California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12 billion deficit.
It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders.
But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday.
The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole.
'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget.
California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion.
'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.'
Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually.
'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending," said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.'
Here's a look at spending in key areas:
Health care
Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old.
The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care.
Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities.
The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026.
But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.'
The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood.
Environment
Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending.
Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year.
Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently.
Public safety
The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment.
Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads.
Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program.
Other priorities
Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030.
The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense.
But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds.
The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why your Social Security check could shrink by nearly 20% — and more if jobs are scarce
Social Security is hugely important to a large share of Americans. Almost 69 million Americans will receive monthly Social Security benefits in 2025, totaling about $1.6 trillion in benefits paid during the year. But Social Security will need some kind of reform within the next decade in order for America's retirees to keep counting on it. Given its funding structure, if Social Security continues to roll forward in its current trajectory, the program will be able to cover just 81% of promised benefits starting in 2034, according to the latest estimates of the Social Security Trust Fund report. My brother stole $100K from my mom to buy bitcoin. Do I convince her to sue him? Most American weddings are a lot more extravagant than the nuptials of Amazon's Jeff Bezos I'm a stay-at-home. Do I take a part-time job to spend more time with my kids — or get a job for six figures? JPMorgan has a new way of forecasting the stock market — and there's a surprising finding 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? Congress will need to take action. But both Republicans and Democrats have long been reluctant to reduce Social Security benefits and averse to raising payroll taxes to close the funding gap. Yet the economic reality can't be ignored. The way in which Social Security is funded exposes the program to challenges. Unlike other forms of saving for retirement, where workers put away savings into an account that is dedicated to them, this pay-as-you-go system acts more like a checking account: Current workers are paying into the system and the current beneficiaries are receiving those funds out of the program. This structure did not present a challenge while the baby-boom generation was entering the workforce in the early 1960s, with the share of workers paying into the system rising much faster than the share of the population able to claim benefits. Since the early 2000s the tables have turned: The share of the U.S. population that is 18-64 has been declining while the share that is 65 and older grew at the fastest rate in over a century, going from 13.0% of the total population in 2010 to 16.8% in 2020. As a result of these opposing trends, while there were about 18 people aged 65 and older for every 100 working-age Americans in 1980, this dependency ratio grew to 30 retirement-age Americans per 100 workers in 2025 (see the chart above). The ratio of retirees to workers is likely to continue increasing beyond the retirement of the baby boomers because of the lower fertility rates that the U.S. has experienced over the past 15 years or so. For several years, the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund have been projecting that the program has promised more benefits than it is able to pay out. According to the latest trustees report, released on June 18, the combined Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Fund is expected to be depleted in 2034. At that time, benefits will be paid only from the income that is coming in, as there won't be anything in the reserves to supplement that income. Legally, the trust fund cannot borrow money. At that point, the trust funds would only be sufficient to pay about 81 cents on every dollar scheduled to be paid. Unless policymakers make deliberate efforts to clarify how to handle shortfalls, it is likely that the program will face similar uncertainties in the future. Right now, we face uncertainty in how the gap between the funds coming in and the benefits promised will be closed. It is not clear if beneficiaries will face those benefit cuts, if taxpayers will be liable for those tax increases, or something else. Both the benefits paid and the contributions into Social Security are prescribed by law. This means it's likely that demographic or economic assumptions will change again at some point in the future, resulting in an imbalance between the benefits that are scheduled to be paid and the revenue that is expected to come in. For example, when there's an economic downturn, fewer people are working and contributing into the trust fund. There are other ways in which the retirement security system is lacking that could be addressed. While the existence of Social Security and Medicare have contributed to a dramatic reduction in elderly poverty, some groups face persistent challenges. Although survivor benefits provide helpful protection to surviving spouses, there is some evidence that the existing level of survivor insurance may not be adequate to cover the costs that a surviving spouse incurs. In 2019, among those 60 and over, 16% of new widows lived in poverty, compared to 10% overall. There remain significant expenditure risks that the elderly face that are not fully addressed by Social Security and Medicare. While Social Security does not provide any kind of medical payments, Medicare provides a source of health insurance for most people over the age of 65. However, Medicare doesn't cover everything, and there are significant copayments and deductibles that a person may be responsible for. Read: Trump pledged not to cut Medicare — but his budget bill does just that For example, annual out-of-pocket spending on healthcare was on average $6,663 for all beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare in 2019, according to a study by AARP. This average out-of-pocket spending for healthcare was equivalent to about 38% of the average annual Social Security retirement benefit ($17,460) in 2019. Moreover, there is a significant coverage gap regarding long-term care services for chronic conditions. This type of care is costly and largely paid for either out of pocket, through state Medicaid programs for those who qualify, or provided by unpaid caregivers, often spouses and adult children, who indirectly bear the costs through reduced labor force participation and adverse impacts on their own health. A person turning 65 between 2021 and 2025 is estimated to incur, on average, $120,900 in paid long-term care costs, of which 37% is estimated to be paid out of pocket, and the remainder covered by a combination of Medicaid (and other sources of public insurance) and private insurance (see here). Read: $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid would have a devastating impact on people receiving long-term care. Here's why. Also read: Medicare may actually be in more trouble than Social Security What will Social Security reform ultimately look like? The answer is unclear at this stage. Would it be an across-the-board cut or a cut that applies more to certain people than others? Will the burden fall on all U.S. taxpayers or only on current workers? Delaying real discussion about the solutions makes the problems harder to solve. The timeline that the U.S. has to fix it is shorter and the change that is needed is more drastic than it would be otherwise. While addressing the imminent financial challenges of the program will be unavoidable, Americans shouldn't just be thinking about the issue of solvency. What is the role of government and markets in providing this protection? How can Americans ensure that their major entitlement programs are solvent and sustainable for the long term? Social Security reform offers an opportunity to take comprehensive look at how policy can best help people manage the risks they face in retirement. Gopi Shah Goda is director of the Retirement Security Project, the Alice M. Rivlin chair in economic policy and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. This commentary was originally published by Econofact — 'Facing the Social Security Shortfall.' Also read: As Social Security starts operating under controversial new rules, here's how they could affect you and your benefits More: Social Security will stop sending paper checks soon. How to make sure you still get your benefits on time. S&P 500 scores record high for first time in 4 months. What could push stocks higher from here? There's an important market indicator that suggests investors remain wary. It's good news for stocks. My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? What drove stock market's record-breaking week? Don't overlook growing rate-cut expectations. Coinbase's stock is up over 40% this month as Wall Street projects amazing profit growth Sign in to access your portfolio


USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood. On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood. By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections. It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care. The plan was always to end abortion in every state It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time. While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data. The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country. Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures. None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country. Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda. Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that. Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication. Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk. The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning. It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno


The Intercept
30 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Fetterman Voted With GOP to Make Sure Trump Can Attack Iran Again
In a Friday evening vote, the U.S. Senate rejected a war powers resolution that would have blocked President Donald Trump from making further attacks on Iran, despite widespread disapproval of last week's strikes. Senators voted 47-53, largely along party lines, on a measure offered by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would have prohibited Trump from offensive measures while preserving his ability to defend U.S. forces. Kaine's resolution drew near-unanimous support from Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. 'I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution.' In a floor speech Friday night, Kaine underscored the continuing need for the measure despite a fragile ceasefire, noting that Trump said as recently as Friday that he would be willing to bomb Iran again. 'I am hoping — I am realistic — but I am hoping that the members of this body will stand up for the constitution, will stand up for the proposition that war is too big to be decided by one person,' Kaine said before his measure failed. A single Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who often opposes foreign interventions, supported Kaine's measure. Aside from Paul, the resolution drew pushback from Senate Republicans. Critics said it would prevent the U.S. from defending Israel, despite an amendment from Kaine specifically designed to address that concern. 'President Trump seized the moment — responsibly, constitutionally, and decisively,' said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, the majority whip, on the Senate floor. 'America and our allies are safer today because of it. The resolution from Senator Kaine is not needed — and I oppose it. If passed, it would prevent the president from protecting us in the future.' The strikes revealed divisions within the Democratic caucus. Progressives largely opposed the strikes outright, while some pro-Israel Democrats offered qualified or full support. One of the most full-throated boosters was Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., who voted against Kaine's resolution. Fetterman has emerged as a leading proponent of the use of military force against Iran. 'Blow it up! Blow it up! I think we should waste what's left of their nuclear facilities,' he said in March. His aggressive stance has alienated former donors, who have requested refunds, and staffers, who have resigned at a steady pace. The war powers resolution was always considered a longshot, since it would have required the support of a veto-proof majority of both chambers of Congress. A similar attempt in 2019 to end the Trump administration's involvement in Saudi Arabia's war on Yemen faltered when Trump vetoed it, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, pulled a similar resolution from consideration in 2022 amid pushback from Joe Biden's administration. Kaine's measure, however, did put senators on the record about how they feel about Trump's unpopular strikes. Americans disapproved of the strikes 56 percent to 44 percent, according to a snap CNN poll conducted immediately after the attack. The results mirror other surveys. Many Democrats sought to criticize Trump without directly addressing the strikes by voicing concern over the administration's failure to obtain congressional approval before the attack, or to adequately brief Congress after it. 'The Democratic Party needs to clearly stand up against this war.' In the House, progressives and ranking committee leaders have offered two alternative war powers resolutions. Advocates say the version offered by Democratic leaders would do little to prevent Trump from launching future strikes if he justifies them as defending Israel. At a press conference Wednesday, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the party should back the tougher resolution, which he cosponsored with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. 'The Democratic Party,' Khanna said, 'needs to clearly stand up against this war and take the mantle again of being the anti-war party, the party that stands up against wars of choice, against these endless wars in the Middle East.'