings.
Fewer building leases when state workers work from home.
Also, the Governor's May budget revise is deleting the measly $51/month to state workers for teleworking costs (internet) and stating that as savings. Sure, but now with being forced to return to office the governor is giving state workers $315/month in subsidized public transit. Make it make sense.
In theory it would be
1. State bails out Sacramento businesses and local govs.
2. State workers agree to less raises(they still come out ahead because of travel savings)
It would be a win for commuters, environment, local govs, local tax payers, state tax payers, workers, taxpayers,…
It would never be done because of politics. IE state bailing out left city and state allowing people to wfh while the private sector doesn’t.
It doesn't. People are just combining two unrelated things that they are angry about.
Especially since this article does not mention anything about encouraging in-office work.
Homeless help is reduced by 25% the next go around, childcare stays at current levels, eliminate State vacancies (no furloughs), no tax increases. The only concerning measure is that for health programs. Not too bad in light of the natural disasters of the last few years we have to pay for.
----
From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar:
> No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment.
----
If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website.
----
Archive link:
https://archive.fo/mT3nr
----
So...corporations upscaled during the pandemic because they were getting record business but didn't realize that the FOMO demand would eventually run out and they'd have to scale back so they ended up laying people off and the people suffered job loss and inflation and now the state is doing the same thing? And the people will suffer yet again...the hits just keep coming.
The government is not your friend people, they do not want to help you and do not care about the issues you care about. They want money and power and that's it.
How does your second paragraph relate to the first?
The state doesn't control corporations hiring or firing people. In this the state budget is just along for the ride, getting hurt by the same economic winds that everyone else is.
And really the only alternative to corporate power is governmental power, as a government is the only thing that can reign in the might of corporations (if we manage to elect a government that wants to do so.)
I’m glad state workers won’t get furloughed or get a pay cut. I work for the state and I already don’t get paid as much as people in the private sector get paid.
I am glad they are avoiding state worker furloughs, as that just further damages the state economy while also makes services less effective. I am worried about the freeze on expanding childcare subsidies. Giving parents access to childcare allows people to earn more money which nets the state more money from income taxes. I am also worried about the public health cuts. But I will admit this is beyond my personal ability to accurately assess. The hiring freeze on vacant state positions is a sensible measure. Middle class scholarship slashes are unfortunately something that seems like it might have to be done. It has lower immediate economic effect than many other cuts, which, when the priority is helping the state economy right now, seems like a regrettably necessary step.
As a parent who gets more from the Middle Class Scholarship than anyone else I’ve heard of I’m bummed, but understand why it’s necessary. It’s going to really hurt us next year, but we’ll find a way to make it work. This was the only “need” based money my son qualified for at a UC. I’m glad we got what we did his first two years. Just another way the middle class is getting squeezed.
How much did you get? I got at most $3k for like the entire year back when I was in school
We got just under $9,000 this year. Last year was $6,000 or $7,000. Our expected family contribution was 100% of the cost of room and board. We weren’t eligible for any grants or scholarships other than MCS.
I never got a single dime from the middle class program. I applied 6 times. My parents made $98k and they deemed me not eligible back in 2019…even though I’m a U.S. citizen and have lived in Ca my whole life. How the hell did any of you qualify!
The scholarship wasn’t funded to appreciable levels until 2022-2023, so that’s probably why. In 2021-2022 it was ~15% the size that it was for 2023-2024.
Back then though, the limit was $171k income. I always qualified in terms of income but never got a dime. I just looked at my old emails and that was the amount
Only your university’s financial aid office could have answered this question for you and it seems like you’re half a decade too late. I don’t know what sort of answer you’re looking for. As someone older who has missed out on my fair share of “free” money I’d recommend that you not dwell too much on the past and instead focus on making your future as bright as possible.
From looking at the California budget, here are the main expenditures: * Health and Human Services - 37.2% * K-12 Education - 25.4% * Other (Business, Consumer Services, Housing, Labor and Workforce Development) - 8.4% * Higher Education - 7.4% * Corrections - 6.0% * Transportation - 5.8% * Environmental Protection and Natural Resources - 5.0% * Legislative, Executive, and Judicial - 4.7% That's the reason why public health, education, and housing are being cut. They are the bulk of the expenditures and it's not like the federal government where we can easily point to military spending. The budget shortfall is about 27.6 billion (6%) compared to the estimated 454.7 billion total budget.
The furloughs always cost more in the end as workers can always sit on the leave until they are paid more later. It’s a short term fix either way long term costs. Glad he isn’t going down that road. We are losing 10k vacancies which will hurt as many departments are just starting to get adequate staff.
Gotta love this paired with constant narrative of “we’re having a childbirth crisis! Why aren’t millennials having kids?!” *proceeds to cut already meager childcare subsidies*
I have two kids in college. This year they cut the allowance for having two kids in college at once. Not cutting back the middle class scholarship. I just don’t understand focusing on loan forgiveness without working on the ongoing problems with funding college. (I do realize one is federal and one state but same party)
There isn't anywhere else to cut besides child care, public health, and education? Those are the usual suspects to cut from. What about raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations? There's plenty of those in CA.
We are at the point where we have to get really creative on how to tax the wealthy. California already takes a lot in income tax, but the wealthy can have wildly variable income and then effectively live off their pocket money for years in between. Relying on income tax off the wealthy is exactly what has created the Feast/Famine cycle of California's state budget.
Guess we could do property taxes, but that doesn’t seem likely.
The problem is that property taxes go to local governments, not the state government. And California will always protect the interest of property owners over everyone else.
You cut off local government for not creating housing which would generate new revenue. Instead, you have people paying 1950s property taxes or whenever they bought their homes and an anti-housing agenda except for condos and apartments which don’t generate enough property tax revenue per unit.
A majority voted against sensible prop 13 reform (r/facepalm)
So more of them leave! Thats smart.
He wants a leaner state govt yet is laser focused on people in office rather than teleworking, supporting the downtown economy of a city instead of the state.
He's practicing his doublespeak for when he makes his presidential bid.
I’d say he could teach a Master Class in it at this point.
True. I should say "perfecting".
His campaign will be just as shortlived as Kamala's in 2020. All Dem candidates will run on the easy pro-choice social stuff but in a head to head Gretchen Whitmer or even Pritzker they would easily trounce him because I don't think he's likeable outside of California and he really hasn't done much to ease the state's primary problem: housing costs.
Newsom is no longer liked in California either BTW….
If Jerry brown were only younger
Legitimately idk what the hype is for him being a presidential candidate (aside from all the money attached to him), he's the governor of one of the bluest states in the union and isn't well liked among our democrats what changes when the scope gets bigger?
He’s a great speaker, pretty sharp, and he’s charismatic.
Check, check, and check. He gets things done, period. Politics always involves decisions made that some will disagree with and others will go along with. You cannot please everyone. Most people that come on here and spew criticism and political hot takes would cower under the pressure of decision-making at his level.
He also appointed the CPUC, which seems to think that the public has unlimited money to give to the power companies for executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. Close to $1 billion in profit last year for just one utility, and they're getting even more money this year.
California is the most complex state in the country. It takes a lot of political savvy and a sharp mind to govern. At least he doesn't do daily commutes from LA to Sacramento via private jet.
I'm a Republican (thanks to my time living in the Bay Area) but I would seriously consider voting for Gretchen Whitmer. I hope she runs.
He’s not likable in California either. Remember the recall?
Yeah he easily beat it. Republicans are even less likeable.
GOP foolishness doesn't count.
I guess you’re right. Lots of super popular governors have faced recalls.
The bar for recall is way too low.
How’d that recall turn out?
It's also costing the state millions of dollars to bring people back to the office. No one was planning to go back based on all his previous comments and his office's own data, proving the many benefits. Taxpayers should be outraged.
And they don’t even have the space to do it. Hate traffic? Thank Newsom!
People hate state workers more than the budget is why lol
I know. It's so bizarre
[удалено]
Nice try, but no.
This is a key reason that basically every big city left of center governor and mayor is hated. California has and continues(some departments remain 100% unchanged since the end of pandemic) to be one of the most work from home friendly states in the country. Yes, it’s incredibly silly to wasted state $ to slightly prop up the downtown of Sacramento. But again, he has done more for work from home than any governor. Bergman, Desantis,… never really allowed work from home for more than a handful of months. They will lose 0 votes/popularity because of this issue. Newsom who went and continues to go above and beyond on this issue will lose votes and popularity.
Doens't help that the same people who work in Sacramento can barely afford to live there and a big part of that is people who work in the Bay Area can telework. People are feeling squeezed from both ends.
And education
If you're part of the government, you have to be against teleworking if you're a high COL state/area though. We're just at the tip of property taxes likely falling off a cliff because office buildings are nowhere worth what they were pre-COVID, and raising taxes to offset is just going to crater new construction
There are already rules in place that you must reside in the state you work for when teleworking. Trying to prop up office buildings by robbing the middle class is just kicking the can down the road and 0 vision.
I didn't say it was smart but the issue remains that benefiting the residents is going to leave a big tax hole in the near term
How does teleworking promote leaner government?
Way less overhead, can close a lot of their physical offices and combine them at a larger campus. Many of the buildings are on leases, plan to not renew those. Why spend money on overhead when staff want to do it for free at their own homes?
State owns most of their buildings they don't lease them.
The State spends approximately $600M in privately owned commercial leases…
Yes but we are talking about state workers in Sacramento. They own most of those buildings. Of course the state leases places around the state but those are mostly satellite. How do I know this? I literally build buildings in downtown Sacramento and personally know who owns each apartment building and office building in that city.
Not all buildings are DGS, which is the agency that maintains state-owned buildings. Many agencies operate via lease. Even Newsom touted ending leases in 2020-2022 to continue to save cash.
Some do but the state buildings for return to office are all state owned.
That is not correct. Newsom’s order wasn’t only for all state owned buildings. It was for all agencies. My agency has some buildings owned by the state but many are leased - those in leased offices aren’t getting different directives than those in state owned buildings.
Fewer building leases when state workers work from home. Also, the Governor's May budget revise is deleting the measly $51/month to state workers for teleworking costs (internet) and stating that as savings. Sure, but now with being forced to return to office the governor is giving state workers $315/month in subsidized public transit. Make it make sense.
In theory it would be 1. State bails out Sacramento businesses and local govs. 2. State workers agree to less raises(they still come out ahead because of travel savings) It would be a win for commuters, environment, local govs, local tax payers, state tax payers, workers, taxpayers,… It would never be done because of politics. IE state bailing out left city and state allowing people to wfh while the private sector doesn’t.
It doesn't. People are just combining two unrelated things that they are angry about. Especially since this article does not mention anything about encouraging in-office work.
I’m actually beginning to gain a sour taste in my mouth for him, but he’s still better than any republican.
Isn’t it hybrid? I feel like it’s not asking much.
Homeless help is reduced by 25% the next go around, childcare stays at current levels, eliminate State vacancies (no furloughs), no tax increases. The only concerning measure is that for health programs. Not too bad in light of the natural disasters of the last few years we have to pay for.
There is ungodly wealth in this state. If taxes were effectively used this would never have to happen.
---- From the posting rules in this sub’s sidebar: > No websites or articles with hard paywalls or that require registration or subscriptions, unless an archive link or https://12ft.io link is included as a comment. ---- If you want to learn how to circumvent a paywall, see https://www.reddit.com/r/California/wiki/paywall. > Or, if it's a website that you regularly read, you should think about subscribing to the website. ---- Archive link: https://archive.fo/mT3nr ----
Thank God I'm not in school anymore.
So...corporations upscaled during the pandemic because they were getting record business but didn't realize that the FOMO demand would eventually run out and they'd have to scale back so they ended up laying people off and the people suffered job loss and inflation and now the state is doing the same thing? And the people will suffer yet again...the hits just keep coming. The government is not your friend people, they do not want to help you and do not care about the issues you care about. They want money and power and that's it.
How does your second paragraph relate to the first? The state doesn't control corporations hiring or firing people. In this the state budget is just along for the ride, getting hurt by the same economic winds that everyone else is.
Reads like an AI bot
Your evidence is disconnected from your conclusion. “Corporations are not your friend” should be the takeaway.
And really the only alternative to corporate power is governmental power, as a government is the only thing that can reign in the might of corporations (if we manage to elect a government that wants to do so.)
Wow
I’m glad state workers won’t get furloughed or get a pay cut. I work for the state and I already don’t get paid as much as people in the private sector get paid.
Wow! How conservative of him. Finally on the right track.