Tuesday, July 23, 2019


Homeless Surge Hits Oakland, Silicon Valley, San Francisco Suburbs

Josh Adelson / AFP / Getty

San Francisco saw its homeless population rise by 17% in the last two years, but the rise in many surrounding counties has been worse.

report Monday by Curbed San Francisco summarizing the figures noted: “Five out of nine Bay Area Counties—i.e., all of those not located in the North Bay—saw their homeless counts spike during the same period, with each other county showing worse homelessness surges than SF.”
As Breitbart News has noted, homelessness has been rising rapidly in urban areas throughout the state. San Francisco’s rise in homelessness has been accompanied by a spike in Los Angeles that some say has brought the city to the brink of an outbreak of deadly disease — perhaps bubonic plague. San Diego recently suffered an outbreak of hepatitis A among the homeless, partly due to a plastic bag ban making it harder for homeless people living on the streets to dispose of excrement.
Now the problem is leaving downtown areas and hitting the suburbs. Curbed reports:
  • San Mateo County: rise of more than 20% in two years
  • Santa Clara County: rise of more than 31% in two years
  • Alameda County: rise of more than 42.5% in two years
  • Contra Costa County: rise of 42.8% in two years
In addition, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday that homelessness in the City of Oakland alone rose 47% over the past two years.
The Curbed report adds some “good news”: ‘While the rest of the Bay Area saw the levees break, homelessness actually declined significantly all over the North Bay during the same period.”
President Donald Trump has warned that federal intervention may be necessary to deal with the problem — a suggestion that has met with protest from the state’s Democratic leaders.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside St
ory of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Photo: file (2014)



What else is new? Newsom’s budget calls for more spending, higher taxes





California Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his first state budget during a news conference Thursday, Jan. 10, 2019, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)


To the surprise of absolutely no one, California’s new governor has proposed a state budget with billions in increased spending and lots of tax hikes. And, as an added bonus, he is proposing new mandates on businesses and local governments as well as depriving Californians of the right to vote on certain kinds of local debt. From the perspective of taxpayers, this is not a propitious start.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget envisions spending $144 billion of general fund dollars, a 4 percent increase over former Gov. Jerry Brown’s last budget, which clocked in at $138 billion. To put this in perspective, general fund spending was less than $100 billion just six years ago. In California, state government is the No. 1 growth industry.

No California spending plan would be complete without new “revenue enhancements.” And the biggest item on this list is the imposition of the “individual mandate” for health insurance. Recall that President Obama’s so-called Affordable Care Act (which was anything but affordable) imposed a burdensome tax on millions of Americans. (Indeed, it was only the fact that the ACA imposed a “tax” that saved it from a constitutional challenge).

The good news is that Congress repealed the tax at the federal level. The bad news is that Gov. Newsom wants to reimpose it at the state level in order to save Covered California from imploding. The cost to Californians for a state-imposed individual mandate with a penalty?: $700 per person, which is projected to raise $500 million in new revenue.

Other tax hikes include a monthly tax imposed on residential water use and a tax to shore up the state’s emergency 911 system. Both deal with public health and safety so one would think they would have first claim on existing general fund revenues — but, again, this is California, where budgeting makes no sense.

Another major concern for taxpayers is Newsom’s plan to deprive voters of the right to vote on local debt. Since statehood, California’s constitution has reflected the policy of allowing voters the right to approve long-term financial obligations. That policy has been eroded over the decades and Newsom is pushing it further by proposing that debt assumed by Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts (think “redevelopment”) would no longer need voter approval. Translation: Today’s politicians can put tomorrow’s taxpayers into debt without permission.

So, is there anything good for taxpayers in Newsom’s proposed budget? Yes. This includes Newsom’s desire to grow the rainy day fund — in order to prepare for the inevitable recession — and also paying down pension debt. He also appears cognizant of the OPEB threat. OPEB stands for Other Post-Employment Benefits, the largest of which is, of course, promises for lifetime healthcare benefits to public retirees.

Taxpayers hope that the governor will be able to resist even greater spending demands from state legislators who want $40 billion for new, more costly programs.  Nonetheless, our primary concern is that the majority party in California invariably reacts to any new problem — whether actual or imagined — with a tax increase rather than taking the more prudent course of prioritizing spending.

Finally, if there is a coda to this sad story, it is this: State Controller Betty Yee just announced that revenue is down almost $5 billion. Is this a precursor to a recession in the state that will blow up all the governor’s plans? Time will tell.


Why are so many people poor in the Golden State?
Economy, finance, and budgets
California—not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia—has the highest poverty rate in the United States. According to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure—which accounts for the cost of housing, food, utilities, and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income—nearly one out of four Californians is poor. Given robust job growth in the state and the prosperity generated by several industries, especially the supercharged tech sector, the question arises as to why California has so many poor people, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased roughly twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5 percent, compared with 6.27 percent).

It’s not as if California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause, for decades now. Myriad state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200 percent above the poverty line receive benefits, according to the California Policy Center. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments, and “other public welfare,” according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Unfortunately, California, with 12 percent of the American population, is home today to roughly one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients. The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states—principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia—initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress. The common thread of the reformed welfare programs was strong work requirements placed on aid recipients. These overhauls were widely recognized as a big success, as welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the workforce. The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, have resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as if welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55 percent of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30 percent of natives, according to City Journal contributing editor Kay S. Hymowitz.
Self-interest in the social-services community may be at work here. If California’s poverty rate should ever be substantially reduced by getting the typical welfare client back into the workforce, many bureaucrats could lose their jobs. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort, and job security. In order to keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base—to ensure that the welfare rolls remain full and, ideally, growing. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, according to Governing, California has an enormous bureaucracy—a unionized, public-sector workforce that exercises tremendous power through voting and lobbying. Many work in social services.
Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. Californians spent more than one-third of their incomes on housing in 2014, the third-highest rate in the country. A shortage of housing has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies. “Counties and local governments have imposed restrictive land-use regulations that drove up the price of land and dwellings,” explains analyst Wendell Cox. “Middle income households have been forced to accept lower standards of living while the less fortunate have been driven into poverty by the high cost of housing.” The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), passed in 1971, is one example; it can add $1 million to the cost of completing a housing development, says Todd Williams, an Oakland attorney who chairs the Wendel Rosen Black & Dean land-use group. CEQA costs have been known to shut down entire home-building projects. CEQA reform would help increase housing supply, but there’s no real movement to change the law.
Extensive environmental regulations aimed at reducing carbon-dioxide emissions make energy more expensive, also hurting the poor. On some estimates, California energy costs are as much as 50 percent higher than the national average. Jonathan A. Lesser of Continental Economics, author of a 2015 Manhattan Institute study, “Less Carbon, Higher Prices,” found that “in 2012, nearly 1 million California households faced ‘energy poverty’—defined as energy expenditures exceeding 10 percent of household income. In certain California counties, the rate of energy poverty was as high as 15 percent of all households.” A Pacific Research Institute study by Wayne Winegarden found that the rate could exceed 17 percent of median income in some areas. “The impacts on the poorest households are not only the largest,” states Winegarden. “They are clearly unaffordable.”
Looking to help poor and low-income residents, California lawmakers recently passed a measure raising the minimum wage from $10 an hour to $15 an hour by 2022—but a higher minimum wage will do nothing for the 60 percent of Californians who live in poverty and don’t have jobs, and studies suggest that it will likely cause many who do have jobs to lose them. A Harvard study found evidence that “higher minimum wages increase overall exit rates for restaurants” in the Bay Area, where more than a dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have changed their minimum-wage ordinances in the last five years. “Estimates suggest that a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage leads to a 14 percent increase in the likelihood of exit for a 3.5-star restaurant (which is the median rating),” the report says. These restaurants are a significant source of employment for low-skilled and entry-level workers.
Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on “remaking the world.” The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system; talks of secession from a United States presided over by Donald Trump; hired former attorney general Eric Holder to “resist” Trump’s agenda; enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime; established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants; banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture; and is consumed by its dedication to “California values.” All this only reinforces the rest of America’s perception of an out-of-touch Left Coast, to the disservice of millions of Californians whose values are more traditional, including many of the state’s poor residents.
California’s de facto status as a one-party state lies at the heart of its poverty problem. With a permanent majority in the state senate and the assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch, and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.
Kerry Jackson is the Pacific Research Institute’s fellow in California studie




California Governor Will Pull Most National Guard Troops From Border



California Gov. Gavin Newsom will pull most of the National Guard troops from the border with Mexico, according to multiple reports.
The move is widely seen as an act of defiance of the Trump administration, with the governor set to call the president’s characterization of the “emergency” situation at the border a “manufactured crisis,” according to excerpts from his State of the State address to be delivered Tuesday.
He will also declare that “California will not be part of this political theater.”
According to the Associated Press, only about 100 troops will remain at the border.
About 100 of the 360 troops will remain deployed under California’s agreement with the federal government to focus specifically on combating transnational crime such as drug and gun smuggling, Newsom spokesman Nathan Click said. Specifically, they will be tasked with providing intelligence on transnational crime and assist with cargo dock operations and searches of commercial trucks for contraband.
Newsom’s move comes on the heels of New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, also a Democrat, pulling back her state’s troops from the U.S.-Mexico border. The two state’s former governors agreed to send troops to the border last April at the Trump administration’s request along with Texas and Arizona.
Newsom’s and Grisham’s actions are a fresh, if symbolic, affront to President Donald Trump’s description of an immigration crisis on the nation’s southern border. (AP)
Former California Gov. Jerry Brown had agreed to deploy the National Guard troops last April under the condition that they "will not enforce immigration laws or participate in the construction of any new border barrier."
That mission was scheduled to end March 31. While Newsom will request the drawdown to begin immediately, he will still allow until the end of next month to do so.  



Slum by The Bay



The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
San Francisco is one of the richest cities it the world. It's given us music, technology and elegant architecture.
Now it gives us filthy homeless encampments.
One urban planner told me, "I just returned from the Tenderloin (a section of San Francisco). It's worse than slums of India, Haiti, Africa!"
So I went to San Francisco to make a video about that.
I've never seen slums in Africa, but I've seen them in Haiti and India.
What I saw in San Francisco looked similar. As one local resident put it, "There's shit everywhere. It's just a mess out here."
There's also lots of mental illness. One man told us, "Vampires are real. I'm paranoid as hell." San Francisco authorities mostly leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the street.
Other vagrants complain about them. "They make it bad for people like us that hang out with a sign," one beggar told us.
San Francisco is a pretty good place to "hang out with a sign." People are rarely arrested for vagrancy, aggressive panhandling or going to the bathroom in front of people's homes. In 2015, there were 60,491 complaints to police, but only 125 people were arrested.
Public drug use is generally ignored. One woman told us, "It's nasty seeing people shoot up -- right in front of you. Police don't do anything about it! They'll get somebody for drinking a beer but walk right past people using needles."
Each day in San Francisco, an average of 85 cars are broken into.
"Inside Edition" ran a test to see how long stereo equipment would last in a parked car. Their test car was quickly broken into. Then the camera crew discovered that their own car had been busted into as well.
Some store owners hire private police to protect their stores. But San Francisco's police union has complained about the competition. Now there are only a dozen private cops left, and street people dominate neighborhoods.
We followed one private cop, who asked street people, "Do you need any type of homeless outreach services?"
Most say no. "They love the freedom of not having to follow the rules," said the cop.
And San Francisco is generous. It offers street people food stamps, free shelter, train tickets and $70 a month in cash.
"They're always offering resources," one man dressed as Santa told us. "San Francisco's just a good place to hang out."
So every week, new people arrive.
Some residents want the city to get tougher with people living on the streets.
"Get them to the point where they have to make a decision between jail and rehab," one told us. "Other cities do it, but for some reason, San Francisco doesn't have the political will."
For decades, San Francisco's politicians promised to fix the homeless problem.
When Sen. Dianne Feinstein was mayor, she proudly announced that she was putting the homeless in hotels: "A thousand units, right here in the Tenderloin!"
When California Governor Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he bragged, "We have already moved 6,860 human beings."
Last year, former Mayor Mark Farrell said, "We need to fund programs like Homeward Bound."
But the extra funding hasn't worked.
One reason is that even if someone did want to get off the street and rent an apartment, there aren't many available.
San Francisco is filled with two- and three-story buildings, and in most neighborhoods, putting up a taller building is illegal. Even where zoning laws allow it, California regulations make construction so difficult that many builders won't even try.
For years, developer John Dennis has been trying to convert an old meatpacking plant into an apartment building -- but it has taken him four years just to get permission to build.
"And all that time, we're paying property taxes and paying for maintenance," says Dennis. "I will do no more projects in San Francisco."
People in San Francisco often claim to be concerned about helping the poor. But their many laws make life much tougher for the poor.
John Stossel is author of "No They Can't! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed." 




California: Record spending as tax revenue collapses by $5 billion

As California governor Gavin Newsom announced plans for a record $144.2-billion spending plan, the state controller quietly reported a $4.82-billion collapse of state tax revenues.
Gov. Newsom's Proposed 2019-2020 Budget, released on January 9, had all the characteristics of "Rainbows, Butterflies, and Unicorns."  Newsom predicted that his state budget beginning on July 1 would feature $6 billion more revenue and only a $100-million increase in spending, despite a $5.2-billion "Cradle-to-Career" education spending increase, a $1-billion earned income tax credit, and $100 million for immigrants fleeing Central America.
Key to Newsom's 2019-2020 budget dream is collecting $4.8 billion more in personal, sales, and corporate tax receipts while slashing "Government Operations" expenditures from $4.8 billion to $1.26 billion, a 76% reduction.
After he campaigned for a $100-billion "Medicare for All" health plan, the San Francisco Chronicle ran the headline: "Gov. Newsom angers no one with budget, puts off big fights for another day."  The Chronicle complimented the new governor for providing "plenty to delight his progressive backers" and working to "avoid enraging more fiscally conservative Californians."
But away from the Klieg lights and fawning media, California state controller Betty Yee reported that California's personal income tax collections for the month of December missed its 2018-2019 budget estimate by $3.45 billion.  More alarming, personal income tax revenue plunged from $11.5 billion in 2017 to just $6.76 billion in 2018.
With California's top 1% of income-earners who make over $500,000 a year paying over half of all state taxes, a portion of the grim tax collection shortfall could have been due to mail delays for filing December quarterly estimated income tax payments.  But December 2018 sales tax receipts of $1.16 billion also missed budget by $1.42 billion, and corporation tax collections of $2.09 billion were short of estimates by $179.5 million.
At the start of the July 1, 2018 fiscal year, California's had a mandatory "Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties" reserve with $8.91 billion and a discretionary "Budget Stabilization Account" reserve with $11 billion.  The non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office's November update stated that reserve accounts were expected to grow by $3.1 billion this fiscal year and $6.4 billion in the next year.  But the LAO cautioned that with wage and job growth already falling, "the state's budget condition can change quickly."
All of this "Rainbows, Butterflies and Unicorns" contingency planning for California to survive a "moderate recession" was predicated on termed out Gov. Jerry Brown's 2018-2019 budget ending on June 30 with a $20-billion surplus.  It probably did not evaluate the cost of the PG&E utility filing for bankruptcy or 30,000 striking L.A. teachers.
If the December tax shortfall means that California is already in recession, the state may be facing a devastating crisis.



Progressives combine open borders and government-funded universal health care demands.

January 11, 2019

The left-wing bastions of California and New York City are becoming more than just sanctuaries for illegal immigrants already residing there. They are being transformed into powerful magnets luring more illegal immigrants to enter the country. California Governor Gavin Newsom and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio intend to have their legal residents pay for the comprehensive health care of illegal immigrants.
Amongst New York City's roughly 600,000 uninsured who will be guaranteed government-funded health care under Mayor de Blasio’s plan are an estimated 300,000 so-called “undocumented New Yorkers" – i.e., illegal immigrants. The mayor’s proposed social experiment in universal health care, including for illegal immigrants, is estimated overall to cost $100 million per year. "We also have a way to provide direct health care to a lot of our neighbors who happen to be undocumented,” Mayor de Blasio said. “They're still part of our community. They need health care; their families need health care."
California Governor Newsom wants to extend health care benefits already offered to illegal immigrants under the age of 19 to young adults up to the age of 26. This would make California “the first state in the nation to cover young undocumented adults through a state Medicaid program,” the governor’s office boasted last Monday. The additional cost has been estimated at $250 million a year, which could rise to as much as $400 million by the 2020-2021 fiscal year. “It’s the moral thing to do … When we talk about universal health care, it means everybody,” Governor Newsom said.
The next step, if Governor Newsom and some other state Democrat politicians have their way, would be to extend state-funded health care to all uninsured illegal immigrant California residents, irrespective of age.
Out of the estimated 1.8 million people in California who are uninsured and reside in California illegally, approximately 1.2 million would qualify for Medi-Cal, which is the state’s part of the federal Medicaid program. The plan would be to fund this giveaway out of California’s own general fund to avoid the restrictions in Obamacare’s expanded Medicaid provisions that prohibit the use of federal funds for illegal aliens. The bill to California taxpayers would be an estimated $3 billion. Such a plan “means more and more illegal immigrants will come to California, which would put incredible additional pressure on California’s budget,” said Sally Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute.
In short, such freebies for illegal immigrants will drain state and city budgets of taxpayer funds that should be spent to improve infrastructure and the delivery of basic public services for the benefit of legal residents. Too many illegal immigrants will overwhelm the health care system and drive up health care costs while lowering the quality of service for virtually everyone.
Not to worry, say the progressives who reject the very idea that someone can be in this country illegally. To call someone an illegal immigrant, they believe, is racist. We should be a welcoming country to all migrants who want to enter no matter how, they argue. The more the merrier for both the immigrants themselves and the progressives who see a treasure trove of potential votes down the road. No wonder Speaker Nancy Pelosi tries to shut down any rational discussion of funding for physical border barriers at the U.S. border with Mexico by claiming that such barriers are “immoral.” This exercise in self-righteousness and hypocrisy is itself immoral.
Border barriers are only “immoral” to those who think sanctuary cities and states are acting morally when they shield illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes separate and apart from their illegal entry itself.  Pelosi’s twisted moral code led her to reiterate her support for San Francisco’s liberal sanctuary policies right after the death of Kathryn Steinle at the hands of an illegal immigrant, a felon who had been previously deported five times. San Francisco authorities released this monster rather than turn him over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the federal agency had requested.
Border barriers are also only “immoral” to those who think that illegal immigrants should be rewarded for their illegal entry with plenty of freebies. Progressives combine their moral certitude that our borders must be open with their moral certitude that comprehensive health care is a basic “universal human right.” Thus, for progressives, anyone residing in this country, regardless of immigration status, must be granted this “universal right.” Their sanctuary cities and states would become honeypots attracting more and more illegal immigrants to partake.
It is “immoral,” progressives believe, to worry about the cost of health care for all, including those who should not be in this country in the first place. It is their hidden agenda that is truly immoral. Progressives would like nothing more than to overwhelm the health care system in keeping with the so-called Cloward-Piven Strategy, first proposed in 1966 by two members of the Democratic Socialists of America, Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven. The idea is to increasingly overload the current capitalist economic system deliberately with impossible financial demands so that it collapses from within, leading to radical change.
As Brian Joondeph wrote in American Thinker: “Think of what the current migrant caravan means in terms of Cloward-Piven.  Thousands of poor, unskilled migrants entering the US. They need health care, education, housing, food, clothing, and other basic needs which all cost money. Who pays for this?” The answer is you and I. Universal health care, including for illegal immigrants, is becoming mainstream within today’s Democrat Party.
The current battle over funding for President Trump’s border barrier is a battle not only over defense of the southern border from the surge of immigrants seeking to enter the country by any means possible. It is part of the larger battle to defend America as we know it from those who seek its radical transformation into their fantasy of a progressive utopia.





Gavin Newsom rolls out the red carpet for illegal aliens.

January 10, 2019

Newly inaugurated Gov. Gavin Newsom has pledged to make his home state of California “a sanctuary to all who seek it” in direct defiance of President Trump’s drive to secure the nation’s border with Mexico and enforce U.S. immigration laws.
California’s grossly unconstitutional obstruction of federal immigration laws is about to get ramped up, Newsom’s speech suggests. The state already has unprecedented sanctuary laws on its books that shield its 2.4 million illegal aliens from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE). Federal prosecutors are considering filing criminal charges against elected officials harboring illegal aliens in sanctuary jurisdictions, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee a year ago.
The Trump administration is suing California over its “sanctuary state” laws that punish compliance with federal immigration laws and provide legal cover for corrupt officials to continue brazenly flouting immigration laws and interfering with federal agents trying to enforce them.
The federal lawsuit targets three statutes curbing the power of California’s state and local law enforcement to hold, question, and transfer detainees at the request of immigration authorities, and punish employers for cooperating with those authorities. The laws also impose draconian restrictions on communication between local police and federal immigration enforcement, including information regarding when criminal aliens are scheduled to be released from local jails.
Under the longstanding doctrine in American constitutional law known as “dual sovereignty,” states cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration laws, but they are obliged not to hinder their enforcement. The so-called sanctuary cities that form the bulk of the sanctuary movement really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States, just like the slave states that seceded from the Union before the Civil War.
The sanctuary movement gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans by, among other things, stigmatizing immigration enforcement and characterizing it as somehow racist. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism "civil liberties safe zones" to describe sanctuary jurisdictions. The phrase deliberately blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.
But dealing with the illegal alien problem is the furthest thing from Democrat politicians’ minds. They view illegals as future Democrat voters and demonize anyone who supports enforcing federal immigration laws that could lead to the deportation of their future voter base.
“People’s lives, freedom, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe — they all hang in the balance,” the leftist politician said Monday outside the state Capitol in Sacramento.
Children should not be “ripped away from their parents” at the border or left hungry while Trump promises to expend billions of dollars on “a wall that should never be built.”
Newsom (D) became the state’s 40th governor, succeeding Jerry Brown (D) who was term-limited. Before being sworn in as governor, Newsom was the state’s lieutenant governor and before that, mayor of San Francisco.
While Newsom vowed to worsen the nation’s illegal alien crisis, another leftist, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), promised this week to provide “free” health care to all his city’s residents, including illegals. The program, according to one ridiculous low-ball estimate, will cost only $100 million.
“This is the city paying for direct comprehensive care (not just ERs) for people who can’t afford it, or can’t get comprehensive Medicaid — including 300,000 undocumented New Yorkers,” de Blasio spokesman Eric Phillips wrote on Twitter Tuesday.
Newsom’s pledge came as President Trump’s negotiations with Democrats over $5 billion needed to fund construction of the border wall continued to go nowhere and the federal government continued to be partially shut down for lack of appropriated funds. Trump has vowed to keep the shutdown going as long as it takes to secure funding for the wall.
“Just left a meeting with [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck [Schumer] and [Speaker of the House] Nancy [Pelosi], a total waste of time[,]” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “I asked what is going to happen in 30 days if I quickly open things up, are you going to approve Border Security which includes a Wall or Steel Barrier? Nancy said, NO. I said bye-bye, nothing else works!”
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 217 to 185 on Dec. 20 to approve a temporary spending bill after adding $5.7 billion in appropriations for the wall. The measure floundered in the Senate and the partial shutdown got underway Dec. 22. But that was back in the previous Congress. Now the Democrats control the House.
The meeting came the day after President Trump took rhetorical aim at his enemies as he delivered his first-ever prime time address from the Oval Office in a bold attempt to rally the country in favor of building a wall on the porous U.S.-Mexico border, his signature campaign promise.
Vice President Mike Pence said the White House has delivered numerous proposals and offers in three weeks of negotiations, but Democrats stubbornly refused to support any funding for the wall.
“I can give you 15 speeches [Schumer] gave, in which he talked about border security,” Trump said prior to the meeting. “The only reason they’re against it is because I won the presidency.”

And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.”
MARK ZUCKERBERG AND OTHER TECH BILLIONAIRES SAY HELL NO TO PAYING LEGALS LIVING WAGES… not when there’s boatloads of Chinese ready to take our tech jobs and work cheap!

“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.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

The illegal stabbed her to death with a screwdriver and then ran her over with her car.


"Newhouse’s district is now more than one-quarter Hispanic, 

largely because of the many Hispanics who arrived in the 

state to work for agriculture companies, such as Newhouse’s 












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 – BREITBART.com






“They kidnap. They extort. They rape and they rob,” Trump said then. “They stomp on their victims. They beat them with clubs, they slash them with machetes, and they stab them with knives. They have transformed peaceful parks and beautiful quiet neighborhoods into bloodstained killing fields. They’re animals.
And if he takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting illegal immigrant support.”









"The California DMV has come to mean Deliver Mexican Votes. That will be a factor in 2020, whether or not Gavin Newsom seeks to become President McHottie. As Newsom said last June, “America’s future is still being defined by California’s present." LLOYD BILLINGSLEY



Or will California get worse under “governor McHottie” Gavin Newsom?

January 9, 2019

The day after Christmas, Gustavo Perez Arriaga, a false-documented illegal whose real name may be Paulo Virgen Mendoza, gunned down Newman, California, police officer Ronil Singh, a legal immigrant from Fiji. Outgoing governor Jerry Brown ordered flags flown at half-staff and issued a statement extending condolences to Corporal Singh’s wife and the “law enforcement officers across the state who risk their lives every day to protect and serve the people of California.”
No official statement emerged from California attorney General Xavier Becerra, who supports the state’s sanctuary law, SB 54, whose author Kevin de Leon was also silent. California senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris issued no official pronouncement and neither did incoming California Gavin Newsom. That may provide a clue about Newsom’s approach to crime and illegal immigration but for establishment media, it’s all about the optics.
“His visuals are certainly unassailable,” wrote Tad Friend in a November 5 New Yorker piece headlined, “Gavin Newsom, the Next Head of the California Resistance.” Newsom is “tall and lithe and still boyish at fifty-one, with teeth that Tom Cruise would envy and hair lacquered with Oribe gel.” In San Francisco he was known as “Mayor McHottie,” by women and gay men alike, according to wife Jennifer.
During the campaign, Newsom “sported his trademark look: a white Ermenegildo Zegna shirt with the sleeves rolled up and a blue Tom Ford tie. It was also his hero Bobby Kennedy’s look—the Bobby Kennedy who visited Cesar Chavez in the Central Valley fifty years ago, when America was breaking apart over Vietnam. Newsom seeks to embody Kennedy’s grainy glamour, to provide moral clarity in a bewildering hour.”
True to form, on June 5, 2018, fifty years after Sirhan Sirhan gunned down Bobby Kennedy in Los Angeles, Newsom said he was “inspired by his legacy.” Newsom duly quoted Kennedy that “there are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of a comfortable past which in fact never existed.”
The same day, University of San Francisco political science professor James Taylor told the San Francisco Chronicle “Gavin Newsom’s real ambition is not California’s governor seat, it’s the presidency of the United States.” In the meantime, as governor of California, he draws inspiration from Jerry Brown, who in Newsom’s view had the greatest political mind “in our lifetime.” On the other hand, he wasn’t exactly a man of the people.
During his first term, Californians were literally being taxed out of their homes and in 1978 they responded with the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,” also known as Proposition 13. Brown opposed the measure in apocalyptic terms but after it passed in a landslide he proclaimed himself a “born-again tax cutter.”
That was never true, despite Brown’s talk of a flat tax during one of his three failed presidential runs. In his final terms, Brown showed he was a born-again tax hiker, leaving California with the nation’s highest income and sales taxes. And from the start Brown was champion of big government.
He backed powerful unelected bodies like the Coastal Commission, which managed to combine Stalinist regulation and mafia-style corruption. Brown empowered the government employee unions that now shout “this is our house!” outside the state capitol.
During the 1990s Brown supported “single payer” health care but he now finds that plan too expensive for California. Newsom, on the other hand, sees “no reason to wait around on universal healthcare and single-payer in California.” So with its high taxes, volatile revenue system, bloated bureaucracy and massive pension debt, the state could easily wind up as Calizuela, with higher rates of violent crime.
In 1976, governor Jerry Brown refused to extradite AIM militant Dennis Banks, who fled to California after a courthouse gun battle in South Dakota. So it was Jerry Brown who pioneered the sanctuary state, and before he left office he showed his true colors on crime.
During his final weeks in office, the state Supreme Court denied seven of Brown’s clemency requests as an “abuse of power.” In late September, Brown ignored testimony from victims and signed SB 1391, which bars prosecution of juveniles as adults, whatever the gravity of their crime.  Under this law, juvenile murders will serve only until age 25. This will be a huge incentive to criminals, particularly MS-13, which has already murdered 14 in one California town.
Gavin Newsom’s silence over the shooting of Ronil Singh shows how “governor McHottie,” with his Tom Cruise teeth and Ermenegildo Zegna shirts, might deal with violent criminal illegals. Another Brown legacy item will be easier.
The state DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) has registered more than one million false-documented illegals to vote but won’t say how many actually showed up at the polls in November. DMV boss Jean Shiomoto has conveniently retired and Democrats tasked the audit to the department of finance, controlled by the governor, with results due in March, 2019.
The California DMV has come to mean Deliver Mexican Votes. That will be a factor in 2020, whether or not Gavin Newsom seeks to become President McHottie. As Newsom said last June, “America’s future is still being defined by California’s present.”

Times Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market. "It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state. "Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state. If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Housing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads. USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth. "The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties. Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century. In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold. The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim. The result? The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038. The figures show that the majority

of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said

Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography

at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be

Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade." The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."

No comments: