Saturday, November 3, 2018


WEST HOLLYWOOD WELCOME MAT FOR ILLEGALS… Not a single employer of illegals ever prosecuted in this LA RAZA SANCTUARY CITY where they print voting ballots in Spanish so illegals can vote for more!

The Golden State Won’t Glitter for Republicans

In California, the GOP is on life support, and stands to get routed in the midterms.
November 2, 2018
Politics and law

California’s Republican Party was once a force to be feared, not only in the state, but across the country. Nowadays, it’s at most a mild irritant and sometimes a convenient whipping boy for the Democratic progressives, who run the state almost entirely. Nothing is working much for the GOP this year. The Republican gubernatorial candidate, John Cox, has little charisma, no discernible local roots, and no compelling message. He sneaked into the runoff election because too many Democrats vied for the job. He’ll be thrashed by Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, likely by a wide margin. As governor, Newsom will probably preside over a legislative super-majority that will marginalize the Republicans even further.
The Senate race is no bargain, either, for conservatives and even moderates. The choice is between octogenarian incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Kevin De Leon, leader of the state senate and proxy for ultra-green mega-donor Tom Steyer. Worse yet, at least for the national GOP, California would see as many as six or seven California congressional seats flip to the Democrats. Most are in traditional Republican strongholds like Orange and San Diego counties, where longtime voter-registration trends are transforming the electorate. In Orange County, for example, party registration levels are now about equal; in 2004, the GOP held a 14 percent edge.
California’s one-party shift happened quickly. As recently as a decade ago, a nominal Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sat in the governor’s mansion, and Republicans in the legislature retained some influence. The roots of the Republican collapse lie largely in demographics. The GOP base—made up mostly of white, middle-class voters—is shrinking. In the last decade, California’s white population declined by more than 700,000 people, while the Hispanic population surged by more than 2 million, and Asians by 1 million. At the same time, according to IRS figures, those leaving the state tended to be working-class and middle-class families, with the biggest net losses among the prime child-bearing cohort, those between 35 and 44 years of age—a natural Republican constituency.
To win in today’s California, you must appeal to non-whites. In 2012, the California electorate was about half non-Hispanic white; by 2030, that ratio will drop closer to 40 percent. Some Republicans, particularly Asians in Orange County, have made breakthroughs and dominate local offices. But when it comes to national issues, Asians, despite their relative wealth and opposition to affirmative action in college admissions, remain reliable members of the Democrats’ “rainbow” coalition of aggrieved racial minorities. In 1998, the percentage of Asians nationwide identifying with Democrats was 53 percent; today, it’s 65 percent.
Economic changes have also worked to progressives’ advantage. California’s growth engine, once dispersed across the state, has become concentrated in the ultra-liberal Bay Area. As more conservative-leaning industries such as energy, manufacturing, and suburban homebuilding have faltered, media, software, and medical services, all tending to lean Left, have expanded. This shift has also tilted the power of money in the state decisively, with Democrats regularly outspending their GOP opponents across the state. In the state’s critical House races, the ratio is greater than two-to-one. An economy increasingly bifurcated between a sizeable high-wage population and an ever-expanding cadre of low-paid service workers works brilliantly to the advantage of the ruling regime. If the tech giants continue earning capital gains to keep the state fiscally viable, Sacramento can offer more subsidies, and other inducements, to the permanently poor.
But not all the woes of the California GOP stem from inexorable outside forces. The party has been misguided in continuing to focus on issues like taxes and crime that voters don’t find as compelling as they did 20 years ago. There are, however, real concerns about the economy, particularly as it affects millennials and the generation following them, who are finding homeownership, or even landing a job with decent pay, a challenge. According to one 2017 survey, every age group in California thought that the next generation would do worse, though people in their late forties and older—with children and grandchildren—were most pessimistic. Yet neither Cox nor any other Republican has made a strong, coherent  case against the state’s lurch toward feudalism.
If anything, outside of supporting a repeal of the latest gas tax—opposed by the party’s onetime business base—the Republicans offer no program capable of winning over middle-class Californians. And even the gas-tax repeal looks destined to fail. In some contested congressional districts, the Republicans seem outgunned and outthought. My own Orange County district, now represented by Republican Mimi Walters, is likely to flip; Walters’s Democratic opponent, Katie Porter, appears to be outspending her two-to-one. Though the area is Republican-leaning, I see many more Porter ads, both on television and on the Internet, and have been visited twice by her canvassers, but not once by anyone for Walters. Porter hopes to make headway by linking Walters to President Trump’s anti-immigration positions, a critical factor in a district now just 55 percent white, with large Asian and Hispanic voting blocs. Walters epitomizes the Republican delusion that somehow Orange County belongs to them. It doesn’t. Instead of giving voters any compelling reason to vote for her, Walters has relied on the timeworn device of labeling Porter as a free-spending liberal. Even if Walters and some of her GOP congressional compatriots slip through this cycle, their days in office are numbered.
On its current trajectory, California seems doomed to become a permanent one-party state, where oligarchs and their allies in the progressive clerisy—media, universities, bureaucracies—rule without effective opposition. Chapman University political scientist Fred Smoller, an expert on local politics and a lifelong Democrat, suggests that this would be bad for everyone, including liberals. “We really have to have two parties,” Smoller suggests, “or the Democrats will give everything to the unions.”
Some hopeful signs of pushback exist, not from Republicans, but from independent candidates running as problem-solving pragmatists. Independent voters already outnumber Republican voters. This is not a return to Reaganism, but rather, an effort to provide an alternative to the progressives, without being burdened by what former GOP congressman Tom Campbell calls the party’s “toxic label.”
A centrist could appeal precisely to the diverse middle-class voters who care about the state’s failing education system, its precarious long-term fiscal condition, and its flagging economic growth. Independent candidates this year include charter school advocate and registered Democrat Marshall Tuck, running for superintendent of education, and tech executive Steve Poizner, a registered Republican seeking to become insurance commissioner. Both, unlike Cox, have a chance to win. Money is a key difference here. Tuck, fighting against a teachers’ union satrap, Tony Thurmond, has stayed financially competitive, in part due to contributions from wealthy donors like Eli Broad and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Poizner, himself a billionaire, has outspent his Democratic opponent.
Inevitably, the progressives will overreach. Already, Measure 10, to expand rent control, looks headed to a surprisingly decisive defeat at the hands of a broad range of small property owners and real estate interests. Future efforts to impose an expensive single-payer health-care system, or to overturn Proposition 13 (limiting property taxes), might alienate suburban families and high-income taxpayers. A downturn in the tech economy, which has been fattening state coffers, could make frugality popular again.
In the interim, California will remain hostile territory for conservatives, particularly considering that Trump is very unpopular in the state, and given the electorate’s broad support—enforced by shrill, univocal media coverage—for the climate-change agenda. But many views associated with the Right—fiscal prudence, charter schools, and reviving economic growth beyond the tech sector—could be packaged to appeal to the minorities and millennials now fueling the progressive tide. Local control over zoning and land use, which has support from about 70 percent of the electorate, according to a new USC Dornsife poll, could energize voters seeking to avoid the state’s ever-more intrusive planning regime. Independents could also win over parts of the state—notably the interior, home to one in three Californians—by opposing the fashionable progressive lunacy imposed by the Bay Area-dominated political class. There’s already opposition among Latinos, especially inland, to some of the most punitive state measures that boost energy and home prices.
The time may come when candidates with the GOP label score on these issues. For now, though, Californians concerned about the state’s direction look mostly in vain for likeminded politicians who stand any chance of winning at the polls.


Ask Democrats why they support open borders, and they will invariably respond: "Because we need immigrants to pay for our pensions."  This argument is a sham.  The data are conclusive: immigration will not save America's welfare system.  It will bleed it dry.
John Cassidy sums up the sham argument in his piece for the New Yorker:
Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation's finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults – the age-dependency ratio – rises.  The reason is straightforward: Social Security and Medicare are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that some of the taxes paid by current workers are transferred to current retirees.  If the dependency ratio rises, the financial burden on the working-age population also increases.
Cassidy's diagnosis of the problem is correct.  America's population is aging, and this is a problem because America's welfare state is structured like a giant Ponzi scheme.  Although taxpayers contribute to the system throughout their lives, they never see this money.  Instead, they pay for the previous generation's retirement with assurances that the next generation will pay for theirs.  Welfare is a vampire that requires fresh blood to survive.  This is the root of Cassidy's error.
Cassidy proposes three possible solutions.  First, America could "reduce the level of retirement benefits significantly – but that would be very unpopular and difficult to achieve politically."
Second, Cassidy suggests raising the workforce participation rate, which he notes has fallen from 64.6 to 60.4 percent since 2000.  He says this could work temporarily, but it is just a bandage solution – eventually, people will retire.  True.
After dismissing the above options, Cassidy settles upon increasing immigration as the best way forward:
The final option is to welcome more immigrants, particularly younger immigrants, so that, in the coming decades, they and their descendants will find work and contribute to the tax base.  Almost all economists agree that immigration raises G.D.P. and stimulates business development by increasing the supply of workers and entrepreneurs.
Basically, immigrants will replace the sons and daughters Americans never had, thus perpetuating the current system indefinitely.  This is a bizarre conclusion to draw for the simple fact that immigrants are a net burden on the welfare state.

CBS screen grab via YouTube.
The preponderance of data shows that immigration and socialism are incompatible.
A 2017 study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that although America's immigrant population is (theoretically) revenue-neutral, most immigrants are actually a drain on the system.  The economic impact of immigrants follows a Pareto distribution.  Commonly known as the 80:20 Rule, this just means that a hyper-productive few immigrants provide most of the economic gains, while the majority of immigrants contribute (less than) nothing.
Specifically, half of all immigrants actually receive more in government handouts than they pay in taxes, while another third contribute roughly as much as they receive.  Only ~15 percent of immigrants contribute to the economy in a meaningful way.  Cassidy overlooks the significance of this non-linear data: if immigration as a whole is revenue-neutral, then increasing the immigration rate will do nothing to save the welfare system.
When it comes to immigration, less is more.
Other major studies reach similar conclusions.  For example, a study conducted by Denmark's Ministry of Finance found that immigrants are a net drain on the nation's welfare state.  In fact, non-E.U. immigrants, and their descendants, consumed 59 percent of the tax surplus collected from native Danes.  This is not surprising, since some 84 percent of all welfare recipients in Denmark are immigrants, or their descendants.
Another major study from the University College of London found that immigrants in the U.K. consumed far more in welfare than they paid in taxes.  The study looked at the Labor government's mass immigration push between 1995 and 2011.  The researchers found that immigrants from the European Economic Area made a small but positive net contribution to the British economy of £4.4 billion during the period.  However, non-European immigrants (primarily from South Asia, the Middle East, and Africa) cost the British economy a net £120 billion.
Together, these studies show that mass immigration undermines domestic welfare systems for the simple fact that most immigrants take more than they give.  Cassidy is clearly wrong.
Finding Narnia
Cassidy's argument is also based on a false dilemma: his three solutions are not the only options.  In fact, none of them is even the best option.
To "pay for our pensions" Americans do not need entitlement reform, a higher workforce participation rate, nor immigration.  America needs economic growth – real, sustained economic growth, the sort driven by the invention and adoption of better technology.
Unlike immigration, which grows the economy in a linear way, technology can cause exponential growth.  Consider the Industrial Revolution: Edmund Cartwright's power loom increased the productivity of British textile weavers by a multiple of 40.  To grow the economy an equal amount via immigration, Britain would have needed to import 39 additional weavers for every British weaver.  Clearly, technology is the better option – yet Cassidy argues in favor of immigration.
If Americans want to save the welfare state, then they need to restrict immigration and grow the economy.  Period.
Spencer P Morrison, J.D., B.A. is a writer and independent intellectual with a focus on applied philosophy, empirical history, and practical economics.  He is the author of Bobbins, Not Gold and the editor-in-chief of the National Economics Editorial.

California Audit: $4 Billion Paid to Cover Medi-Cal for Ineligible People

Obamacare enrollment (Justin Sullivan / Getty)
Justin Sullivan / Getty
  Newport Beach, CA49

A California state audit has found the state government paid $4 billion to provide Medi-Cal coverage for almost a half million potentially ineligible people between 2014 and 2017.

California State Auditor Elaine Howle released an audit on October 30 that revealed “pervasive discrepancies between the state and county systems when we compared Medi-Cal beneficiary eligibility data—more than 453,000 beneficiaries were marked as eligible in the State’s system but were not listed as eligible in county systems.”
In addition, the audit found 54,000 people who were marked eligible in the county systems but not the state, which may have delayed access for entitled services.
The audit, prepared for the California legislature, documented that over half the state enrollment “discrepancies” that were not in the county systems had lasted for more than two years. As a result, $3 billion in managed care premiums and $1 billion in fee-for-service claims may have been improperly paid.
To qualify for Medi-Cal under federal rules, a single adult must earn less than $16,754 a year. Although California only has about 12 percent of America’s population, it accounts for 18.5 percent of all Medicaid participants. The latest enrollment figures for the joint federal- and state-funded Medi-Cal program as of May 2018 were 13,171,041, or over 33 percent of the state’s population and about half of its youth.
The California audit follows a February U.S. Health and Human Services Inspector General report that estimated that the state enrolled 366,078 ineligible persons through the Obamacare Medicaid expansion at a cost of $738.2 million. The Inspector General also found that California spent another $416.5 million for 79,055 expansion enrollees who were “potentially” ineligible.

The most egregious example cited in the California audit was a resident of Los Angeles County that died in December 2013, yet the state continued to make regular monthly payments to the beneficiary’s Medi-Cal health plan until August of this year. The estimated payments for an individual that the state “should have known was no longer in need of services” amounted to $383,000.
The Democratic candidate for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, backs universal health care for California — though he does not have a plan to pay for it.


California’s “motor voter” scheme may be sending one million illegals to the polls.

On Tuesday, San Francisco will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens to vote, and the city has spent $310,000 on a “new registration system” specifically aimed at illegals. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, the plan is the first in the state and follows Proposition N, a 2016 ballot measure allowing votes by noncitizens over the age of 18, reside in the city, and have children under age 19.
By the count of the Chronicle, only 49 noncitizens have signed up to vote on Tuesday, which works out to $6,326 for every illegal voter, but there’s more to the story. City officials are worried that voting could expose illegals to ICE, who might come looking and possibly deport somebody. So supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer, a backer of Proposition N, urged the city to spend $500,000 to warn the illegals.
Whatever San Francisco spends, their effort pales in comparison with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles. The DMV’s 2015, “motor voter” law allowed the DMV automatically to register as voters those who get driver’s licenses. Secretary of State Alex Padilla claimed that protocols and “firewalls” would keep ineligibles from voting, but there was room for reasonable doubt.
After the 2016 election, Padilla refused to release any information to a federal probe of voter fraud, which he called a “false and debunked” claim. In 2015, on the other hand, Padilla told the Los Angeles Times, “at the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California.” True to form, by March, 2018, the DMV had given licenses to more than one million illegals
In September, the DMV announced 23,000 “erroneous” registrations, but it quickly emerged that from April to August, the DMV had registered 182,000 “new voters.” Some legislators pushed for an audit but that is being handled by the department of finance, under the control of governor Jerry Brown, who supports the state’s sanctuary legislation.
Californians could be forgiven for believing that the “erroneous” registrations are a dodge and that one million or more illegals will be going to the polls on Tuesday. That could tip the scales in several key races.
In June, Democrat Ammar Yasser Najjar changed his name to Ammar Joseph Campa-Najjar. He is the grandson of Palestinian terrorist Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, of the 1972 Munich massacre, and seeking to unseat Rep. Duncan Hunter in San Diego. The Democrat’s father, Yasser al-Najjar, has served as a de-facto ambassador for the Palestinian Authority. His son Ammar worked for the reelection of POTUS 44 in 2012 and at this writing the race with Hunter is tight. Illegal votes could make the difference.
In Orange County, Democrat Gil Cisneros vies with Republican Young Kim for the seat of retiring Ed Royce. Navy veteran Cisneros won $266 million in the California lottery in 2010 and decided to go into politics. The lucky guy supports DACA and opposes President Trump’s immigration policies. Kim holds a slight edge but “new voters,” code for illegals, could tip the race.
Back in 1996, 642 illegals voted for Democrat Loretta Sanchez, who defeated Republican Robert Dornan by fewer than 1,000 votes. As a State Department investigation discovered, false-documented illegals have been voting in local, state, and federal elections for decades. Now San Francisco is up front about it and funding the illegal voters.   
The noncitizens will be allowed to vote only for school board members, but that limitation is  temporary. As school commissioner Shamann Walton told the Los Angeles Times, “Trump will not always be president,” and “hopefully we’ll have leaders who are inclusive and really believe that if you are a resident of this country, you should have the same rights as other people.”
Those “other people,” as it happens, are legitimate citizens and legal immigrants. As they might note, California gives illegals welfare, driver’s licenses, and in-state tuition. In college admissions California even prefers illegals over out-of-state American students, a violation of state law, the 1996 Proposition 209.
California’s sanctuary state law gives protection to violent criminal illegals such as racist Mexican Luis Bracamontes, who in 2014 gunned down police officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis in Sacramento. In 2014 San Francisco released criminal illegal Garcia Zarate, or whatever his real name is, rather than hand him over to federal immigration authorities. In short order, the repeatedly deported Mexican national gunned down Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. Governor Jerry Brown was rather quiet about that.
In Mendota, near Fresno, the criminal illegals of MS-13 have imposed a reign of terror, hacking people to death, as ruling Democrats look the other way. That’s the way it is in California, where Democrats have made false-documented illegals a privileged, protected class. Those “other people” should not be surprised if more than a million illegals return the favor by showing up at the polls on Tuesday. 

Everyday there are 12 Americans murdered and 8 children molested by Mexicans!
Steinle’s murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
"While walking with her father on a pier in San Francisco in 2015, Steinle was shot by the illegal alien. Steinle pleaded with her father to not let her die, but she soon passed in her father’s arms."








In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER –


According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s 2017 report, illegal immigrants, and their children, cost American taxpayers a net $116 billion annually -- roughly $7,000 per alien annually. While high, this number is not an outlier: a recent study by the Heritage Foundation found that low-skilled immigrants (including those here illegally) cost Americans trillions over the course of their lifetimes, and a study from the National Economics Editorial found that illegal immigration costs America over $140 billion annually. As it stands, illegal immigrants are a massive burden on American taxpayers.

Adios, Sanctuary La Raza Welfare State of California   
A fifth-generation Californian laments his state’s ongoing economic collapse.
By Steve Baldwin
American Spectator, October 19, 2017
What’s clear is that the producers are leaving the state and the takers are coming in. Many of the takers are illegal aliens, now estimated to number over 2.6 million. 
The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that California spends $22 billion on government services for illegal aliens, including welfare, education, Medicaid, and criminal justice system costs. 



Liberals claim they more than make that up with taxes paid, but that’s simply not true. It’s not even close. FAIR estimates illegal aliens in California contribute only $1.21 billion in tax revenue, which means they cost California $20.6 billion, or at least $1,800 per household.
Nonetheless, open border advocates, such as Facebook Chairman Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the Center for Immigration Studies has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegal aliens were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, California, with its 2.6 million illegal aliens, would be booming.
Furthermore, the complexion of illegal aliens has changed with far more on welfare and committing crimes than those who entered the country in the 1980s. 
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has testified before a Congressional committee that in 2004, 95% of all outstanding warrants for murder in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens; in 2000, 23% of all Los Angeles County jail inmates were illegal aliens and that in 1995, 60% of Los Angeles’s largest street gang, the 18th Street gang, were illegal aliens. Granted, those statistics are old, but if you talk to any California law enforcement officer, they will tell you it’s much worse today. The problem is that the Brown administration will not release any statewide data on illegal alien crimes. That would be insensitive. And now that California has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” there is little doubt this sends a message south of the border that will further escalate illegal immigration into the state.

"If the racist "Sensenbrenner Legislation" passes the US Senate, there is no doubt that a massive civil disobedience movement will emerge. Eventually labor union power can merge with the immigrant civil rights and "Immigrant Sanctuary" movements to enable us to either form a new political party or to do heavy duty reforming of the existing Democratic Party. The next and final steps would follow and that is to elect our own governors of all the states within Aztlan." 
Indeed, California goes out of its way to attract illegal aliens. The state has even created government programs that cater exclusively to illegal aliens. For example, the State Department of Motor Vehicles has offices that only process driver licenses for illegal aliens. With over a million illegal aliens now driving in California, the state felt compelled to help them avoid the long lines the rest of us must endure at the DMV. 
And just recently, the state-funded University of California system announced it will spend $27 million on financial aid for illegal aliens. They’ve even taken out radio spots on stations all along the border, just to make sure other potential illegal border crossers hear about this program. I can’t afford college education for all my four sons, but my taxes will pay for illegals to get a college education.

If Immigration Creates Wealth, Why Is California America's Poverty Capital?

California used to be home to America's largest and most affluent middle class.  Today, it is America's poverty capital.  What went wrong?  In a word: immigration.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Official Poverty Measure, California's poverty rate hovers around 15 percent.  But this figure is misleading: the Census Bureau measures poverty relative to a uniform national standard, which doesn't account for differences in living costs between states – the cost of taxes, housing, and health care are higher in California than in Oklahoma, for example.  Accounting for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is 20.6 percent – the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7 percent.

Likewise, income inequality in California is the second-highest in America, behind only New York.  In fact, if California were an independent country, it would be the 17th most unequal country on Earth, nestled comfortably between Honduras and Guatemala.  Mexico is slightly more egalitarian.  California is far more unequal than the "social democracies" it emulates: Canada is the 111th most unequal nation, while Norway is far down the list at number 153 (out of 176 countries).  In terms of income inequality, California has more in common with banana republics than other "social democracies."

More Government, More Poverty
High taxes, excessive regulations, and a lavish welfare state – these are the standard explanations for California's poverty epidemic.  They have some merit.  For example, California has both the highest personal income tax rate and the highest sales tax in America, according to Politifact.

Not only are California's taxes high, but successive "progressive" governments have swamped the state in a sea of red tape.  Onerous regulations cripple small businesses and retard economic growth.  Kerry Jackson, a fellow with the Pacific Research Institute, gives a few specific examples of how excessive government regulation hurts California's poor.  He writes in a recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times:
Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor.  By some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50% higher than the national average.  Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics ... found that "in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ... energy expenditures exceeding 10% of household income."
Some government regulation is necessary and desirable, but most of California's is not.  There is virtue in governing with a "light touch."
Finally, California's welfare state is, perhaps paradoxically, a source of poverty in the state.  The Orange Country Register reports that California's social safety net is comparable in scale to those found in Europe:
In California a mother with two children under the age of 5 who participates in these major welfare programs – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps), housing assistance, home energy assistance, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children – would receive a benefits package worth $30,828 per year.
... [Similar] benefits in Europe ranged from $38,588 per year in Denmark to just $1,112 in Romania.  The California benefits package is higher than in well-known welfare states as France ($17,324), Germany ($23,257) and even Sweden ($22,111).
Although welfare states ideally help the poor, reality is messy.  There are three main problems with the welfare state.  First, it incentivizes poverty by rewardingthe poor with government handouts that are often far more valuable than a job.  This can be ameliorated to some degree by imposing work requirements on welfare recipients, but in practice, such requirements are rarely imposed.  Second, welfare states are expensive.  This means higher taxes and therefore slower economic growth and fewer job opportunities for everyone – including the poor.
Finally, welfare states are magnets for the poor.  Whether through domestic migration or foreign immigration, poor people flock to places with generous welfare states.  This is logical from the immigrant's perspective, but it makes little sense from the taxpayer's.  This fact is why socialism and open borders arefundamentally incompatible.

Why Big Government?
Since 1960, California's population exploded from 15.9 to 39 million people.  The growth was almost entirely due to immigration – many people came from other states, but the majority came from abroad.  The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that 10 million immigrants currently reside in California.  This works out to 26 percent of the state's population.

This figure includes 2.4 million illegal aliens, although a recent study from Yale University suggests that the true number of aliens is at least double that.  Modifying the initial figure implies that nearly one in three Californians is an immigrant.  This is not to disparage California's immigrant population, but it is madness to deny that such a large influx of people has changed California's society and economy.

Importantly, immigrants vote Democrat by a ratio higher than 2:1, according to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies.  In California, immigration has increased the pool of likely Democrat voters by nearly 5 million people, compared to just 2.4 million additional likely Republican voters.  Not only does this almost guarantee Democratic victories, but it also shifts California's political midpoint to the left.  This means that to remain competitive in elections, the Republicans must abandon or soften many conservative positions so as to cater to the center.
California became a Democratic stronghold not because Californians became socialists, but because millions of socialists moved there.  Immigration turned California blue, and immigration is ultimately to blame for California's high poverty level.