Expecting a $68 billion deficit in the upcoming fiscal year, California’s Department of Finance has ordered a spending freeze for the rest of the current fiscal year (FY2024).
That means all state agencies will have to curtain all non-critical expense for over six months, until the current fiscal year ends next Summer, on June 30, 2024.
A California Department of Finance “Budget Letter” issued Tuesday directs “all state entities” to “take immediate action to reduce expenditures and identify all operational savings achieved:
“The State of California anticipates significant General Fund budget deficits in fiscal years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Accordingly, this BL directs all entities under the Governor’s direct executive authority to take immediate action to reduce current-year General Fund expenditures.”
If realized, the $68 billion deficit would be the largest in state history, local station KCRA reports, noting that state Republicans have been warning about California’s spending:
“‘Despite all warnings that it was unsustainable, California’s tax-and-spend majority increased state spending by $116 billion over the last six years, nearly doubling the general fund budget in that short time,’ said Republican State Sen. Roger Niello, who is the vice chairman of the Senate's budget committee.
“He said in part, ‘Republicans cautioned that this level of spending would lead to greater deficits, and it would be more prudent to show restraint. Unfortunately, the majority party ignored those warnings.’”
State agency Secretaries and cabinet-level directors will be required to submit monthly reports detailing all spending exemptions and savings achieved.
Expenditures specifically cited as subject to the spending freeze include:
New Goods and Services Contracts
- IT Equipment
- Fleet Vehicles
- Office Supplies
- Other (subscription renewals, training costs, furniture purchases, etc.)
- All non-essential ravel (both in-state and out-of-state)
- Leave Buy-Back
- Architectural Revolving Fund (ARF)
“Additionally, entities shall re-evaluate expenses related to current IT projects,” the letter states.
OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
New study says high housing costs, low income push Californians into homelessness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4guGq6kWxg
CA makes up third of homeless population in U.S., according to study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OCZZF3_Yas
Study: More than 7-in-10 California Immigrant
Welfare
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/12/04/study-more-than-7-in-10-california-immigrant-households-are-on-welfare/
More than 7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of households headed by native-born Americans use welfare in California.
All four states with the largest foreign-born populations, including California, have extremely high use of welfare by immigrant households. In Texas, for example, nearly 70 percent of households headed by immigrants use taxpayer-funded welfare. Meanwhile, only about 35 percent of native-born households in Texas are on welfare.
In New York and Florida, a majority of households headed by immigrants and noncitizens are on welfare. Overall, about 63 percent of immigrant households use welfare while only 35 percent of native-born households use welfare.
President Trump’s administration is looking to soon implement a policy that protects American taxpayers’ dollars from funding the mass importation of welfare-dependent foreign nationals by enforcing a “public charge” rule whereby legal immigrants would be less likely to secure a permanent residency in the U.S. if they have used any forms of welfare in the past, including using Obamacare, food stamps, and public housing.
The immigration controls would be a boon for American taxpayers in the form of an annual $57.4 billion tax cut — the amount taxpayers spend every year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low-skilled legal immigrants.
As Breitbart News reported, the majority of the more than 1.5 million foreign nationals entering the country every year use about 57 percent more food stamps than the average native-born American household. Overall, immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44 percent more in Medicaid dollars. This straining of public services by a booming 44 million foreign-born population translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
California approves ‘shocking’ policy giving weekly checks to migrants: Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGCsB3LL1Nw
The state of California is home to more illegal aliens than any other state in the country. Approximately one in five illegal aliens lives in California, Pew reported.
Immigration Studies (CIS) finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S.
“The Democrats had abandoned their working-class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”. DANIEL GREENFIELD
Liberal California Emigrants are Toxic
By R. Quinn Kennedy
When Arizona, a state that has historically leaned conservative, was won by Joe Biden and now-senator Mark Kelly this week, very few were taken by surprise. Extensive polling indicated Arizona was ripe for swinging liberal and in this instance, at least, the polling was correct.
The question is why? Why has a state that held two elected Republican senators as recently as 2018 and which held a dependable stable of electoral votes for GOP presidential candidates become a purple state on its way to becoming solidly blue? Have Arizona residents suddenly awaked to the idea that liberal policies and doctrines are more sensible than conservative ones? Hardly.
The answer regarding Arizona’s swing lies in its neighbor to the west, California. Since 2012, California has overwhelmingly sent more transplants to Arizona than any other state. When surveyed, escaping Californians cite high taxes, high crime rates, unaffordable housing, out-of-control homelessness, and high unemployment rates as their top reasons for fleeing.
Who is responsible for creating such an alarming living environment within the state? California liberals. A November, 2020 report produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stated that California has 395,608 regulatory restrictions. The sheer volume and scope of California regulations creates such a compliance nightmare that they kill entire industries, send housing prices to unattainable heights, and restrict even commonplace liberties for which conservative leaning states are known.
Piled onto California’s endless river of regulations are its nonsensical laws and policies. Twenty major metropolitan cities or counties in California have established laws, ordinances, regulations, or other practices that shield illegal immigrants from prosecution after committing a crime. These counties brazenly safeguard illegal immigrant criminals against deportation either through noncompliance or by refusing to hand them over to federal agencies such as ICE. With over $1.5 trillion in state and local government debt, California effectively has little money to spare for conveniences such as criminal incarceration. What do sanctuary cities and counties see as the alternative to handing illegal immigrant criminals over for deportation? Release them back into the general population, of course.
Consider this: Between 2014 and 2017, the FBI reported that 49 states saw an average increase in crime annually of around 3%. After implementing “humane” alternatives to criminal prosecution, California crime increased more than 12% per year over the same time period. With irrational sanctuary policies that send a clear message of little to no consequence for offenses, is it any wonder California’s crime rate is now spiraling out of control?
Arizona is not the only beneficiary of the California exodus. The Colorado State Demography Office has published an active flow map of people moving into the state from 2010 on. Disturbingly, the state sending the most movers to Colorado since then has consistently been California. As recently as 2004, Colorado had the political trifecta of a Republican governor and a Republican-controlled House and Senate. A short ten years later, all three had turned irrevocably Democrat. The subsequent consequence? A drastic increase in state and local regulations, a dramatic increase in violent crimes, a severe shortage of home 
inventory and affordable housing, and a staggering increase in homelessness. Do these newfound troubles sound familiar to any other state mentioned here? The only safeguard against out-of-control tax hikes in Colorado is the TABOR Amendment passed by voters 1992, prior to the influx of California residents, that requires taxpayer approval for any new tax. Not surprisingly, emboldened liberals in Colorado are vigorously resolute in repealing this tax hike protection. As of the most recent election they are unsuccessful, yet remain undeterred.
What has coincided with Colorado’s decline? The mass inflow of Californians to the state. Californians have brought with them all the very same liberal doctrines and ideologies that forced their flight from California in the first place. Does this dissuade liberal Californians from shaping Colorado into the very image of California? Not in the least.
If there is any hope for Arizona, it is that they might learn from the resulting ruin of Colorado, however unlikely.
In the 2020 election, Texas was startlingly considered in play for liberals. Since 2015, which state has contributed the most emigrants into Texas? Not surprisingly, the state of California. The hope for liberals is that they can turn Texas into the next purple soon-to-be blue state. The coveted prize is Texas’ electoral votes. Even more insidious, if liberals are able to capture Texas as they have done in Colorado and Arizona, they will force the state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. They will then achieve their ultimate goal of a Democrat president reigning over the United States for endless generations until the point our country experiences the same collapse as other great civilizations throughout world history.
The obvious question is this: How can Texas avoid the same fate as states such as Colorado and Arizona? Simple. By being proactive.
It is much easier for liberals to enact new legislation than to argue for the removal of existing laws. With this in mind, Texas should take advantage of their current Republican-controlled Senate, House, and governor’s office by making haste and passing laws that would limit the future incursion of liberal meddling. Texas can presently enact laws that prohibit sanctuary cities, require voter approval to remove the state’s mandated balanced budget, require that any new regulation must necessitate the removal of an existing one, and compel voter approval of each new local or state tax including non-user fees. While such laws may only serve to stem the liberal takeover of the state, they would be roadblocks making it much more difficult for ideological infiltration in areas that affect inhabitant’s liberties and quality of life.
It would be absurd to suppose Californians have malintent. Rather, they are simply following the course with which they are most familiar while being blissfully ignorant of the negative unintended consequences their political ideology brings. To suggest that any act of suppression, aggression, or intimidation towards Californians moving into red states is acceptable would simply be un-American and subject to the same type of hypocrisy liberals practice. If conservatives stoop to their level, we have lost the battle and, perhaps, the war.
However, by taking aggressive legislative action in states that have not yet succumbed to liberal infiltration, Conservatives will effectively be planting our flag in a defiant refusal to hand over our institutions and our liberty.
NUMBER ONE MELTDOWN COUNTY IN LOS ANGELES FOR HOMELESSNESS, ILLEGALS AND CRIME IS LOS ANGELES. THIS COUNTY HANDS OUT $1.5 BILLION TO ILLEGALS IN WELFARE TO KEEP LA RAZA HAPPY AND VOTING DEM FOR MORE!
Gavin Newsom, Local Lawmakers Argue over Responsibility of Homelessness in California BUT IT'S NOT MEXICO'S EXPORTATION OF POVERTY AND CRIMINALS OR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S OPEN BORDERS DOCTRINE!
American Counties in Crisis due to Poverty, Homelessness, and Crime
It’s hard to pick sides here. On the one hand, the Starbucks union is literally Hamas while on the other hand, Starbucks nurtured every leftist cause until there was an attempt to unionize its stores. And since unions hit its profit margins that was suddenly a bridge too far. But it’s still a remarkable move even for an administration that embraces every leftist agenda item and its NLRB appointees who are union hacks and radical leftists.
Starbucks is being accused of illegally shutting down six locations in the Los Angeles area to suppress union organizing activity.
A National Labor Relations Board regional director issued a complaint this week, claiming Starbucks shut down nearly two dozen stores across the country to discourage workers from unionizing.
The new NLRB complaint states Starbucks needs to reopen 23 stores – six of which are in the Los Angeles – and issue back pay to workers who were affected by the closures.
Is there such a thing as “illegally closing stores”? What happens if Starbucks doesn’t reopen them, the Biden administration will nationalize Starbucks and prove that it can lose money running a high-end coffee chain?
Starbucks declined to provide a representative for Eyewitness News to interview, but said the six stores that were closed in the L.A. area were not unionized, and instead were closed for safety reasons.
Starbucks claimed that these were “high-incident” stores with a lot of homeless issues and police responses. Companies are allowed to close stores for business reasons. The NLRB has failed to prove that the store closings were not for business reasons.
Only 7 of the stores had unionized.
But the NLRB is integrated with the SEIU radical leftist union which is trying to unionize Starbucks workers.
And so an insane regime that began with the New Deal is trying to run every aspect of a company’s business on the theory that Starbucks is obligated to open stores and provide jobs.
Then maybe the NLRB can come down and clean the toilets after the junkie vagrants are done with them.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Reader Interactions
