The California Reparations Commission Fails State History

Its report erases the agency and success of black Californians and ignores how others worked with them to secure basic rights for all.

California’s reparations commission has determined that slavery, as opposed to disastrous policies advanced by the political establishment for decades, is the real reason for present-day black poverty in the state. In just a few weeks, the legislature that created the task force will take up the commission’s proposal, which calls for payments to black residents of upwards of $1.2 million.

As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal in December, reading the 500 pages from the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans is like listening to Béla Bartók’s bloody Bluebeard’s Castle played on 100 kazoos.

Still, all anyone wants to talk about is the money, and for good reason — the commission proposes to create a nearly trillion-dollar fund from which qualifying African Americans may hope to receive million-dollar payments. The total cost is conservatively estimated at three times California’s annual budget.

Those sorts of eye-catching numbers have task-force supporters increasingly worried — perhaps especially Governor Gavin Newsom, whose signature created the commission that could imperil his White House ambitions. Now they’re trying to downplay the monetary awards, even acting a bit peeved that anyone would focus on something so mundane — so filthy — as mere money.

“Dealing with that legacy is about much more than cash payments,” Newsom said in a statement to Fox News. “The Reparations Task Force’s independent findings and recommendations are a milestone in our bipartisan effort to advance justice and promote healing. This has been an important process, and we should continue to work as a nation to reconcile our original sin of slavery and understand how that history has shaped our country.”

Task-force members are equally coy.

“We want to make sure that this is presented out in a way that does not reinforce the preoccupation with a dollar figure, which is the least important piece of this,” said Cheryl Grills, a task-force member and clinical psychologist in Los Angeles. “It’s really unfortunate. I’m actually sad to see that our news media is not able to nuance better. It’s almost like, ‘What’s going to be sensational’ as opposed to what’s important.”

What’s important, Grills and others say, is providing the public with an accurate record of slavery in California — slavery and its innumerable effects — and then getting California to issue a formal apology for what the task force calls the state’s “perpetration of gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity on African slaves and their descendants.”

“Our history has been so buried, so erased, so denied. I think that is an essential element of our mission,” said Donald Tamaki, a task-force member and lawyer from San Francisco.

On that matter, says task-force member and state assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, the commission’s mission has been accomplished. His evidence: He said he has met “a few who have read the report, and it was eye-opening for them. For people who read the interim report, to hear them say ‘I didn’t know’ was probably the most gratifying thing I could hear.”

*   *   *

But on the more modest goal of documenting the history of black Californians, the commission has utterly failed. It actually erases the agency — the success — of black Californians throughout statehood. And the report ignores the ways in which Californians of all races and ethnicities have more often worked together to secure for all Californians unalienable human rights, among these the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As I wrote in the Journal:

Begin with this: Slavery in what’s now California was banned under Mexican authority in 1837. California joined the union in 1850 as a free state. The panel briefly acknowledges this only to dismiss it, lingering instead on the 1852 passage of the California Fugitive Slave Act, under which 13 people were deported from the state. The commission briefly mentions that the reviled law lapsed three years after being passed but doesn’t mention the numerous cases of white California officials—sheriffs, judges, attorneys and others—who discovered and liberated enslaved people.

The best known of these may be the story of Biddy Mason, an account I described in that piece.

Mason was one of several slaves brought to California by a Texas farmer in 1851. When Los Angeles County Sheriff David W. Alexander learned of their presence in San Bernardino, he gathered a mixed-race posse and rode 60 miles — up and over the windswept, nearly 4,000-foot Cajon Pass — to free Mason and the others. He brought them to a downtown Los Angeles courtroom where Judge Benjamin Hayes formally emancipated them. Remarkably, Mason went on to become one of Los Angeles’s wealthiest landowners, a merchant, midwife, and philanthropist.

Similarly, the commission touches on the case of Archy Lee, a 19-year-old black man brought to Sacramento in 1857 by his Mississippi master. Here’s how the commission reports Lee’s dramatic release from bondage:

But in one example, the case of Archy Lee from 1857 to 1858, the proslavery California Supreme Court made every effort to return him to enslavement. Lee’s enslaver, Charles Stovall, forced him to go with him to California years after the state fugitive slave law had expired. But California’s supreme court justices decided that since Stovall was a young man who suffered from constant illness, and he did not know about California’s laws, he should not be punished by losing his right to own Archy Lee. It took several more lawsuits by free Black Californians, and a new decision from a federal legal official, before Lee finally won permanent freedom. . . . After free Black activists successfully rescued Archy Lee from enslavement in 1858, angry proslavery legislators tried to make these anti-Black laws even worse.

Black Californians were indeed critical to Lee’s ultimate liberation. But much — in fact, almost everything — is missing from the commission’s version of events.

The curious might start with these questions: If California’s political establishment was so hostile to black Californians, how did “Black activists” manage the trick of “several more lawsuits” and the persuasion of “a federal legal official” to liberate Lee?

The answer: They did not act alone or without resources. One of those “Black activists” was Mary Ellen Pleasant, a millionaire, high-profile philanthropist, and abolitionist. When Lee escaped from Stovall, Pleasant gave him shelter and then helped finance two state cases that came before the state supreme court’s execrable decision to remand Lee to Stovall’s custody. Lee’s attorney throughout the ordeal was Edwin Crocker, a white man, and the chairman of California’s first Republican Party gathering, in 1856.

It was arguably the partnership of Crocker and Pleasant that kept Lee free and in California through the first state-court case and subsequent appeal. When the state supreme court asserted that Lee must be returned to Stovall, it was Crocker who persuaded T. W. Freelon, a (white) federal judge in San Francisco, to overturn the state high court’s stupid ruling. And when Stovall nevertheless attempted to kidnap Lee aboard the Orizaba, a ship anchored in San Francisco harbor, white policemen carried out a search to rescue Lee. They found and freed him. Stovall returned to Mississippi sans Lee. Perhaps shaken by his near miss or lured by gold fever, or both, Lee left California for British Columbia that same year.

But to acknowledge all of this would mean trouble for a government task force determined to find evidence of systemic violence against black Californians. Despite the commission’s bias, there were such Californians as Biddy Mason and Mary Ellen Pleasant — black, independent, and financially successful women. There were also white attorneys willing to fight for black freedom in a decade of national chaos in which the rights of black Americans were in flux. More important, there were white California officials — judges, police, and others — willing to enforce laws defending black Californians. Systematically ignoring this evidence is Orwellian, an official government endeavor designed to obscure history for momentary political gain. If successful, it will rob all Californians, including black Californians, of aspirational models of the hard work of freedom — and of hard work generally.

*   *   *

The commission’s childish and dangerous account of the case of Archy Lee is a masterpiece of academic rigor compared with its complete silence on the outsized role played by Californians in the Civil War itself.

Though California entered the Union a free state, Southern apologists never surrendered their hope of one day capturing the Golden State. These fantasists foresaw the creation of a vast slave empire, fueled by California gold and run through Pacific Ocean ports, stretching not just coast to coast but globally, too — south through Mexico, Central and South America, all the way to frigid Tierra del Fuego, and westward across the Pacific Ocean to grasp all of Asia.

When the Union blocked Southern ports in the summer of 1861, Richmond’s malignant California dream became an urgent military necessity. Confederate troops massing ominously in West Texas suddenly crossed that border, invading the New Mexico Territory and establishing a regional capital in Mesilla with an outpost farther west in Tucson. From that fortress town, the rebels began probing the desert path to California.

Set against Southern ambition, some 2,000 Californians volunteered for training at Camp Downey, in what’s now Oakland. This newly minted First California Volunteer Infantry, along with regular Army units, was shipped to Los Angeles and from there stepped off on a 900-mile march across Southern California’s hellish eastern deserts toward the Confederate Army. Water and food were scarce along the route. Just as formidable were the Apache Indians; fierce defenders of their historic lands, they were a constant threat to the Californians.

Still, they marched. On April 15, 1862, at Picacho Pass, 50 miles northwest of Tucson, twelve California scouts ran into ten rebel “pickets” — guards at the westernmost tip of the advancing Confederate Army. Their engagement was brief and deadly. Irish-born Californian lieutenant James Barrett led the attack, quickly capturing three Confederates and killing another. But when he had secured one of the prisoners and swung back onto his mount, Barrett was briefly in the range of a sharp-eyed rebel sniper. Shot through the neck, Barrett bled out on the spot. Two other Californians, Privates George Johnson and William Leonard, were shot and died nearby.

The retreating Confederate pickets carried news of the advancing California Column back to their outpost in Tucson; from there, the Confederates packed up and fled back to Texas.

The Battle of Picacho Pass ended the western advance of the most malignant force in the first American century. It ended the slaveholders’ dream of global empire. But that achievement left behind the dreams of three young Californians. Johnson was just 21, Leonard perhaps 26; their bodies were returned to California and buried at the San Francisco Presidio. Barrett’s body, reportedly buried in a shallow grave, was never found. In 1928, the Arizona Pioneers Historical Society and the Southern Pacific Railroad erected a monument, near U.S. 10, to recall their sacrifice in the “only battle of the Civil War fought in Arizona Territory.”

The California Column wasn’t unique. From a state population of just 380,000, more than 17,000 Californians joined the Union ranks — “the highest per-capita total for any state in the Union,” notes the state’s Department of Parks and Recreation. Fewer than 300 Californians left to join the Confederacy.

Few Americans today recall the Californians’ commitment. There is no mention of it in the state’s reparations report. Here as elsewhere, the commission’s report often speaks loudest in its silences.

*   *   *

One of those silences is the commission’s refusal to explain the voluntary, post–Civil War migration of millions of black Americans to California, including to Weed, a flourishing lumber town.

But Weed was eventually destroyed, and with it the prosperous black and other migrant families that built the town. It was destroyed not by slavers or white racists or “systemic racism.” It was destroyed by well-meaning but shortsighted liberal politicians — state and federal officials who linked arms with environmental activists and began squeezing the life out of the Northwest timber industry, including Weed. Blindly privileging such remarkable species as the spotted owl over the more common human person, California state and federal regulators locked down the forests.

This overregulation of California’s lumber industry was supposed to save the planet. Instead, it has done the opposite. It began with the gradual, ceaseless piling up of federal, state, and local regulations. The pile is now so large it is a kind of monument to human arrogance, a record of the government’s doomed effort to cover every eventuality, from “forest health, wildlife habitat, water and air quality, archeological sites, [and] land use patterns” to “respect for community sentiments,” as researchers put it in a 2005 study of the decline and fall of the California timber industry. Those “growing regulations have only created costlier sales, not ‘cleaner’ ones,” the researchers concluded. In the process, these programs undermined the wealth and opportunities of working Californians, including the black Californians about whom the commission says it is most concerned.

*   *   *

The reparations task force concluded that “American government at all levels, including in California, has historically criminalized African Americans for the purposes of social control and to maintain an economy based on exploited Black labor.” Yet progressive government itself is the enemy of disadvantaged Californians. Confronting these massive failures would bring the state task force face-to-face with its own fellow ideologues: government unions, environmental-justice warriors, and progressive government officials. I’ll call back one last time to my prior piece:

Take the state’s execrable public education system. California ranks dead last in the nation in literacy. Black children are the most brutalized [by] these failures: Only 10% meet math standards and about 30% achieve English competency. Yet as test scores fall, high school graduations rise. Denied a real education, many of these children will qualify only for low-level jobs and government assistance.

The commission calls this a “school-to-prison pipeline” and blames slavery.

But the problems clearly start in the schools. In the classroom, collective bargaining gives union leaders authority over teacher hiring and firing; they use this authority to reward loyalists, punish reformers, and move failing teachers into broken schools where overwhelmed poor parents are unlikely to notice.

Click here to read the full article at National Review

California wasted nearly $300,000 in tax dollars on improper activities in 2022, audit says

California state agencies spent nearly $280,000 on “inappropriate expenditures” last year, including the cost to keep the personal boat of a parks and recreation supervisor in a public dock and the wasted time of a sewage plant employee who shopped for comic books during work hours, according to a state audit report.

The examples of misused state resources were among the 1,269 allegations of improper government activities investigated in 2022 by the California state auditor’s office. The report, released Thursday, summarizes some of the cases related to employee pay, paid leave, poor contract oversight and misuse of state resources.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Industrial Relations and the Department of Parks and Recreation were each cited for misuse of state resources.

Among the biggest examples of misused funds and resources was an unnamed state agency that paid nearly $114,000 in public funds to a state analyst who was put on paid leave from March 2020 to November 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency and employee were unnamed for privacy.

The audit found that the analyst could have completed her work via telecommuting, but the state agency said the equipment necessary to work remotely was too expensive. But the audit report notes that the equipment would have cost “substantially less than paying the analyst’s full salary for 20 months while she performed no work.”

A water and sewage plant supervisor with the corrections and rehabilitation department was cited for misusing resources when he used state-owned property for his private business, and for using state computers to shop online, mostly for comic books and designer clothing during work hours, according to the report.

The state auditor’s office investigation revealed that during a four-month period, the employee had visited more than 3,600 websites unrelated to his duties on 52 separate workdays — averaging about 70 site visits per day. About 55% of those web pages were online retailers such as Craigslist, Wayfair, EBay and Costco. The CDCR said it is pursuing disciplinary action.

At the Department of Industrial Relations, a supervisor whose job was to ensure that staff used only state vehicles for work was found to have been regularly using a state vehicle for his “almost-daily” commute to work for the last three years, costing the state nearly $11,000 according to the audit. The employee said he used his own vehicle only when the state-owned car wasn’t available, such as when it was receiving maintenance.

The report found that the supervisor had driven the state-owned vehicle about 19,600 miles for personal reasons.

“Despite demonstrating a clear understanding of the standards dictating appropriate state vehicle use and his responsibility to enforce these standards with his staff, he failed to adhere to the standards himself,” according to the report.

The department said it has taken steps to address the issues and billed the employee for $4,200, which was the smallest of three estimates of costs accrued. It also said GPS trackers will be installed on its vehicles.

At the California Department of Parks and Recreation, a supervisor was cited for docking his personal boat at a public dock for more than six years, costing the state parks to lose up to $36,000 in potential revenue since 2015, according to the state auditor.

The state parks department said the employee, who was required to remove the boat from the state park in early 2022, is subject to disciplinary action.

A psychiatric technician at the Department of State Hospitals was cited for nearly 400 hours of unaccountable absences from October 2018 to August 2021, costing about $12,500 in “productive time.” According to the report, the employee regularly arrived late, took extended lunch breaks and left early from work for about three years.

The department said the technician is no longer with the agency and is establishing an accounts receivable system.

Click here to read the full article in the LA Times

This Law Should Reveal Who’s Paying for California Legislators’ Travel. It’s Only Been Used Twice

After years of controversy over state legislators taking trips paid by interest groups, California in 2015 adopted a law intended to bring more transparency to sponsored travel.

Senate Bill 21 requires trip organizers to annually disclose any major donors who travel alongside elected officials, taking aim at the secrecy that often surrounds these policy conferences and international study tours.

Yet in the seven years since the law took effect, disclosure forms have been filed for only two events — despite legislators reporting millions of dollars in sponsored travel and dozens of trips during that period. One form was filed last year and the second only after CalMatters made inquiries. 

It’s unclear exactly why the disclosure has been such a failure.

Former state Sen. Jerry Hill, the San Mateo Democrat who pushed for the law, said he was surprised by its infrequent use. He said he crafted qualifications that he believed major travel sponsors would easily meet, requiring them to share more information with the public about who is paying for legislators’ travel — but, in hindsight, the language about when they have to file may not have been specific enough.

Many groups, including two whom Hill cited in arguments for the law, contend that they do not meet the eligibility criteria laid out in the measure, even as they spend tens of thousands of dollars or more to take legislators to far-flung locations.

“It looks like it’s being interpreted in the most favorable light for the nonprofits, and they are looking at that as a way of getting around it,” Hill told CalMatters.

If that is the case, he added, legislators should update the language to ensure the intent is clear.

“It’s frustrating,” he said. “It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”

If any organizations are out of compliance, the state’s political ethics watchdog, which is responsible for enforcement, cannot say. The Fair Political Practices Commission has never clarified potentially ambiguous language in the rules and it depends on filers to follow them, investigating primarily if it receives a complaint. None has ever been lodged.

Jay Wierenga, a spokesperson for the commission, wrote in an email that he did not know the specifics of the situation, but “in my experience most of the folks who deal with this are sophisticated enough and/or smart enough to follow the rules and hire legal counsel to make sure they’re following it.”

Different rules for trip sponsors

California law allows elected officials to accept unlimited free travel from a nonprofit organization, as long as the trip is related to policy issues or they are giving a speech or participating on a panel. Officials must report the travel as a gift on their annual statements of economic interest filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission — and, because of the same 2015 law, disclose the destination.

But the nonprofits — often funded by corporations, unions and industry associations that lobby the Legislature and the state — do not have similar reporting requirements. Though some voluntarily share lists of donors, they are not obligated to reveal how much money they receive and from whom.

For nearly as long as these trips have been happening, they have generated criticism from opponents who believe they amount to unofficial lobbying, allowing interest groups to buy privileged access to lawmakers and regulators away from public scrutiny. 

Hill said he grew more concerned after the 2010 PG&E pipeline explosion in his district that killed eight and destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood, which led to revelations about then-California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey’s close relationship and extensive travel with companies regulated by the commission.

So the law Hill authored was meant to provide greater accountability for which interest groups are paying for travel and how these trips can serve as opportunities for influence-peddling. It requires “a nonprofit organization that regularly organizes and hosts travel for elected officials” to annually report any donors who gave more than $1,000 and also accompanied elected officials on any portion of a trip, if the group meets two criteria:

  • Travel gifts to elected officials in that year totaled more than $10,000, or at least $5,000 to a single official.
  • Spending for travel, study tours and conferences, conventions and meetings related to elected officials account for at least one-third of its total expenses, as reflected in its federal tax filings.

Over the past two years, 16 organizations exceeded the first threshold at least once, according to a CalMatters analysis of legislators’ statements of economic interest. Just two of them filed the travel sponsor disclosure, known as Form 807.

The California Problem Solvers Foundation, which supports a bipartisan legislative caucus, revealed that in 2021, the year it launched, representatives from the California Medical Association, Edison International, the Associated Builders & Contractors of California, PhARMA, Blue Shield of California, DaVita Inc., PG&E and Sempra Energy donated and attended its inaugural policy summit in Dana Point, alongside nine lawmakers.

The foundation, however, did not file the form again for last year, when it spent another $12,000 taking four legislators to a policy summit in Sonoma. A spokesperson, Nick Mirman, declined to comment.

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus Leadership Foundation, which spent more than $213,000 to take 14 legislators to Israel in July, said it wrongly forgot to submit a disclosure for the trip. 

After CalMatters reached out, a representative for the foundation said its compliance attorneys discovered the error while completing its taxes. She provided a Form 807 that the foundation planned to file, showing two donors that also traveled to Israel: the Koret Foundation Donor Advised Fund at Stanford University and the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles. The Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed Wednesday that it received the form.

Over the last week, CalMatters surveyed the 14 other groups about why they did not file the disclosure form.

  • Three asserted they did not meet the eligibility requirements of the law, but did not specify how in follow-up inquiries: the Governor’s Cup Foundation, which organizes an annual golf tournament in Pebble Beach; the Shared Energy Future Foundation, the charitable arm of the oil and natural gas industry; and The Climate Registry, which spent more than $37,600 to bring lawmakers to United Nations climate conferences in Scotland and Egypt over the past two years.
  • Two said they are trade associations, which are exempt from the law: the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies and the California Independent Petroleum Association.
  • Five did not respond to questions, despite repeated inquiries: the California Biotechnology Foundation, the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, the Climate Action Reserve, the Council of State Governments-West and the Foundation for California’s Technology and Innovation Economy.
  • The California Environmental Voters Education Fund suggested that five lawmakers had incorrectly reported the organization as the sponsor of their travel to a United Nations biodiversity convention in Montreal, saying it had raised the money from another group called the Resources Legacy Fund.

Ambiguity in the law

A possible issue is how broadly to construe “activities with regard to elected officials,” as the law states, when determining expenses for the one-third of total spending threshold. Hill said his intent was for that calculation to cover the entire cost of trips and conferences attended by legislators, but nonprofits may be counting only their direct payments to lawmakers.

“Hindsight is 20/20, and if the nonprofits are using that as a way around following the law, that needs to be clarified or it needs to be enforced in a way that requires them to follow the law,” Hill said.

Wierenga said the Fair Political Practices Commission has no formal advice about how to complete the form because “nobody files them, so we’ve apparently never really been asked.”

Two prominent organizations mentioned by Hill at the time as inspirations for the 2015 law — the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy and the Independent Voter Project — told CalMatters they had never met the one-third of expenses threshold.

The California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, which sends lawmakers to policy conferences across the state and on international study tours, is by far the biggest source of sponsored travel that lawmakers annually report. In 2022, the foundation accounted for about 40% of the nearly $1 million in trips that California legislators took, according to a CalMatters analysis published this month.

A tax filing for last year is not yet publicly available. But in 2019, for example, the foundation reported spending $423,114 on study travel projects and $385,949 on conferences, conventions and meetings — about 43% of its nearly $1.9 million in expenses. Other recent years have comparable figures.

Spokesperson PJ Johnston declined to explain how the foundation calculates its expenses under the criteria laid out by the disclosure law. In an email, he wrote that “your approach may not take into account the full provisions,” but did not elaborate.

“Addressing your ‘calculations’ is not our responsibility, that is not our burden,” he wrote. “Your ‘calculations’ are imbued with no official weight, verification or concurrence from any agency with jurisdiction.”

He added that the foundation has never received any questions or guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission about the disclosure law.

“It’s frustrating. It is law and it should be followed. And it’s disappointing that some have used whatever reason they can find to not follow the law.”FORMER STATE SEN. JERRY HILL, WHO PUSHED FOR THE TRANSPARENCY LAW

Each November, the Independent Voter Project organizes a conference where dozens of legislators and corporate sponsors gather for a week of policy discussions and schmoozing at a luxury hotel in Maui. The event has long been a lightning rod for concerns about the close relationship between lawmakers and interest groups that have business before the Legislature.

Last year, the nonprofit spent $38,856 to bring 13 legislators to the Maui conference. But Dan Howle, the chairperson and executive chairman, said that event is a small fraction of the Independent Voter Project’s work — which also includes public education on the rights of no party preference voters and court challenges to laws restricting the participation of these voters in primary and general elections.

On its 2021 tax filing, the most recent that is publicly available, the Independent Voter Project reported spending $169,530 on conferences, conventions and meetings and $43,372 on travel and entertainment payments for public officials — just under a quarter of its $882,122 in total expenses for that year. Travel accounts for another $384,614 in spending, though it’s unclear whether those costs relate to “activities with regard to elected officials.”

Howle said the costs for the Maui conference — which include a dinner at the hotel restaurant, opening and closing receptions and the sponsored travel for legislators — are not as much as they may seem. His organization does not count hotel rooms for sponsors, which they pay for as part of their registration, curtailing spending that would qualify for the one-third threshold.

“We haven’t felt required to report it because we don’t reach that threshold,” Howle said. He said that the Independent Voter Project came to that conclusion after discussing the law with the Fair Political Practices Commission the year it took effect. The commission has issued no official advice.

A third organization, the California Issues Forum, also maintains that it hasn’t filed the form because it hasn’t spent enough to cross the disclosure threshold. Chris Tapio, a spokesperson, wrote in an email that the nonprofit’s “activities and expenditures have not met the statutory criteria” for filing a report.

The organization spent $15,634 to take 15 legislators to Napa, Los Angeles, and Marina Del Rey in 2022, according to lawmakers’ statements of economic interest, and $13,454 to take 13 legislators to La Jolla, Monterey and Lafayette in 2021.

Tax returns for those years are not yet publicly available. But in 2019, the organization reported spending $323,032 on conferences, conventions and meetings, and $15,072 on travel, accounting for about 27% of its nearly $1.3 million in expenses.

Click here to read the full article in CalMatters

California Agency Paid A State Worker Six Figures to Stay Home and Not Work, Report Says

A California state agency paid an employee six figures to spend nearly two years at home not working, according to a new report from the California state auditor.

The audit, published Thursday, identified wasteful spending, poor oversight and unreported leave that resulted in misuse of taxpayer dollars.

According to the report, a California agency paid an unidentified analyst nearly $114,000 in wages after placing her on administrative time off for 20 months.

“We are not naming the agency that is the subject of this report because doing so may identify or lead to the identification of the individuals mentioned in the report,” according to the report. There are also no details on what prompted the long administrative leave.

Many other departments are called out by name, including California Correctional Health Care Services, which failed to account for a registered nurse’s absences totaling 600 hours between October 2019 and November 2021. It resulted in the employee being overpaid by more than $38,000.

Correctional Health Care responded that it agreed with the report, and that it had taken several steps to fix the problem, including requesting copies of the employee’s missing timesheets.

At the Department of State Hospitals, a psychiatric technician had nearly 400 hours of absences unaccounted for from October 2018 to August 2021, costing the state about $12,500.

The Department of State Hospitals said that the technician had left the department in early 2022.

According to the report, a supervisor with the Department of Industrial Relations “repeatedly misused one of the state vehicles for his daily commute over a period of three years,” incurring $11,000 in costs to the state.

DIR said “that it recognizes the seriousness of our report and has already taken steps to address the reported issues,” including installing GPS location tracking systems in its vehicle fleet to prevent misuse, according to the report.

Finally, a Department of Parks and Recreation supervisor used a public boat dock to store his personal boat for more than six years, denying the state up to $36,000 in potential revenue. The report said that State Parks also failed to report as part of the supervisor’s taxable income approximately $67,000 in housing benefits as a result of his living in state-owned housing.

Click here to read the full article in Yahoo News

Bill To Restrict Marijuana Packaging Appealing To Children Gains Support In Assembly

AB 1207 currently up for Appropriations Committee vote

A bill to restrict marijuana products with packaging that appeals to children continued to gain traction in the Assembly, with more votes shifting in favor of the bill in recent weeks.

Assembly Bill 1207, authored by Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), would build upon provisions in the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), more commonly known as Prop 64, which legalized marijuana in California under a statewide vote in 2016. Under the legislation, AB 1207 would implement provisions of AUMA by prohibiting the sale or manufacture of cannabis or cannabis products that are attractive to children and by prohibiting the advertisement and marketing of cannabis or cannabis products in a way that is attractive to children. The bill would implement AUMA by prohibiting cannabis or cannabis products intended for use by inhalation or combustion from containing any natural or synthetic flavors or descriptors of flavors.

AB 1207 would also further define “attractive to children” by having marijuana products use the images of cartoons, toys, robots, fictional animals, real or fictional humans, as well as any likeness to images, characters, or phrases that are popularly used to advertise to children. Names of products would also be greatly limited under the bill by banning the use of any names similar to cereals, candies, chips, or any other food products sold to kids, as well as variant names with similar spelling.

In addition to the more precise wording of AUMA, the bill would also prohibit any artificial, synthetic, or natural flavoring, similar to a flavored tobacco ban law that went into effect in California earlier this year.

Assemblywoman Irwin wrote the over the increase of marijuana use for those under the legal age of 21. While many factors have been blamed for the rise, with teens 18% more likely to use marijuana following the passage of Prop 64, Irwin specifically targeted product packaging, similar to how tobacco companies had to stop using cartoons and designs on packs during the “Joe Camel” lawsuits in the mid 1990s. In addition, she noted that AB 1207 would help curb any accidental use by young people.

“Since the passage of Proposition 64, pediatric exposures to cannabis have increased exponentially,” Irwin said earlier this year. “These exposures are heavily influenced by the use of features on cannabis product packaging that are explicitly attractive to children. Children who unintentionally consume cannabis consistently require poison control treatment, and in many cases, they can also expose their fellow elementary and middle school peers to cannabis.”

Initially slow in gaining support, the bill quickly gained support last month when it was passed 13-0 with 5 abstentions  in the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. In the past month, more Assembly members have also signaled that they would either vote for it or abstain from voting, despite the next Appropriations Committee hearing over it having been delayed.

“No one is really against it, but for many it is mixed,” said “Dana,” a Capitol staffer to the Globe on Wednesday.” On the left, no one really wants to restrict marijuana that much after it was fought so hard to legalize, but they also don’t want kids smoking it. On the other side, no one wants to obstruct the free market, but again, they don’t want kids doing it. Some also can’t resist on curtailing marijuana to some degree. So they are all either voting for AB 1207 or abstaining.”

Click here to read the full article in the California Globe

California’s Reparations Scam: Michael Jackson’s Kids Would Get Payouts

California’s reparations con game is like a Nigerian Prince email scam

In 2020 the California legislature passed AB 3121 which created a 9-person task force to study California’s “complicity in slavery.” The task force would also be authorized to make recommendations to the state legislature about payments – also known as reparations.

Even if one could prove the dubious theory that the economic state of Blacks today is a result of America’s legacy of slavery, the state of California wouldn’t be the first place or even the second place to focus on this slavery.  Since 1850 when California became a state its Constitution expressly forbid slavery, and it never supported the Confederacy during the Civil War.

It turns out that though California didn’t promote slavery, today it is one of the places willing to entertain bad ideas, however.

Rather than focus on how California’s poor public schools have failed poor Blacks and white alike? Or how its anti-business regulatory climate has eroded the ability of its poorer residents to climb out of poverty and into the middle class, elites in the state have moved to distract disadvantaged voters with the reparations con.

This high-stakes con game will prove no more beneficial to Blacks in California than the typical recipients of the Nigerian Prince email scam.

The Reparations Task Force has already pledged that nearly 80 percent of California’s 2.6 million Black residents will be granted reparations. The task force cannot achieve this goal – even if it was legal, which it is not.

First, the math simply doesn’t work. Consider: if all of the ‘eligible’ Blacks in California were merely given $1000 in reparations the cost to California would exceed $2 billion.  But that compensation would in no way equal the staggering claims made by the racial alarmists that push for reparations. $1,000 would be a pittance of the injuries that they claim that blacks have faced in California.

Using questionable calculations that wouldn’t get a passing grade in junior high, the task force has estimated that the “compounded” injury to Blacks that have lived their entire lives in California would equal 100k for every year of their residency in the state.  Consider, for just one year of reparations using this measure, the state would be on the hook for $200 billion – out of a 300 billion state budget as of 2022.  The median age of Blacks in California is 36.5.  When you factor in that median age payouts equal nearly a trillion.  There is no scenario where this will occur.

Second, who should receive payments? Per the decision of the task force, only Blacks who are descendants of slavery are eligible. Persons born outside of the U.S. aren’t eligible. 

But should all others be eligible? What about Michael Jackson’s kids? Should his oldest son Michael “Prince” Joseph Jackson, Jr. receive a payment? Using the online calculator set up by the reparations task force he’d be eligible for a half a million payout. This despite there being no evidence that he has ever faced discrimination because he is the son of a black man. And the same is true for his siblings. Yet the task force would also award the three more than a cool million. In fact, the task force hasn’t set up any criteria other than race for eligibility. Has in fact every black descendant of slavery suffered injury? The task force says yes, but they present no evidence to prove their claims.

Merely being black is a sufficient basis for getting a payment per the task force.  But who is Black? Do recipients self-select and declare themselves black? Will California restore the odious “one drop rule” and decide that any black descendant is sufficient to make someone black? Alternatively, will the state of California use visual inspectors a la Plessy v Ferguson to sort out who is who? Or must recipients submit DNA samples to show their heritage?

Whatever method California adopts is fraught with danger. As a melting pot nation, black Americans have intermarried at higher and higher rates over the last 100 years and not every one of those children born of such unions identify as black.  Increasingly Americans of all stripes identify as other proving that forcing people to choose being only black is completely unworkable.

Finally, the task forces objectives are illegal. Courts are highly skeptical of any public policy effort that relies primarily on race to provide a benefit or detriment.  There was a time when “separate but equal” was the law of the land. But that ruling was overturned and today after a long line of rulings starting with Brown v. Board of Education, even modest raced-based policies are highly scrutinized.

Whatever method California adopts is fraught with danger. As a melting pot nation, black Americans have intermarried at higher and higher rates over the last 100 years and not every one of those children born of such unions identify as black.  Increasingly Americans of all stripes identify as other proving that forcing people to choose being only black is completely unworkable.

Finally, the task forces objectives are illegal. Courts are highly skeptical of any public policy effort that relies primarily on race to provide a benefit or detriment.  There was a time when “separate but equal” was the law of the land. But that ruling was overturned and today after a long line of rulings starting with Brown v. Board of Education, even modest raced-based policies are highly scrutinized.

Click here to read the full article in FoxNews

California Legislature Proposing Unemployment Benefits For Illegal Immigrants

‘Excluded workers’ who are not eligible for regular state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status

The California Legislature is proposing a program to provide unemployment benefits to illegal immigrants coming to and residing in the state.

Senate Bill 277 by State Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles) proposes income assistance to unemployed “excluded workers” who are not eligible for regular state or federal unemployment insurance benefits due to their immigration status.

Perhaps even more horrifying, this program would be administered by the Employment Development Department and implemented upon appropriation by the Legislature of sufficient funds to carry it out.

Currently, the state’s employers pay for unemployment insurance.

This is the same EDD the massive fraud was perpetrated against during the pandemic. “The current estimate is that the EDD lost about $40 billion to illegitimate claimants, including prisoners (and not just from California prisons), garden variety local scammers, and international fraud rings, all of whom simply walked right into the department’s completely unprotected system,” the Globe reported.

“While the EDD has claimed it did the best it could, it should be noted that the EDD—even though it could have purchased basic fraud protection software that would even work with its antiquated IT systems for about $5 million—had no way to prove if an applicant was who they said they were until the end of 2020, months after the pandemic began.”

The Senate Committee on Labor bill analysis explains that SB 277 Prohibits the EDD, in administering the program, from taking any of the following actions:

  1. Requesting, orally or in writing, an individual’s nationality, place of birth, or eligibility or ineligibility for a social security number.
  2. Compelling or requesting an individual to admit in writing whether they have proof of lawful presence in the United States.
  3. Contacting an individual’s current, former, or prospective employer for any purpose, including to verify employment status. However, does not prohibit the department from using other means to verify past employment.
  4. Recording an individual’s immigration or citizenship status.

The bill also authorizes an applicant to self-attest to being eligible for the program and requires them to submit documentation with a value equal to at least four points to establish proof of work history. (emphasis ours)

Did lawmakers learn nothing from the rampant fraud of the EDD during COVID? “Self-attest to being eligible for the program?

“Every day, undocumented immigrants contribute to California’s economic prosperity in agriculture, construction, clothing and other industries” said Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles). “California is set to be the world’s fourth-largest economy in large part thanks to immigrant labor, yet immigrants continue to be shut out from California’s economic success due to unjust exclusions from the safety net. That is why I am authoring SB 227, the Safety Net for All Workers Act. California must include a life-saving unemployment benefits program for these workers.”

Governor Gavin Newsom recently announced that the state’s budget deficit has ballooned by $9 billion, going from the initial January estimate of $22.5 billon to $31.5 billion, leading to more major cuts being implemented next fiscal year.

Approximately half of California’s income comes from the top 1% of earners as well as businesses in the state.

The perfect storm for recession may be upon us with high inflation, high taxes, high energy costs, high food costs, a sizable budget deficit, and tens of thousands of big tech layoffs, which is the other issue California lawmakers and governor need to address, the Globe reported. And now taxpayers will be expected to financially support more illegal immigrants into the state with the expiration of Title 42.

Senator Durazo never acknowledges where the funding will come from – and it’s not from the Appropriations Committee.

“Title 42, a Trump administration era policy suspended rights to seek asylum, expired Thursday evening, bringing an influx of migrants to the border,” Fox News reported. “A record 83,000 migrants crossed the border last week in anticipation of the policy’s expiration, but U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said border agents saw a 50% drop in the number of border crossers over the weekend.”

“Just south of San Diego, roughly 15,000 migrants had gathered in Tijuana last week, filling hotels and shelters or sleeping outside in a makeshift camp while waiting for Title 42 to expire in the hopes of making it into the Golden State, The New York Times reported.”

The state is bleeding businesses and losing hundreds of thousands of residents to other states. The California exodus to other states is even worse than we realized; the state’s population dropped by more than 500,000 people between April 2020 and July 2022, with the number of residents leaving surpassing those moving in by nearly 700,000, the Globe reported in February – taking $29.1 billion with them to other states.

And California Democrats are proposing to pay illegal immigrants unemployment.

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

Activists Demand Higher Payments from California Reparations Task Force: ‘$200 million’ Per Person

Activists on Saturday demanded that the state of California pay millions of dollars to each Black resident in reparations as a way to make amends for slavery and subsequent discrimination, dismissing the mammoth proposals from California’s reparations task force as too little.

The demands were made at a highly explosive official meeting of the task force, which was created by state legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020. The committee was hearing comments from the public as it considers final recommendations to submit to the California Legislature, which will then decide whether to implement the measures and send them to Newsom’s desk to be signed into law.

An activist identified as Reverend Tony Pierce was one of the most outspoken people at the gathering, making reference to the famous “40 acres and a mule” promise to former slaves when he took the podium.

“You know that the numbers should be equivocal to what an acre was back then. We were given 40, OK? We were given 40 acres. You know what that number is. You keep trying to talk about now, yet you research back to slavery and you say nothing about slavery, nothing,” said Pierce. “So, the equivocal number from the 1860s for 40 acres to today is $200 million for each and every African-American.”

Pierce, who shouted most of his remarks, then directed his ire to the task force for in his view not pushing an ambitious enough reparations plan.

“You’re not supposed to be afraid,” he said. “You’re just supposed to tell the truth. You’re not supposed to be the gatekeepers. You’re supposed to say what the people want and hear from the people.”

Pierce concluded with a warning to California’s top elected official: “Tell Governor Newsom we’re coming. He knows me.”

Economists predicted in a preliminary estimate in March that California’s reparations plan could cost the state more than $800 billion. The task force, which consulted five economists and policy experts to arrive at the number, said at the time that the total didn’t include compensation for property that the group says was taken unjustly or for the devaluation of Black-owned businesses.

California’s total annual state budget sits at roughly $300 billion.

Pierce, who shouted most of his remarks, then directed his ire to the task force for in his view not pushing an ambitious enough reparations plan.

“You’re not supposed to be afraid,” he said. “You’re just supposed to tell the truth. You’re not supposed to be the gatekeepers. You’re supposed to say what the people want and hear from the people.”

Pierce concluded with a warning to California’s top elected official: “Tell Governor Newsom we’re coming. He knows me.”

Economists predicted in a preliminary estimate in March that California’s reparations plan could cost the state more than $800 billion. The task force, which consulted five economists and policy experts to arrive at the number, said at the time that the total didn’t include compensation for property that the group says was taken unjustly or for the devaluation of Black-owned businesses.

California’s total annual state budget sits at roughly $300 billion.

However, such ideas are skimping on what’s necessary to pay Black Californians, according to activists who spoke at the gathering.

“$1.2 million is nowhere near enough. It should be starting at least $5 million like San Francisco,” said one woman. “We want direct cash payments just like how the stimulus [checks] were sent out. It’s our inheritance, and we can handle it.”

The city of San Francisco is weighing its own reparations proposals at the local level, including a proposal to dole out $5 million each to qualifying Black residents.

Others at the meeting similarly dismissed the current task force plan is insufficient. One speaker called for the task force to issue $5 million in reparations as San Francisco is considering.

“This million dollars we’re hearing on the news is just inadequate and a further injustice if that’s what this task force is going to recommend for Black Americans for 400-plus years and continuing of slavery and injustice that we have been forced to endure,” she said. “To even throw a million dollars at us is just an injustice.”

Whatever the final figures, it’s unclear how California would afford to pay millions of dollars to each eligible Black resident. Newsom announced in January that the state faces a projected budget deficit of $22.5 billion for the coming fiscal year. Weeks later, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, a government agency that analyzes the budget for the state legislature, estimated in a subsequent report that Newsom’s forecast undershot the mark by about $7 billion.

Task force leaders have said they expect the legislature to come up with actual reparations amounts. According to California Justice Department officials, the law creating the task force did not instruct the committee to identify funding sources.

Beyond arguing reparations proposals are fiscally unmanageable, critics argue it doesn’t make sense to implement them when California never allowed slavery.

Proponents counter that racial discrimination in the state has devastated the Black community, costing it untold amounts of money.

Beyond raw dollars and cents, the task force also proposes several policy changes to combat racial discrimination and for California to issue a formal apology enacted by the legislature and signed by the governor for slavery and anti-Black racism.

The reparations program would be overseen by a new state agency that would determine eligibility for and distribute funds, according to the task force report.

Most people who spoke at Saturday’s meeting spoke in support of reparations. Despite such agreement, however, sparks flew throughout the chaotic, emotionally charged gathering as arguments broke out. Indeed, many attendees spoke out of turn and interrupted each other, leading Kamilah Moore, the task force chair, to call for security to remove people multiple times.

In several instances, activists in the room got into shouting matches, forcing the meeting to be put on pause to settle down the room.

Click here to read the full article at FoxNews11

Democrats Remain Mostly Silent About Senator Min’s DUI Despite More Evidence Of Guilt

Photos of Min at a Sacramento bar only hours before his arrest fuel calls for resignation, dropping out of Congressional campaign

Prominent California Democrats continued to not weigh in on the DUI of Senator Dave Min (D-Orange County) on Thursday, despite more details coming out proving his guilt in the matter.

While the released California Highway Patrol report, his arrest, booking for a misdemeanor DUI charge, and his subsequent release on Wednesday were all previously known to the public, new details released on Thursday filled in some of the mysteries of the incident. Twitter posts, including some by Assemblywoman Laura Friedman (D-North Hollywood), showed Min at Sacramento bars with fellow Assembly Members, as well as lobbyists and realtors. In addition, he was tagged in posts and was mentioned to be indulging in the celebrations only hours before his arrest.

In addition, it is also now known that the Silver Toyota Camry he was pulled over in was a state car, perhaps worsening the situation he is currently in now.

While many lawmakers, political groups, and others weighed in on his DUI this week, with some even calling for him to resign or pull out of the 37th District Congressional race, Democrat lawmakers have remained largely silent on the situation.

Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) did give a brief statement saying, “Like Senator Min, we’re disappointed in his actions, but pleased that he’s taken responsibility and apologized.” However, as of Thursday evening, that has been the most any were willing to say.

Republicans have led the charge on questioning the DUI, calling on Democrats to comment on the DUI or ask some who have backed him in the Congressional race, such as state Attorney General Rob Bonta and Congressional Members Judy Chu, Mark Takano, and Andy Kim, if they are still backing him. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has been particularly adamant in getting responses on where lawmakers are siding with him.

“Katie Porter, Orange County Democrats and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can’t hide from questions about Dave Min’s drunk driving arrest for long. Come out, come out wherever you are, and tell the public if you think Dave Min is fit to serve in Congress.” said NRCC Spokesperson Ben Petersen on Thursday.

Political experts noted to the Globe on Thursday that many are currently in a “wait and see” mode, wanting to find out more about the incident before judging the DUI.

“A lot of Democrats want to hear more directly from him first,” explained Anne Otis, a Los Angeles Public Relations expert who specializes in political scandals. “They want to hear from him. If there is bodycam or dashcam footage, they want to see that. Some are even waiting to see how it plays out in court. In any case, the GOP can have a field day of this down the line. Judge gives Min a light sentence or even kinda waives it off, it can be a gold mine about how he cheated the system. He gets the book thrown at him, they can say that his DUI was that bad.”

“The real question is what the party will do. Everyone makes mistakes, and even Republicans said it was good that he took responsibility for his actions. But this was a DUI, something he had called out others on in the past about. He’s already running in a Congressional District that is essentially a tossup with a Republican candidate who nearly beat [Congresswoman Katie] Porter [D-CA] last year. He’s losing a lot of moderates with this, as well as some Democrats. And that’s not even mentioning voters who feel strongly about public safety or who have been victims of DUIs in the past. He’ll need a really good PR campaign to get out of this one, and his campaign is probably still trying to come up with something.

“In any case, Min is now even more at risk in the district, and we’re still 10 months away from the Primary.”

Click here to read the full article in California Globe

California Lawmakers OK Emergency Loans to Failing Hospitals

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Alarmed by the closure of a rural hospital earlier this year, California lawmakers on Thursday voted to loan $150 million to struggling medical centers in the hope of preventing a cascade of similar failures across the state.

The only hospital in Madera County closed in December, leaving the community of nearly 160,000 people with no medical center within a 30-minute drive. The closure was a startling reminder of the plight of many community hospitals in mostly rural areas of the country that have struggled to stay open during the coronavirus pandemic.

Since then, hospitals in El Centro, Montebello, Hawkins and Visalia have all teetered on the brink of collapse, with one declaring bankruptcy and another being taken over by a state university to prevent its closure. A report last month paid for by the California Hospital Association warned that 20% of the state’s more than 400 hospitals were at risk of closing.

California lawmakers typically don’t approve new spending until June following months of debate and negotiations with the governor’s office. But the crisis is so severe that legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom agreed to go ahead and spend this money now, pledging to do more later in the year when the budget is finished.

“I don’t think people are appreciating what’s going on out there. I am very worried,” said Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association, an industry trade group.

The pandemic upended hospitals across the country. While many were inundated with COVID-19 cases, patients for other things — like elective surgeries — dried up. Since then, rising inflation and labor costs have made it difficult for hospitals to recover.

In California, the problem has been compounded by an increase in the number of people who get their health care costs paid for by the government. The state’s Medicaid rolls increased dramatically during the pandemic, a combination of emergency rules to make the program more accessible and a decision by Democrats to make all low-income adults eligible for the program regardless of their immigration status.

While more people are on Medicaid, how much Medicaid pays hospitals has stayed the same. On average, for every dollar a hospital spends to care for someone, Medicaid gives it 74 cents back, Coyle said.

That’s a problem for hospitals like Kaweah Medical Center in Visalia, where most of its patients are on either Medicaid or Medicare. Nestled in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, the hospital serves a mostly agricultural community made up of low-income farmworkers.

Before the pandemic, the hospital would turn a modest profit of 3% or so each year, according to CEO Gary Herbst. But since 2020, Herbst said the hospital has lost $138 million. It has about $218 million in debt that a credit ratings agency recently downgraded to “junk” status.

The hospital is supposed to have at least 90 days of operating cash on hand at any time. Before the pandemic, the lowest it ever got was 110 days. At the end of March, it dropped to just 62 days. Herbst said the hospital has lost $39 million through the first nine months of the fiscal year, or more than it lost in all of last year combined.

Herbst said he hopes the hospital will break even next year because of various cost-cutting measures, including laying off about 200 people and cutting back on services. That includes cutting the number of elective procedures for Medicaid patients by 35% because, he said, on “every one of those procedures we lose money.”

“If you were an outpatient surgeon who did 10 elective (Medicaid) surgeries a month, you can only do six now. And you have to put your other patients on a waiting list,” Herbst said.

The state will give out the $150 million in the form of interest-free loans to nonprofit or public hospitals that meet certain conditions. The state will prioritize loans for medical centers in rural areas and those that have a disproportionate number of patients on Medicaid, the joint state and federal government health insurance program for the poor and the disabled.

The $150 million likely won’t be enough to fix the problem. Herbst, CEO of Kaweah Health Medical Center in Visalia, said his hospital needs $50 million — one-third of the money available — to give it “some breathing room.”

During legislative hearings this week, lawmakers pledged their intent to offer more money in June when the state budget is finished.

“This is just a beginning. It’s antiseptic ointment on the cut. We haven’t even started with the Band-Aid,” said state Sen. Anna Caballero, a Democrat whose district includes the Madera Community Hospital that closed.

But it’s unclear how much more the state could pay. The California Hospital Association has asked for a one-time payment of $1.5 billion. But California has a projected $22.5 billion budget deficit, limiting the state’s ability to approve new spending.

One idea is to bring back a tax on managed care organizations, private companies that administer the state’s Medicaid program. The tax triggers more Medicaid payments from the federal government. The last time it was in place, it saved the state $1.5 billion. The tax expired in 2020, but Newsom and some lawmakers want to bring it back.

The Newsom administration says it plans to use some of that new tax money to increase payments to hospitals for Medicaid patients. But those increases wouldn’t happen until next year at the earliest.

Click here to read the full article at AP News