Let’s begin a new year of California-centric scrutiny with a look at three topics that, I’m guessing, will play large roles in the Golden State’s policy and political narrative for 2024.
Those topics . . .
A Stay-at-Home Governor? Yes, I wrote at great length last year about California governor Gavin Newsom’s roving political eye—his eagerness to pick fights with governors of other (conservatively red) states, all the while accentuating his standing as a rising star in Democratic circles.
Does that change in 2024?
If you’re of the mind that home (Sacramento) is where a California governor’s heart should be, then columns like this one won’t help. Its premise: for a campaign “relying on allies to raise enthusiasm among Democrats and get out the vote,” which prominent Democrats constitute “Biden’s top surrogates”? Heading the list—and rated above the likes of both Obamas: Gavin Newsom.
Here’s the rationale behind Newsom’s leading-man status:
“If they’re looking for a surrogate in chief, [Newsom] is it. He knows how to argue for Biden’s policies better than Biden can,” said one former Biden and Obama campaign aide. “He’s not scared to throw a punch, not scared to do media like Fox News and Latino media.”
The column adds:
Newsom could also help Biden with younger voters put off by Biden. “Gavin exudes the confidence and charisma that appeals to several generations of voters and his ability to perform is unmatched,” the former campaign aide said. “His only negative is that he outshines Biden and has a lot of voters wishing he was on the ballot instead.”
Setting aside the question of whether the unnamed “campaign aide” has a 916 or 415 prefix to his/her cellphone (or, more likely, is sitting on the sidelines anxiously awaiting the Democratic presidential field to widen), allow me to offer these two questions:
- Does Governor Newsom really offer “more confidence and charisma” than Barack or Michelle Obama?
- In terms of mobilizing “younger voters put off by Biden,” who is the more effective stimulus: Newsom or, say, a certain songstress who dabbles in voter-registration? Newsom himself may know the answer to that one: “Taylor Swift stands tall and unique. What she was able to accomplish in getting young people activated to consider that they have a voice and they should have a voice in the next election, I think it’s profoundly powerful.”
Here’s one way to gauge Newsom’s value as a campaign surrogate: Will he be afforded the honor of delivering the keynote address at this year’s Democratic National Convention? If so, coming on the 20th anniversary of Barack Obama’s keynote address at the Democrats’ 2004 convention, it could take Newsom presidential speculation to a new level.
A March Ballot Flex. Political junkies will take note of California’s March 5 primary and a competitive field of US Senate hopefuls (can a Republican finish second and make the cut for the general election, or will it be an all-Democratic affair come November, as was the case in California’s 2016 and 2018 Senate contests?).
Assuming there’s not a heated Republican presidential race that brings Donald Trump and what remains of the Republican field to the Golden State (regardless, it will still be a crowded ballot), the other focus come primary time will be Proposition 1, which asks voters to allow county governments to reallocate “millionaires’ tax” revenue (resulting from 2004’s Proposition 63) for housing Californians with behavioral health illnesses. It also proposes a $6.4 million bond to build more facilities for mental health care and drug and alcohol treatment, and more housing for individuals with mental health or substance challenges.
Another way to look at Prop 1: a power flex among California’s powers that be. An example of that flex in action: Newsom, on the third day of the new year, campaigning in Los Angeles with city leaders and public safety officials in a very public show of support for Prop 1.
One of the more frustrating aspects of California elections is a lack of current polling data, as opposed to the glut of information on the national level. Which is why I’m citing what an early December survey by the Public Policy Institute of California had to say about Prop 1’s standing.
On the one hand, 68% of poll respondents indicated they’d vote for the measure (85% of Democrats, 40% of Republicans, 66% of independents). But when asked if it’s a “good time” to issue a $6.4 billion bond, the consensus wasn’t as strong—51% saying yes, 46% saying no.
Why this is worth noting: the fate of 2000’s Proposition 13, also a multibillion-dollar bond on a primary ballot that showcased the promise of vast do-gooding ($15 million to modernize and build public schools, universities, and community colleges).
Four years ago, Prop 13 earned the dubious distinction of becoming the first proposed state school bond to be rejected by California voters in more than two decades. Opinions differ as to why. Some blame it on confusion—the school bond sharing the same numerical designation as the more famous tax limitations initiative. Others cited “sticker stock” and the measure’s hefty price tag.
Still another school of thought as to what went wrong: the ill-fated Prop 13 was an example of faulty messaging, with Newsom making himself rather than educators or students the bond’s public face back in 2020.
With political advertising in California soon to kick into high gear, keep an eye on whether the Prop 1 campaign goes down the same road as Prop 13—showcasing California’s political class in its ads—or if the persuading is left to less polarizing mental-health advocates.
Lots of 0s . . . and Plenty of Woes. We’ve mapped out what California’s governor may be doing come this spring (selling a bond measure) and fall (hitting the campaign trail for President Biden).
And in between: dealing with California’s worrisome state finances.
Entering 2024, the ominous sign for California was a projected record (dollar-wise) $68 billion budget deficit. But yesterday, Newsom unveiled a less eye-popping number: according to his budget office, a $37.9 billion shortfall that can be addressed through a combination of dipping into the state’s reserve accounts, spending cuts, plus budgetary smoke and mirrors (delaying previously committed spending for the likes of transit and clean energy projects). What that translates to: $18.8 billion in reserves and borrowing; $11.9 billion in cuts and fund shifts; $7.2 billion in delayed or deferred spending.
The irony of the situation: despite the presence of a bronze bear statue in the Governor’s Office, it’s California’s governor who's striking a decidedly bullish tone when it comes to the Golden State’s economy and its ability to generate revenue via a volatile source: individual wealth and capital-gains taxation.
While California’s deficit will be settled long before Newsom presumably is stumping for the Biden-Harris ticket somewhere else in America (the Golden State’s next fiscal year begins in July), there is a matter of how the sea of red ink squares against a more idealized version of America’s most populous state.
If you have a spare moment, take a look at this 2023 “year-in-review” video released by Newsom’s office. Yes, it’s Newsom-centric ( frequent images of the governor, plus audio excerpts from his second inaugural address of a year ago). And its boastful tone (Newsom brags of more venture capital and start-ups than any other state and declares California a “world leader” in low-carbon, green growth) is reminiscent of the late Hay Riney’s famous “It’s morning again in America” ad making the case for Ronald Reagan’s reelection (unlike the Newsom video, Reagan does not star in that 1984 ad).
But does Newsom’s glossy video track with reality? Fiscally, it’s not morning in California. Instead, the state is mourning a lack of sensible budgetary policy.
Per this Orange County Register column, California’s per capita spending has more than tripled over the past half-century (from an inflation-adjusted $2,473 per person to $7,977). Over the same stretch of time, California’s bureaucracy has grown from 9.1 to 11 state workers per every 1,000 residents.
Newsom himself is a culprit in the sprawl—in this case, the column cites Govern for California and fiscal watchdog David Crane: “General Fund Expenditures Per Capita have climbed 63.9% since Governor Newsom took office, growing at more than twice the annual rate at which those expenditures grew under [Newsom’s predecessor] Governor Brown (10.4% vs. 4.7%).”
Will Newsom and the Democratic-controlled state legislature be able to engage in budget triage (prioritizing where to cut) with minimal backbiting and in a timely fashion? Perhaps.
Still, it won’t be the same merriment as state lawmakers two summers ago figuring what to do with a record $97.5 billion surplus (that’s not a misprint). Newsom’s declaration while signing that year’s budget: “Building a better future for all, we’ll continue to model what progressive and responsible governance can look like, the California way.”
Stay tuned to see what the “California way” is for getting out of a way-too-deep budget deficit.
