For Clients & Friends of The Gualco Group, Inc.
IN THIS ISSUE – “I don’t know if Newsom is a drag on the ticket, but I don’t see him as much of a boost either”
Tom Holyoke, Fresno State political science professor, on why the Governor isn’t campaigning in the Central Valley
- Poll Ranks Ballot Propositions, Voter Concerns & Newsom Popularity
- POTUS Contest Draws Most Attention – But Water & School Bonds are California Essentials
- Central Valley Dem Candidates Avoid Holding Hands with Newsom
- Seven Legislators Miss Quarter of Votes; Record-Keeping is Vague
- Air Board Nears Controversial LCFS Overhaul; Won’t Predict Gas Price Impact
- “I’m With Elon,” Newsom Says in SpaceX Lawsuit v. Coastal Commission
- State Revenues Up in September & Past 6 Months
Capital News & Notes (CN&N) curates California policy, legislative and regulatory insights from dozens of media and official sources for the past week. Please feel free to forward this unique client service.
FOR THE WEEK ENDING OCT. 25, 2024
Poll Ranks Ballot Propositions, Voter Concerns & Newsom Popularity
Public Policy Institute of California
First up, Proposition 2. A slight majority (52%) of California likely voters said that they will vote yes on the bond to authorize $10 billion in bonds for repairs, upgrades and construction projects at K-12 schools around the state. In September, 54% said they would vote yes.
A much stronger majority (60%) said they are a yes for the other bond measure, Proposition 4, which authorizes $10 billion in bond spending on projects for water, wildfire prevention and climate change mitigation. That’s down 5 percentage points from when the question was polled in September.
Things are looking good for Proposition 3, which would remove the 2008 prohibition against same-sex marriage from the California Constitution, with 67% saying they support the measure (down slightly from 68% in September).
Proposition 5, which would lower the voter threshold for approving local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure, is looking like more of a battle. Voters are fiercely divided over the measure, with 48% saying they’ll vote yes and 50% saying they’ll vote no. In September, 49% said they were a yes.
Proposition 6, which would prohibit involuntary servitude for incarcerated people (which proponents call modern day slavery), looks to be in trouble, with 56% of likely voters saying they’ll vote no and just 41% saying they’re a yes. In September, 46% said they would vote yes and 50% said they were a no.
Proposition 32, to raise the state minimum wage from $15 to $18 and then index it to inflation, also looks to be underwater with voters, with 54% saying they’ll vote no and 44% saying they’ll vote yes. It was a statistical tie in September, with 50% saying yes and 49% saying no.
Proposition 33, the most recent attempt to allow local governments to enact rent control policies in their jurisdictions, is facing stiff headwinds, with 54% saying they oppose the measure and 42% saying they favor it. In September, 51% said they would vote yes.
Proposition 34 looks to be yet another battle. The ballot measure to restrict spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers has heavily divided voters, with 47% saying they are a yes and 49% saying no. In September, the yes side had a slight majority with 53% to the no side’s 43%.
Proposition 35 on the other hand looks to be in for some smooth sailing, with 62% saying they’ll vote yes on the measure to provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. That number was slightly higher in September, with 63% saying they were a yes.
Proposition 36. There’s little question whether this ballot measure will pass now, it becomes a question of by how much. Nearly three quarters of voters (73%) said they support the measure to reinstate felony penalties for certain theft- and drug-related offenses, up from 71% in September.
PPIC surveyed Californians about the top issues they believe are affecting the state.
Little surprise, the economy was on top, with 35% saying it was the most important issue facing the state. The economy has reigned as No. 1 with California voters since May 2022, according to the PPIC.
The only other issues to have double-digit support were concerns about housing costs and availability (18%) and homelessness (12%).
Californians remained pessimistic about the future of the state, with 60% saying it’s going in the wrong direction and 38% saying things are looking up for the Golden State. This gloom has been the status quo in California since June 2023, according to the PPIC.
A majority (58%) of likely voters said they expect bad financial times ahead for the state.
Californians are even more skeptical about the state of the nation — 69% said that the U.S. is heading in the wrong direction.
Top issues facing the country, Californians said, include the economy (26%), political extremism (18%) and immigration (15%).
A little more than half (53%) of likely voters said they expect bad times to come for the country.
There was one bright spot.
Faith in the election system remains strong — despite a nationwide effort to undermine that trust, fueled in part by foreign adversaries — with 63% of likely voters saying they have confidence how votes are counted in the state.
A majority (56%) said they aren’t concerned that it is too easy for ineligible to vote in California elections — it is a crime to do so — while 42% said they were concerned about the possibility.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has come a long way from the high approval numbers he enjoyed early on in his governorship. Now, more than half (52%) of likely voters disapprove of his job performance, while 47% approve.
The Legislature, too, is unpopular with voters, with 55% saying they disapprove of the job that state lawmakers are doing. This extends toward voters’ views of individual lawmakers, with 51% of likely voters saying they disapprove of their own assembly member and senator.
Biden, too, is underwater with California voters, with 52% disapproving of his job and 46% saying they approve.
Finally, Congress is deeply unpopular in the Golden State. Just 18% of likely voters said that U.S. lawmakers are doing a good job.
POTUS Contest Draws Most Attention – But Water & School Bonds are California Essentials
LA Times commentary from George Skelton
The race for the White House is sucking up all the oxygen, to echo an old political cliche. Voters can’t help but focus on the tight presidential contest and scratch their heads when they scan the rest of the California ballot.
It doesn’t help that this year’s collection of state ballot measures is exceptionally boring. Well, maybe not so much the anti-crime Proposition 36. But the rest are pretty much eye-glazers.
Yet, there are three that are indisputably important. They could affect California living and people’s pocketbooks.
Voters are being asked to add $20 billion to the state’s debt to modernize school facilities, dampen wildfires and prevent all sorts of climate-related catastrophes. That’s a huge trade-off: more state debt for much-needed infrastructure upgrades.
It’s what two propositions are about.
The third would make it easier for local governments to issue bonds — borrow — to build affordable housing and public works. Paying off these local bonds would lead to slightly higher property taxes.
Here’s what you’re voting on specifically:
Proposition 2 is a $10-billion bond issue to repair, modernize and construct facilities at K-12 schools and community colleges.
Proposition 4 is another $10-billion bond proposal. It would pay for projects to store water, clean polluted water, reduce wildfire risk, prepare for sea-level rise and protect fish and wildlife.
Proposition 5 is a biggie for local communities. It would reduce from two-thirds to 55% the vote required to pass bonds for affordable housing or public infrastructure such as roads, fire stations and water treatment plants.
All the potential projects in Propositions 2 and 4 seem wonderful. But what makes me wince is the long payoff periods — 35 years at $500 million annually for Proposition 2 and 40 years at $400 million annually for Proposition 4.
My great-grandkid would be helping to pay off those bonds.
People who pitch government bonds like to compare it to taking out a mortgage to buy a house. But no one gets a 40-year home loan. The longer the payoff period, the higher the interest cost.
But Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature wanted to keep the annual payouts as low as possible — while they’re still in office. Let future generations of office holders fret about the annual $900-million hits on the state budget.
Even without Propositions 2 and 4, the state is paying about $6 billion each year on $80 billion in bond debt, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst‘s Office. Plus, voters have approved about $35 billion in bonds that haven’t yet been sold.
The state still is paying off several old school bonds, one dating back 50 years.
“Start with the fact that Californians already are overtaxed. Sacramento is awash in tax revenue. So why are we going more into debt? If something is necessary, why not pay for it [with cash] out of the general fund?” asks Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. He opposes all three ballot measures.
The answer is that the Democratic governor and Legislature have many competing spending priorities to fund out of a dicey budget that’s in danger of operating in the red for the foreseeable future.
So, the only way lots of public works projects will get financed is through voter-approved bonds.
The state is out of school bond money, says Nick Hardeman, the campaign manager for Proposition 2.
“Like in your home, a roof is going to last only so long. If it leaks, it’s not going to stay the same. It’s going to get worse. There’s a $4-billion backlog of school repairs needed in California,” Hardeman says.
The measure would provide $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. To qualify for state money, local districts would need to put up matching dollars
One especially good expenditure: $600 million for “career tech” — what we used to call “shop.” Too bad there’s not more money for that.
“Not every kid is expected to go to college,” Hardeman notes. “Like future plumbers and electricians. They can get an early start with apprenticeship programs.”
Proposition 4 is a buffet of water and climate-related funding, with minimal pork — unlike some past parks bonds. There’s $3.8 billion for water, $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention, $1.2 billion to protect against sea-level rise, $1.2 billion for fish and wildlife habitat — and other climate-related goodies.
“This bond advances many of the governor’s priorities,” says Alfredo Gonzales, the Proposition 4 campaign chairman. But he adds that Newsom, surprisingly, wasn’t really involved in the measure’s drafting.
Proposition 5 would lower the voter threshold for passage of most local bonds to 55% — the same as for school bonds the last 20 years.
I’ve always thought the majority should rule on most matters.
“One-third of a community shouldn’t make decisions for the other two-thirds,” says Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), a former city council member who has been pushing majority rule for years. She finally won legislative passage of Proposition 5.
Polling last month by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California showed that likely voters were about evenly split on Proposition 5. That meant it was in trouble.
Voters barely favored Proposition 2 (54%) and were comfortably supporting Proposition 4 (65%). But few probably had much idea what the measures were about.
“One $10-billion bond is a lot of money,” says PPIC pollster Mark Baldassare. “Two are definitely a lot of money.”
Yes, but they add up to worthwhile investments.
Central Valley Dem Candidates Avoid Holding Hands with Newsom
Sacramento Bee
Gov. Gavin Newsom hit the campaign trail across the country to help Vice President Kamala Harris in her presidential race last week, but he hasn’t been seen campaigning with the Democrats in crucial Central Valley House races since March.
The last time Newsom campaigned side-by-side with former Assemblyman Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield, in California’s 22nd Congressional District was before the March primary. Newsom has not campaigned with former Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, in California’s 13th Congressional District this year at all. California could be key to control of the House of Representatives.
Five Republican incumbents face tossup races for their seats. Two are in the Central Valley. Why not constantly campaign these final weeks in Central Valley congressional districts within a day’s drive of Sacramento? Because Newsom wouldn’t help them, experts said.
The Democratic governor has a higher disapproval rating in the Central Valley than in other parts of the state. Many voters in California’s agricultural center lack trust in the state government.
Holding hands with the challengers might be better fodder for Republican attack ads than as encouragement for Democrats to turn out.
“I don’t know if he’d be a drag necessarily on the ticket, but I don’t see him as much of a boost either,” said Tom Holyoke, a political science professor at California State University, Fresno.
“Most Valley Democrats, I don’t think they love them particularly. They don’t hate him either. But I don’t think they really embrace him.The people who would be most motivated by a Gavin Newsom ad are Democrats who are already going to vote for Adam Gray or Rudy Salas,” Holyoke said in an interview.
“The undecided voters, the unmotivated voters there, they’re not going to be stimulated by Newsom.”
Among California regions, trust in Sacramento and Washington D.C. was lowest in the Central Valley in last month’s Public Policy Institute of California poll — 36% of respondents expressed trust always or most of the time in the state government and 25% did of the federal government.
About half of respondents approved of Newsom’s job performance statewide in the PPIC’s September poll, the highest his overall approval rating has been in 2024. But 57% of Central Valley respondents disapproved of Newsom.
Campaign spokespeople for Newsom did not respond to requests for comment.
Salas’ campaign confirmed the last time he stumped with Newsom in the 22nd was before the March primary. Gray’s confirmed Newsom did not come to campaign with him the 13th this election cycle.
Newsom has headlined emails asking for donations to tough California congressional races, including in an Oct. 16 email asking Democrats to chip in because “control of the House runs through these four California House races,” referring to California’s 3rd, 13th, 22nd and 41st Congressional Districts.
The San Joaquin Valley has two of the most competitive House races in the nation. Freshman Rep. John Duarte, R-Modesto, faces Gray in California’s 13th. Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, and Salas vie in California’s 22nd. Both are rematches from 2022 when the Democrats narrowly lost.
The pair maintain moderate profiles to prevail in these districts that have more registered Democrats than Republicans and a growing no-party-preference bloc.
That could cost them enthusiasm from Republicans who like former President Donald Trump, said Holyoke. “The diehard Trump folks, they’re not going to be thrilled about these two candidates,” Holyoke said. “Going after Newsom maybe is a way to get some energy up.”
MORE, behind paywall:
Seven Legislators Miss Quarter of Votes; Record-Keeping is Vague
CalMatters
Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat from Corona who is running for state Senate, missed about two-thirds of her votes this year — 1,647 of 2,510 voting opportunities she had based on her committee assignments and floor sessions.
In most cases, the missed votes came from two “excused” absences during busy times of the year — once for a death in her family, and once due to illness after attending the Democratic National Convention in August, according to her staff.
Six other legislators missed more than a quarter of their votes this year, most involving excused absences for illness or family matters, according to an analysis of voting data from CalMatters’ Digital Democracy.
When it comes to voting on bills, however, the California Legislature does not distinguish between a lawmaker who is absent — excused or not — and a legislator who is present but does not vote. They all count the same as a legislator who casts a “no” vote, but they are categorized as: “No Vote Recorded” or NVR.
Sean McMorris, a program manager for California Common Cause, said the lack of transparency around absences versus abstentions can feed distrust.
“I think people are naturally skeptical about politics and politicians, so when you have things like this … it just reinforces that narrative,” he said. “Unfortunately, whether there’s ill intent or not, that’s probably what the public is going to assume.”
In a Legislature with a supermajority of Democrats who almost always vote “yes,” there are few close votes where an individual will sway the outcome. But Digital Democracy data shows 45 bills that died in the current two-year legislative session because NVRs were counted as “no.” And at certain times, such as during the Democratic National Convention when 21 legislators missed votes during a busy week, legislators say it can make a difference.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire both declined interviews with CalMatters to discuss concerns about the way absences or abstentions are recorded and counted. But others suggested the rules might be changed.
“Anything that can be part of a conversation that helps with transparency and boldness of disclosure for the viewing public, I think is certainly appropriate,” said Assemblymember Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena.
Lorena Gonzalez, a former Assemblymember who now heads the California Labor Federation, said the lack of clarity around why people didn’t vote can make it difficult for her group to rank legislators based on its priorities.
Cervantes, for instance, earned a 100% score from the federation in 2023, but missed eight votes on 12 of the group’s priority bills this year. Gonzalez said she has no doubt about Cervantes’ support of labor.
But for others, Gonzalez said the uncertainty can require going to each legislator to confirm where they stand: “Abstain, absent, truly absent, excused absence, unexcused absence, and just sitting at your frickin’ desk and choosing not to vote …. I don’t think there’s any transparency for constituents.”
Legislative policies for votes and absences in other states are not tracked, but there are some with differences.
In Colorado, for example, absent members’ votes are recorded separately from those abstaining, but they still count as “no” votes. And in Hawaii, there’s an option to vote as “yes with reservations,” which counts as a yes vote.
While California’s Legislature is in session for about seven months each year, most important votes on bills happen around a few key deadlines: the “house of origin” deadline in late spring, when a bill must pass from the chamber where it was introduced, and the last week of the session before the Legislature adjourns in August or September. During those times, legislators can be asked to cast more than 200 votes in a single day.
It explains why Cervantes missed more votes than any other legislator, but she ranked fourth in the number of days she was absent. Assemblymember Megan Dahle, a Republican from Redding, was absent for 86 days due to a stroke she suffered in January, more than twice as many absences as Cervantes. But Cervantes missed 441 more votes than Dahle.
This year, there were seven legislators who missed more than a quarter of their opportunities to vote, a number that depends on their committee assignments. Most were absent for medical reasons. The seven legislators — four Democrats and three Republicans — all serve in the Assembly:
- Dahlewas out from January to early June recovering from her stroke. She missed 1,206 votes, or 54% of voting opportunities.
- Visalia Republican Devon Mathiswas out 55 days from April to July due to a “severe” hand injury for which he was briefly hospitalized, according to his office. But he did do some work in his district during the absence. He missed 1,389 votes, or 56%.
- Hayward Democrat Liz Ortegawas out for 10 days during the last two weeks of the session due to gallbladder surgery. She missed 893 votes, or 36%.
- Holdenmissed 529 votes when he was excused for four days in May due to the illness of a family member. He missed a total of 704 votes this year, or 28%.
- Arleta Democrat Luz Rivasmissed 367 votes when she was out due to COVID for four days in May. She missed a total of 661 votes this year, or 29%.
- Assemblymember Bill Essayli, a Republican from Corona, missed 777 voting opportunities, or 30%.
CalMatters contacted all seven legislative offices, but all except Essayli declined interviews and additional details for this story.
Legislators are not allowed to vote remotely — a policy that garnered national attention in 2020 when Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland, brought her then-newborn to the Capitol after being denied a remote option. Absent legislators are also not permitted to have a staff member or another legislator vote on their behalf.
The rules also say there is no difference between an absence or an “excused” absence when it comes to legislation and how that legislator’s non-vote is recorded.
If an Assemblymember requests an “excused” absence from the speaker’s office, however, they can continue to collect their per diem of $214 per day. The per diem, provided in addition to each legislator’s $128,215 annual salary, is intended to pay for travel and lodging expenses in Sacramento when the Legislature is in session – which is usually Monday to Thursday.
The only public record of an excused absence is recorded in the “Daily Journal” published in print and PDF by the clerk’s office in each chamber. The Senate and Assembly clerk’s offices declined to provide a complete record of this year’s excused absences, so CalMatters examined all of the daily journals for 2024.
If legislators are out for personal business or fail to request an excused absence, they waive their right to a per diem.
Personal business this year included a trip to Chicago for 21 lawmakers to attend the Democratic National Convention — seven senators, and 14 Assemblymembers — which fell during the second-to-last-week of the session. Members skipped the first couple of days of the convention, arriving ahead of Vice President Kamala Harris’ acceptance speech Thursday so they would only miss two days of voting.
Still, on those two days, each senator missed 68 votes, and each Assemblymember 53.
MORE:
Air Board Nears Controversial LCFS Overhaul; Won’t Predict Gas Price Impact
CalMatters
California plans to overhaul one of its cornerstone climate programs — a decision that could push gasoline prices higher in a state where residents already pay the most at the pump.
On Nov. 8, just three days after an election marked by concerns over rising costs, the California Air Resources Board will hold a public hearing and vote on its plan to amend the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
The program, which has existed since 2011, is a $2-billion credit trading system that requires fuels sold in California to become progressively cleaner, while giving companies financial incentives to produce less-polluting fuels, such as biofuels made from soybeans or cow manure. The standard has helped the state phase out fossil fuels to clean up air pollution and cut climate-warming gases.
The concern over gas prices has been part of the debate since last December, when the plan was released. Much of the agency’s overhaul, however, has focused on highly technical disputes between oil companies, dairy farms, biofuel and other lower-carbon fuel companies, and environmental justice advocates who say the program maintains polluting industries.
The air board said earlier this month that fuel producers typically pass on 8 to 10 cents per gallon of costs to consumers because of the program. Estimates for how the air board’s proposed changes in the program would affect gasoline prices vary.
In an initial assessment released last year, the air board projected that the proposed new standard could potentially raise the per-gallon price of diesel by 59 cents and for gasoline, 47 cents, in 2025 — numbers that have turned the policy debate into a political flashpoint.
Air board officials have since disavowed that estimate, writing earlier this month that the analysis “should not be misconstrued as a prediction of the future credit price nor as a direct impact on prices at the pump.”
A separate report, released earlier this month by the University of Pennsylvania’s Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, predicted that the program’s changes could increase the cost of gas by 85 cents a gallon through 2030.
Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph told CalMatters in an exclusive interview that the heated debate prompted her to speak out ahead of the board’s vote, something she typically doesn’t do.
In the interview, Randolph emphasized that the fuel standard is critical for meeting the state’s targets to slash greenhouse gases and use of fossil fuels. She said the proposed changes are designed to prevent California from falling behind on its ambitious climate goals, which are already at risk, according to experts.
At the heart of the debate, Randolph said, is a fundamental question about California’s climate future: How quickly can we shift from fossil fuels to a zero-emission future?
The air board’s changes could reduce carbon dioxide-equivalent gases by 558 million metric tons through 2046, according to its initial economic assessment. That’s equal to what more than 120 million cars emit on average in a year. (Experts say that may be an overstatement because the carbon footprint from some renewable diesel such as soybeans might be more than reported.)
“The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is one of California’s most significant and most effective climate programs,” Randolph told CalMatters. “It’s a market program that comes with a mandate to fuel producers to reduce their carbon intensity over time. So the reason we undertook the update of this program is because we wanted to make sure that the ambition of the program was aligned with our goals.”
Randolph said the fuel standard has been a crucial driver in reducing pollution from cars and trucks, and can help drive a wider array of transportation choices for Californians. The program, she added, “helps clean the air in the most impacted areas.”
“For the everyday Californian…this helps fund your opportunity to buy a plug-in hybrid car, a battery electric car, a hydrogen fuel cell car,” Randolph said. And for diesel trucks and delivery vans, it “is helping make those vehicles cleaner and quieter.”
The program has been particularly successful in shifting the fuel market for medium and heavy-duty trucks, and over the course of 13 years, the program has displaced 25 billion gallons of petroleum fuels, according to the board’s economic assessment.
Regarding the cost at the gas pump, Randolph said it’s challenging to put a specific number on gas prices because fuel producers have different strategies for complying. Some might produce cleaner fuels themselves, potentially profiting from the incentives, while others may buy credits on the market, which could lead to varying costs.
It’s hard to predict whether oil companies will pass those costs onto customers or absorb them, making it difficult to determine the exact impact on prices, Randolph said. She pointed to the data indicating that fuel producers typically pass on 8 to 10 cents per gallon costs to consumers because of the program.
The current standard’s target is reducing the climate impact of transportation fuels by 20% between 2010 and 2030. The air board proposal would impose tougher “carbon intensity” targets, tightening reductions in the greenhouse gases those fuels produce by about 30% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. (Carbon intensity is the measure of carbon dioxide emissions produced per unit of energy or activity.) The board is also considering accelerating those reductions when certain conditions are met.
This tightening of the standard will affect the entire fuel market, from companies such as Chevron and Shell that dominate fuel production in California to smaller operators who import fuel.
The Western States Petroleum Association, an oil industry group, has supported the low-carbon fuels program, with many of its members producing some of the new fuels the program has spurred. However, they have argued against many of the proposed changes because they might increase costs or disadvantage some companies.
Chevron has warned against what the changes might do to costs in the state.
“At a time when fuel prices are under significant scrutiny and demand in California frequently outstrips supply, regulators should be careful about adding new measures that restrict supply,” Don Gilstrap, the company’s manager of fuels regulations wrote earlier this month.
MORE:
“I’m With Elon,” Newsom Says in Lawsuit v. Coastal Commission
Politico
Gov. Gavin Newsom is backing Elon Musk in the billionaire’s dispute with a California agency that rejected a plan to increase SpaceX’s rocket launches off the Pacific coast.
“I’m with Elon,” Newsom, a Democrat, said in an interview late Thursday, after campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris in the battleground state of North Carolina. “I didn’t like that.”
Musk sued the California Coastal Commission on Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles, alleging it “engaged in naked political discrimination” when commissioners cited his support for former President Donald Trump in rejecting a Department of Defense proposal to expand the number of SpaceX launches at Vandenberg Space Force Base.
“Look, I’m not helping the legal case,” Newsom acknowledged. He added, “You can’t bring up that explicit level of politics.
“Our team was working with them behind the scenes, Dee Dee [Myers], Wade [Crowfoot], others, there were legitimate concerns the coastal staff expressed,” Newsom told POLITICO Thursday, referring to his business adviser and his natural resources director.
“We engaged in the spirit of finding compromise. It wasn’t about SpaceX, it was about exploration and other precedent,” Newsom said. “So I saw that [decision, and thought] that’s not what this was about. … They certainly could have said, ‘We are just not comfortable with [the proposal] right now.’ But that wasn’t what they said.”
Newsom indicated he broadly agreed with the lawsuit and that the independent agency should have confined its debate to the merits of the permit rather than engage in a discussion of Musk’s political activities.
“These are friends of mine that said that,” said Newsom, who appoints some of the members. “These are good commissioners. But you got to call balls and strikes. And trust me, I’m not big on the Elon Musk bandwagon right now. So that’s me calling balls and strikes.”
The California Coastal Commission’s 6-4 rejection of the Air Force’s plan for increased launches hinged on concerns that all SpaceX activity would be considered military operations, making it harder to enforce environmental requirements. But the hourslong debate prior to the vote veered into a discussion about Musk’s political rhetoric, his support for Trump, his comments about transgender people and his companies’ labor records.
“Elon Musk is hopping about the country, spewing and tweeting political falsehoods and attacking FEMA while claiming his desire to help the hurricane victims with free Starlink access to the internet,” Commissioner Gretchen Newsom, who isn’t related to the governor, said at the meeting last week in San Diego.
Gretchen Newsom and agency Chair Caryl Hart both voted to reject the plan after condemning Musk’s conduct. Commissioners Mike Wilson and Justin Cummings also expressed concerns about Musk himself or SpaceX’s labor practices, but ultimately voted in favor of the launch increase. Wilson is a Newsom appointee, while Hart and Cummings were appointed by the state Assembly and Gretchen Newsom was appointed by the state Senate.
Newsom emphasized that his appointees had voted for the permit and that his administration had worked with the Defense Department prior to the vote to help reach a compromise on the proposal to increase rocket launches.
“I do not control that commission, infamously, in any way, shape or form, but two appointees did what I thought was the right thing,” he said. “We worked with Space Force. We worked with the base commander [Colonel Mark Shoemaker] there in good faith.”
The two sides seemed to reach a detente heading into last week’s meeting after the Air Force, which oversees Space Force, agreed in September to meet the commission’s seven conditions, including reducing the sonic booms and increased wildlife monitoring.
State Revenues Up in September & Past 6 Months
State Dept. of Finance
The State Dept. of Finance monthly report for September:
Preliminary General Fund agency cash receipts were $2.4 billion, or 16 percent, above the Budget Act forecast for September. This overage was driven by personal income tax and corporation tax which were $1.8 billion and $557 million higher, respectively, due largely to estimated payments for both taxes significantly exceeding the forecast.
Cumulatively since April when the forecast was finalized, preliminary General Fund agency cash receipts were $7.3 billion above projections. This includes an overage of $3.2 billion attributed to cash collected during the 2023-24 fiscal year.
Personal income tax cash receipts were $1.8 billion, or 20.4 percent, above forecast in September and $4 billion, or 6.6 percent, above forecast cumulatively since April. Non-withholding payments exceeded the forecast by $1.5 billion in September and were $2.3 billion above forecast cumulatively since April. Estimated payments and final payments contributed $1.9 billion and $280 million to the cumulative overage, respectively.
Corporation tax cash receipts were $557 million, or 22 percent, above forecast in September. Estimated payments exceeded the forecast by $882 million in September, an overage that may be due in part to an earlier-than-expected impact of the credit limitation and net operating loss suspension.
Preliminary sales and use tax receipts were $60 million, or 2.2 percent, below forecast in September. Sales tax receipts were $73 million, or 0.4 percent, above forecast cumulatively since April.
The U.S. unemployment rate edged down 0.1 percentage point to 4.1 percent as the civilian labor force and household employment increased by 150,000 and 430,000 persons, respectively, while civilian unemployment declined by 281,000 persons. The U.S. added 254,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in September, while July’s and August’s gain was revised up by a combined 72,000 jobs. Eight sectors gained jobs in September, driven by private education and health services (81,000) and leisure and hospitality (78,000), followed by government (31,000), construction (25,000), professional and business services (17,000), trade, transportation, and utilities (13,000), financial activities (5,000), other services (4,000), information (4,000), and mining and logging (3,000). Manufacturing (-7,000) was the only sector that lost jobs in September.
California’s unemployment rate remained at 5.3 percent in September 2024 (4.1 percent nationally) as the state’s labor force and civilian household employment increased by 13,700 and 2,100 persons, respectively, and unemployment increased by 11,400 persons.
California added 14,700 nonfarm payroll jobs in September 2024, led by private education and health services (9,600), followed by government (3,800), trade, transportation, and utilities (3,000), financial activities (2,600), professional and business services (1,700), construction (1,400) and manufacturing (300). Four sectors lost jobs: leisure and hospitality (-4,400), information (-2,400), other services (-800), and mining and logging (-100). B
Year-to-date through August 2024, California permitted 104,000 housing units, essentially unchanged for three consecutive months but down 6.8 percent from a year ago. August year-to-date annualized total permits consisted of 61,000 single-family units and 43,000 multi-family units, up 11.3 percent and down 24.3 percent from the previous year, respectively.
The statewide median sale price of existing single-family homes decreased to $868,150 in September 2024, down 2.3 percent from the previous month, but up 2.9 percent from $843,500 in September 2023. Sales of existing single-family homes in California were 253,010 in September 2024, down 3.4 percent from August 2024 but up 5.1 percent from September 2023.
https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/2024/10/Finance-Bulletin-October-2024.pdf