California Politics 360 full episode

Healthcare groups clash over the proposed billionaire’s tax. You should listen to those that are delivering care in the community when we say that this is not the right solution. This is not going to help us address the problems. The next step in the effort that aims to tax the rich to fund key services. Giving the governor power to declare *** state of emergency during war. Gas prices have gone up $1.35. That’s over $3 billion out of the pockets of Californians. In an exclusive interview, what it could mean for price fixing and supply chain problems. Lawmakers work to finalize the largest spending plan in state history, the details being ironed out in the final hour. Come November you’ll see more than *** dozen measures on your ballot, what lawmakers are asking you to sign off on. Thank you for joining us for California Politics 360. I’m Ashley Zavala. We start with the growing battle over *** possible billionaire tax in California and now *** push for *** national billionaire tax from Governor Gavin Newsom. The state proposal will officially appear on the November ballot for California voters to decide. It would put *** one-time 5% tax on the assets of Californians whose net worth is at least *** billion dollars. Most of the money would go to healthcare. The rest would go to education and food assistance. Governor Gavin Newsom has been against this, and after failing to block it from the ballot, he proposed. Wealth tax of his own on the national level. He has no power over federal lawmaking but has said he is considering *** run for president. His office sent us *** statement in part saying quote, The fight to make the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes is not one we should be fighting state by state. We’ll see what happens with that national effort, but we start with the state measure. I sat down with David Regan. He is the president of the SCIU United Healthcare Workers West, which did all the work to get this on the ballot. Here’s what he had to say. I mean, the governor and other opponents of this, I think they’re trying to make the point that *** billionaire tax in one state just means that these wealthy people can get up and go to another to avoid this tax. I mean, you’re not worried about that at all because I mean they’re claiming it could be *** huge loss in state funds for everything. Well, their claims are entirely fabricated. There is absolutely no evidence that billionaires leap. Billionaires are the wealthiest people on the planet. They can live wherever they want in the world, let alone in the country. And all of the evidence, all of the research, all of the data that we have is that the very wealthy make this argument every single time. They most recently made it in the state of Massachusetts that passed *** tax affecting millionaires, and today there are more millionaires in Massachusetts than there were when the tax passed, and everybody said they were gonna go to New Hampshire and they were gonna go to other states. It’s just not true. The governor can say it as many times as he wants, but the facts are not on his side. So you don’t believe the billionaires who made arrangements earlier this year to leave. You don’t think they’re actually leaving. No, I don’t. And, and they, the other thing that’s worth saying is that the tax that we’re proposing is *** one-time tax based on whether or not someone was *** resident of the state of California on January 1 of this year. So there is no incentive for billionaires to leave. Their status as *** legal resident is already. It’s already ingrained and so even to, you know, pursue the idea that there’s incentive to leave is just false, and all of the evidence again tells us that it’s not true, and there’s no reason to believe that these claims are true either. I mean critics say, I mean just so just to hone in and to basically get you, can you guarantee. That this isn’t going to be an everyone tax essentially as some people are claiming it would be something that’s going to impact everyone with *** potential loss in funding like you’re prepared to say that’s not going to happen. SEIU UHW can guarantee that. Absolutely. This is, this is *** one-time emergency tax to address the collapse of our healthcare system in California and the loss of healthcare coverage for 3.5 million people. When it’s passed, it will raise $100 billion to address that specific problem that no one, including the governor, has *** solution for. The idea that putting $100 billion into the healthcare system to keep millions and millions of people. In *** secure position and, and facilities and clinics and hospitals open, this is adding revenue for *** critical core thing, and the idea that somehow $100 billion more is going to be less, doesn’t make any sense, and I don’t know why they’re allowed to make these really. Nutty claims. There’s no other way to, to, to characterize it. So on the other side of this, the California Medical Association is just one of several groups against the proposed tax. I spoke with the president of that group, Dustin Corcoran. Here’s part of our conversation. So why is the California Medical Association against this billionaire’s tax being proposed by the SEIUH? It’s not for lack of support for new revenue and for different revenue ideas. Over the years we’ve supported the tobacco tax. We supported Prop 55, which increased taxes on high income earners, most recently the MCO tax. This tax is very different because it’s one time in nature and it will actually cost the state of California more money over time than it’ll bring in. And from *** healthcare perspective, you really need revenue that’s ongoing, durable, and sustainable. And this tax doesn’t meet that measure. So when the threatens like hospital closures, shortfalls and shortcomings in our healthcare system, if this isn’t implemented and imposed, what’s your response to that? Well, UH has identified the right problem but very much the wrong solution. Hospital closures are real. HR 1 puts healthcare in California under extreme duress. Millions of Californians are gonna lose their health insurance, and what we should have done is had *** real collective response to that as *** state. Instead, we had one person, one organization go off on their own, uh, create *** ballot measure that wasn’t stress tested with anybody else, wasn’t thought through with anybody else, and now we have *** litany of analysis that shows that it’s not gonna deliver what it promises. In fact, it will hurt healthcare in California more than it will help. Are you involved in negotiations? I mean from your standpoint, are negotiations even happening really on this? Not particularly. In the true sense of negotiations, that’s not what’s going on right now. What we’re doing as an organization is pointing out the dangers of HR 1, the dangers of Donald Trump, and what he means to the state. But at the same time looking forward to make sure that we defeat this measure and that we have *** real conversation about needed revenue on an ongoing basis. So CMA is going to actively fight this tax. We are, OK, and I mean. With the landscape right now with our state’s revenue situation, the budget, I understand the state already heavily relies on the wealthiest earners for most of the money the government uses, but I mean, what should, how should the situation be handled with HR 1? Uh, yeah, with HR 1, I think, again, we need *** broader conversation about ongoing durable and sustainable revenue. Uh, this ballot measure proposes *** one-time influx of dollars. Um, I don’t think any of us can say that the state of California has done *** great job of, uh, making sure that when we have spikes in revenue that we actually save and we smooth that over time. Uh, this would exacerbate, uh, the highs and lows that we experience as *** state in terms of revenue. Uh, *** broader conversation that ought to be had by state leaders, by stakeholders, by those affected by the cuts of HR 1 would be how would we handle over *** multi-year period of time, uh, the cuts of HR 1 to make sure that the citizens of California are getting the healthcare that they need and they deserve. Again, this proposed tax is meant to generate $100 billion in revenue. You can watch my full conversations with both David Regan and Dustin Corcoran right now on Calpolitics 360.com. Well, allowing the governor and state attorney general to take action when the federal government goes to war. I sit down with the senator behind *** brand new proposal in an exclusive interview. An issue that continues to impact Californians every day surging gas prices, especially since the start of the war in Iran. Democratic state senator Josh Becker is introducing *** bill he says could help protect our state during times of conflict. He spoke with me exclusively before filing this proposal. Here’s part of our conversation. So tell me about this new bill that you’re introducing this upcoming week. Yes, well, Californians are suffering since Trump’s illegal war in Iran started. Gas prices have gone up $1.35. That’s over $3 billion out of the pockets of Californians since it started. Across the country $62 billion out of Americans’ pockets and there’s evidence of price gouging, but right now our attorney general, because the laws the way are set up right now, the Attorney general cannot investigate. My bill would change that. And so basically your bill is allowing the governor of California to declare *** state of emergency for war like it adds that and then also by doing so that gives the state’s AG the ability to go in and. Investigate. OK. Yes, exactly. We have some of the strongest price gouging laws in the country, so they protect us in the case of natural disasters. We can investigate price gouging, but really it’s limited to natural disasters an earthquake, *** wildfire, things like that. War does not count, and so this bill will add war to that category and that list of criteria. So in *** case that this war. Restarts again, which could well happen, or the next war that Trump gets us into, the governor then could declare *** state of emergency, and that would enable the attorney general to investigate price gouging. I know everything is moving so quickly with the situation in Iran, and it is fluid. Things are changing almost every day. How soon are you hoping that your bill takes effect? Well, we have an urgency clause, so we’re hoping this takes effect as soon as possible, you know, the first possible day for the governor to sign it, because we’re hoping it provides. Relief now but also leads to relief in the future. And on price gouging specifically, are you, is there one particular product? Is it just oil and gas, or are there other items that could be explored that could be potentially price gouged during this war? There are others and we’re focused on oil and gas because that’s where we’ve sort of seen. The evidence and that’s where it’s really hitting people very directly in the pocketbooks, but right now the bill is broad enough to include other categories too. Becker notes out of the entire country California has the largest disparity between branded gas and unbranded gas. Senator Becker and I talk about that, *** possible investigation into that, and more in our full interview right now on Calpolitics 360.com. Well, it’s down to the wire for Governor Gavin Newsom to sign off on the state’s ballooning budget. What to expect in this more than $350 billion plan? We’re down to the wire. California lawmakers and the governor are in the final days to figure out how to use taxpayer money for the upcoming year. Democratic lawmakers want to spend about $5 billion more than the governor proposed in May. Either way, this year’s state spending plan is expected to be the large. Largest in state history, lawmakers and the governor have been negotiating the final sticking points. This plan needs to be in effect by July 1st. I sat down with Assembly Member David Tangipa, the Republican vice chairman of the Assembly’s Budget Committee. Here’s part of our conversation. Democrats right now as they’re, you know, in this moment we’re recording this earlier in the week, they’re negotiating the state spending plan and how to handle the cuts from HR 1 they say is part of the tension in these negotiations. What, what’s your response to that, um, just given that they do point to the Trump. For some of these gaps in healthcare and other social services, the easy thing that people really need to realize, and it should bother everybody, is that our budget is *** reflection of our priorities, and it bothers me that we spend 8 to 10 times more on illegal immigrant services out of the general fund. Than we do for our veterans here in this state. It bothers me that we can spend $30 million on *** syphilis outbreak campaign than spend money on the priorities of Californians. It bothers me that we can spend $8 million on condom distributions by non-governmental organizations and then people tell me we don’t have enough money. And I think that’s what people need to see is that we have everything that we could possibly imagine in this state, but to blame an administration that simply is telling the state, if you want all of these things, you want to pay for illegal immigrant healthcare, you want to expand MediCal to include Ozempic, and not life saving care. You do that yourselves because these hits are happening because of California’s irresponsible spending addiction and when the budget in 2016 was about $170 billion and it’s $355 billion today, an increase of over 100%, and nothing has gotten better. And the majority party has every single statewide seat. They have full power and authority in the assembly. They have full power and authority in the Senate. There is nobody to blame other than the mayor. In that respect, with the budget, with this deal that maybe we’ll know more about on Monday. Presumably the budget gets passed July 1st or sometime within there. What do you make of that condensed timeline to unpack really ultimately what the state spending plan looks like for the next year, it’s. We, it’s *** boom or bust budgeting system here and it, it gives me quite *** bit of anxiety as the vice chair for the state budget because I believe that we should have significantly more deliberations, uh, you know, the the governor gives us *** proposed budget in January and then all of *** sudden second week of May, now we’ve got to sprint. You’ve got 8 weeks to. Negotiate or debate. There’s not too much negotiation when it comes to the minority party in this, um, but there’s no negotiation. There is no negotiation. I’m kind of like told instead of uh consulted, and I understand. I mean California is getting everything that it voted for and I hope people realize that, but this, the system that we do it. I think it is very irresponsible for what *** lot of people brag about, calling us the 4th largest economy in the world and allocating resources, probably need *** little bit more direct time with more people in the room that’s significantly more transparent. Jesse Gabriel, the budget chairman, he would say that there are dozens of hearings by the subcommittees throughout the year. On some of these state spending items, what would be your response to that? So I have *** lot of respect for the chair of the budget. I think Jesse does *** really good job at least trying to work within the tools that are given to him, and I’ll tell you this for about 8 weeks, especially when they get the May revise, he has an entourage everywhere he goes of legislators, legislators all. Asking, hey Jesse, what about my project and what about my project and what about my project and what about, what can I do to bring things back to the district and I get that and I understand that that pre that pressure is there, um, you know, and I think what Jesse would say to me is, you know. Spend more time working in this system, but this is the system that we currently have today. Now I want to change the system, but that can only happen if California decides to make changes at the legislative and at the the the state level. And so those are part of my goals and something that we’re going to make sure that we’re focused on is just bringing things to attention, you know, exposing the dome, seeing how the the sausage is made is what I often joke about. Uh, and then they can realize like, OK, if we have the hunger to change this system, it’s gonna take people and the politicians to do so. Tangipa and I discussed how the budget is expected to raise costs for Californians. We have his answer to that and much more in our full interview on Calpolitics 360.com. We are roughly 18 weeks away from the November general election. Voters have *** lot to consider ahead of election day, from requiring voters to prove they’re citizens to major changes in some of the state’s environmental laws. I’ll walk you through the measures expected to impact Californians the most. We now know what questions California voters will be asked on the ballot in November. There will be 14 ballot propositions. Well, that sounds like *** lot. Experts say it’s actually about average for the state. 5 of them are specifically related to taxes. 3 of them are related to elections, including *** measure requiring voter ID at the polls. 2 of them ask voters to borrow money to ramp up housing construction. And immunology research, 4 of them make changes to state law, including new rules on how health clinics spend their money, how the state’s government saves money, changes to environmental laws to help construction, and *** new proposed middle income home loan program. We’ll dive deeper in the coming weeks into all of these. We have *** full list of these measures on our website, calpolitics 360.com. Right now on Calpolitics 360.com you can watch this week’s full interviews. We also wanna hear from you. What issues do you want us to cover on this program. Send us an email at contact@calpolitics360.com. Again, we wanna hear from you. Thank you so much for joining us for this week’s California Politics 360. We’ll see you next week.