Hard to believe I’ve now lived in California long enough that I can be nostalgic for the recent past. But something just happened that made me wonder if Golden State Democrats are at a turning point, as I suggested at New York:
Governor Gavin Newsom and many other California Democrats hoped that their state could serve as a defiant alternative to the reactionary bent of the second Trump administration, one that proudly stands up for their party’s values. But fiscal realities (including many under the influence of their enemies in Washington) still matter, and a new announcement from Newsom, as reported by the Associated Press, illustrates the limits of state-based progressivism in the Trump era:
“Gov. Gavin Newsom wants California to stop enrolling more low-income immigrants without legal status in a state-funded health care program starting in 2026 and begin charging those already enrolled a monthly premium the following year.
“The decision is driven by a higher-than-expected price tag on the program and economic uncertainty from federal tariff policies, Newsom said in a Wednesday announcement. The Democratic governor’s move highlights Newsom’s struggle to protect his liberal policy priorities amid budget challenges in his final years on the job.
“California was among the first states to extend free health care benefits to all poor adults regardless of their immigration status last year, an ambitious plan touted by Newsom to help the nation’s most populous state to inch closer to a goal of universal health care. But the cost for such expansion ran $2.7 billion more than the administration had anticipated.”
The steady expansion of Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, which is being at best “paused” right now, reflected two different but mutually reinforcing progressive values: a slow but stead crawl toward universal health-care coverage in the absence of a national single-payer system, and a concern for the needs of the undocumented immigrants who play so prominent a role in California’s economy and society. In particular, California Democrats have embraced the argument that health care should be a right, not some sort of earned privilege, in part because health insurance helps keep overall health-care costs down in the long run by promoting early detection and treatment of illnesses while avoiding expensive emergency-room care. Because federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used to provide services for undocumented immigrants, California (like six other states that cover significant numbers of adults, and 13 others who cover children) has used state dollars to pay for them.
California Democrats were in a position to expand Medi-Cal thanks to the legislative supermajorities they have enjoyed since 2018, which is also when Newsom became governor. But the latest expansion has proved to be fiscally unsustainable as statewide budget shortfalls loom. Newsom has been quick to attribute the latest budget woes to revenues losses caused by Trump’s tariff policies. But the broader problem is that, unlike the federal government, California must balance its budget, even though many of the factors influencing spending and revenues are beyond its control. And the problem is likely to get worse as the Trump administration and its congressional allies shift costs to the states, a major part of their strategy for reducing federal spending (to pay for high-end federal tax cuts).
There’s a specific emerging federal policy that probably influenced Newsom’s latest step: Congressional Republicans are very likely to adopt a punitive reduction in Medicaid matching funds for states that are using their own money to cover undocumented immigrants. The details are still under development, but the provision could hit California pretty hard.
Numbers aside, this episode represents a potential turning point in California’s progressive political trends, reflecting Trump’s better-than-expected showing in the Golden State in 2024 along with the passage of a ballot initiative increasing criminal penalties for drug and theft offenses and the rejection of an increase in the state’s minimum wage. There’s even some optimistic talk among California Republicans about breaking their long losing streak (dating back to 2006) in statewide elections next year. That’s pretty unlikely given the high odds of an anti-Trump midterm backlash, but the fact that the heirs of Ronald Reagan are even dreaming dreams is a bit of a surprise.
It’s also possible that the ever-ambitious Newsom doesn’t mind calibrating his own ideological image toward the perceived center in his final days as governor (he’s term-limited next year). He and other California Democrats can only hope that economic trends and what happens in Washington give them a choice in the matter.
Rasmussen’s Bush lead has shrunk to 1%.
I’ve got the internals on the latest Gallup/CNN/USAT poll over on my site, and I have sent them to Ruy as well. Yes, Gallup resumed a 2-4% GOP advantage in their samples, and Kerry still made up ground on Bush.
you would think that Gallup, given the controversy about party breakdown, would have mentioned that in the poll, given that it had several pages of information on the web. It would only take two extra lines of type, eh?
And what IS all this about Bush wearing a wire at the first debate (not that it’s likely to influence the election. Now, if he’d WON it … . Maybe he was making faces at what he heard over the wire. As a credential venue tappee, I can sympathize, but not with Bush overall.
This is one of the very best articles I have read yet on the
overall situation in Iraq under US occupation:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-114-2143.jsp
This short blurb is interesting regarding the possibility of a
draft. Especially note the poll suggesting that by a 51% to 31%
margin, the military personnel polled in Iraq do not expect to re-
enlist when their duty is up.
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/InternationalAffairs
Although I suspect that further debate on Iraq between the candidates will be less of a central focus as the economy and deficit (and Republiquenne protestations about ‘taxes on the middle class’ when their policies cause state and local taxes to eat up most middle class taxpayers’ tax cuts over time) come into central focus, the DRAFT issue will be very big for certain segments of the population. ONE JAB about high unemployment making military recruitment easier might really make Bush get all peeved up in the third debate …..[Just a thought]
The best I can remember, Gallup only uses LVs in regards to USA today so this poll should be consistent with other USA Today polls. Still waiting for a more exact methodology on this.
Just to note, I am fairly sure that Gallup only provides LV numbers in USA today, so this poll is consistent with their other polls.
Still waiting for a more detailed methodology though.
Does anyone know the DEM/REP breakdown in Gallup’s sample? I couldn’t find this information on the Gallup website. This would be really great news if this poll oversampled Republicans like previous Gallup polls.
Is the weighting still biased towards the GOP in this poll? If so, that’s very good news for Kerry to be ahead.
What were the internals? Have they stopped oversampling Reublicans? It is hard to trust their work after the early September fiascos.
Has Gallup changed its methodology at all? Are they still over-sampling republicans?
Does anyone know the D/R/I breakdown in this poll?
What’s the partisan breakdown? Has Gallup made its sample more balanced or is it still oversampling Republicans?
Any internals on that bad boy?