Business

Strong Support, Harsh Criticisms Linger as Gov. Newsom’s Budget Begins Final Negotiations

Newsom’s budget includes increased investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in education (at all levels), housing, the private sector, clean energy, agriculture, reproductive health, public safety, and more. As California makes investments and builds programs, the governor said, its spending must reflect its values.

Published

3 years ago

May 30, 2022

Oakland Post

California state capitol. File photo.

By Tanu Henry, California Black Media

On May 13, Gov. Gavin Newsom held a press conference in Sacramento to present his $300.6 billion revised budget for fiscal year 2022-23. He has dubbed the spending plan the California Blueprint. It is the largest budget proposal in the 172-year history of the state.

During the briefing, Newsom also announced that the state is expected to have a whopping budget surplus that will increase to $97.5 billion by the summer of 2023.

“Simply without precedent: No other state in American history has ever experienced a surplus as large as this,” said Newsom.

“Backed by a robust surplus and grounded in our unshakable values, we’re paving the California way forward to prosperity and progress for all,” Newsom continued, summarizing his spending plan.

“With historic investments, we’re doubling down on our formula for success and making sure no one is left behind – supporting working families and businesses, tackling climate change, expanding health care access, making our communities safer, and more,” he said.

As California makes investments and builds programs, the governor said, its spending must reflect its values.

“California values make us competitive globally,” said Newsom. “There is a reason California’s economy outperforms every other economy in the Western Hemisphere – 7.8% GDP growth just in the last year.”

State Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), a member of the California Legislative Black Caucus and chair of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, praised the governor’s spending plan.

“I commend the governor for conveying the message through programs, healthcare, and pay equity that California will continue to thrive,” Holden said. “The proposal sets strong precedent for those still struggling through the disparate impact of the pandemic and ensures that California continues to keep the environment top of mind.”

Reacting to the governor’s budget announcement, Republican leadership in the California Assembly criticized theNewsom’s proposal, calling it “ineffective.”

“The Governor may not want to acknowledge it, but California is in crisis,” read the statement authored by Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) and Assemblymember Vince Fong (R- Bakersfield), Vice Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee.

“Everyday Californians are being crushed by an affordability crisis worsened by 40-year high inflation,” Gallagher and Fong’s statement continued. “While the governor makes flashy political headlines, he continues to fail to make investments that will help Californians endure these tough financial times.”

On the other hand, California’s second African American Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, said Newsom’s plan to invest $128.3 billion in education, “lifts up the most critical needs” of students and schools across the state.

“As we continue to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, California public schools will see a much-needed infusion of investments at a time when students and schools, especially those that have been traditionally underserved, require more support than ever before,” Thurmond said.

Throughout his budget presentation, the governor acknowledged the challenges Californians are facing because of rapid inflation.

“The most important thing on people’s minds, understandably, is ‘How do I lower costs?’ High inflation. Record inflation,” said Newsom. “What are we going to do to ease that burden?”

“That’s why we are proposing $18.1 billion to put back in the pockets of tens of millions of Californians,” Newsom continued.

The governor’s inflation relief plan includes $11.5 billion in tax refunds; $2.7 billion in emergency rental assistance; $750 million for free public transit; $933 million in stipends for hospital and nursing home staff; $1.4 billion to help low-income families pay utility bills; $304 million in middle class health care subsidies; $439 million to offset a proposed diesel tax pause; $157 million to cover fee waivers for childcare, among other investments.

Assemblymember James Ramos (D-Highland), the only Native American member of the California Legislature, says he looks forward to working with the governor to hammer out the details of the budget plan.

“Confronting the deadly fentanyl crisis, retail theft, supporting mental health services and fighting to reduce the numbers of murdered and missing Indigenous people have also been the focus of my legislation since assuming office,” Ramos said.

Three days after the governor unveiled his budget proposal, California’s non-partisan, independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) warned that the state could face an economic downturn soon.

“Predicting precisely when the next recession will occur is not possible. However, certain economic indicators historically have offered warning signs that a recession is on the horizon. Many of these indicators currently suggest a heightened risk of a recession within two years,” the LAO report stated.

Republican leaders criticized what they called the Governor’s ineffective proposals on the rising price of gas, housing affordability and the critical water shortage the state is facing. “Ignoring the people’s financial burdens, the governor refuses to provide immediate gas tax relief,” said Gallagher and Wong in their joint statement. “He did not propose any permanent tax relief to deal with a worsening affordability crisis exacerbated by his policies. Given the bone-dry conditions caused by the third year of drought, he stubbornly dismisses the cry to build more water storage and accelerate wildfire prevention projects.”

Under California state law, the governor and Legislature must complete the budget negotiation process and approve the spending proposal for the next fiscal year by June 15. The governor has until June 30 to sign it into law.

“This year’s budget is unprecedented in some of the challenges that it presents, but the Assembly has been preparing for months to meet those challenges,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood). “It is also reassuring to have the Senate and Pro Tem Toni Atkins as teammates for this budget process. We know how to work together to present Governor Gavin Newsom with a budget he can be proud to sign by the constitutional deadline.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Moses Fleetwood Walker; Baseball’s True First

Don't Miss

#5.24.2022 HEADLINES

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of June 18 – 24, 2025

Published

2 days ago

June 20, 2025

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

3 days ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌

Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

Published

5 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock.

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.