Grading Gavin Newsom’s house-of-cards rule over California | Opinion

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s final budget is the final piece of what can only be known as a house-of-cards governorship. Newsom has spent nearly eight years preparing a run for the presidency, bragging about accomplishments that exist only in his mind — and this budget is no different. Facing criticism over sticking his still-unknown successor with a structural budget deficit, Newsom fudged the numbers and wrote some talking points and told everyone what a great job he did.

“Governor Newsom announces revised budget that eliminates California’s deficit, maintains investments for working families, healthcare, education, and businesses,” blared a press release announcing the revision.

Sounds great. But the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has a different perspective.

“For several years, we have cautioned that structural deficits were emerging and would soon require corrective action,” wrote the LAO.

“Despite the current revenue boom, the state now faces a structural budget imbalance—meaning ongoing revenues are insufficient to support ongoing expenditures.”

Sure, it’s a difference of opinion. But who do you trust: the one who says anything to get national attention or the one who diligently submits nonpartisan, objective analysis? As the LAO sees it, the state is over-reliant upon income tax, which is volatile, and Newsom has grown the size of the state budget by more than 70% during his two terms in office.

“The state’s current fiscal situation is genuinely unprecedented. Despite booming revenues, the budget position is overextended, reflecting: a structurally higher spending base, diminished reserves, an already accumulated wall of debt, and an operating deficit,” concludes the LAO. Both Newsom and the LAO are making projections based on assumptions, which no one is able to do at this level with pinpoint precision. Newsom has increased spending to levels that are unsustainable, which means you either need more revenue or fewer expenses. It’s irresponsible by any measure. But the bigger question Californians should ask is what they’re getting for the increased spending.

Homelessness is as bad as ever in the state, despite Newsom’s comical promise five years ago to “end family homelessness in five years.” In fact, Newsom spent more than $37 billion on homelessness programs since entering office while the total population climbed to record highs.

Per pupil spending under Newsom has increased 46%. Yet 8th grade math and reading scores have declined.

Newsom campaigned on a promise to build 3.5 million new housing units, while a mere fraction has been built. Do you see a trend? It’s really hard to think of an area besides wasting a lot of other people’s money where Newsom has excelled, which is what makes his campaign for president so ridiculous. What is he even campaigning on? Well, he often talks about abstract stuff like the size of California’s economy and the number of Nobel Laureates living in the state. Unfortunately for Newsom, these exist independent of him. Don’t forget that not too long ago, California had a significant budget surplus of around $98 billion and Newsom turned that into a structural deficit. Newsom had been enjoying a booming stock market, and had built subsequent budgets with increased spending on the presumption that revenues would keep up. They didn’t. Is the same thing happening now? The LAO concedes that Newsom’s assumptions are more reasonable than before, but dings him for drawing on reserves and borrowing money to balance the budget. And if you’re dipping into savings and borrowing money to pay your bills, you’re going broke. The final budget really sums up the Newsom governorship nicely. Big on talk, light on accomplishments and one good gust from toppling over. It’s Newsom in a nutshell

Matt Fleming is an opinion writer living in Placer County. You can follow him on X @Flemingwords or connect via email: flemingwords@gmail.com.