The following opinion piece by GFC President David Crane was published in The San Francisco Standard on March 19, 2025
Recent guests on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s podcast, such as MAGA influencers Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk, might be stunned to learn about the policies the governor is pursuing between his stints masquerading as a friendly host for right-wing guests. So might Californians.
The biggest indicator of Newsom’s true leanings will come this month when he must choose between cutting health insurance for low-income Californians or slashing spending. That’s because the state must pay off a short-term loan that covers excess expenditures on Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for low-income people. One way Newsom could do so is to limit enrollment in Medi-Cal. But a healthier course would be to trim the size of California’s sprawling government.
California’s $230 billion general fund finances, among other things, the state’s health insurance, schools, colleges, and universities. It also funds the executive branch, whose roster, during Newsom’s tenure, has grown 21% to 255,000 employees. That’s in addition to more than 1,000,000 employees already serving Californians in schools, colleges, universities, counties, and health corporations financed by the state. The governor has also boosted salaries for his branch to $28 billion, 44% higher than when he took office. Perhaps Newsom could tell us what all those state employees do, but there seems to be a good deal of waste.
If the past is prologue, Newsom will choose to protect public sector unions — his largest campaign contributors and a powerful political force who, if displeased, could obstruct his presumed presidential run in 2028. If you pay attention to what the governor does (rather than what he says), you will see he fears nothing more than disappointing public sector unions. Since taking office in 2019, he has not only boosted their salaries but also drained the general fund of $20 billion to strengthen their retirement funds, signed a law permitting the unionization of legislative aides, and kept schools shut longer than any other state at the behest of the teachers unions. For Newsom, it is much easier to turn his back on trans athletes than it is on the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, and teachers’ and prison guard unions.
While the governor is racing to the center on cultural issues, he is staying put on fiscal issues. All that makes sense for a career politician in California, and to date it has paid off. But Newsom knows that most of the country does not support the taxpayer-provided health insurance for undocumented immigrants that he has championed in the state and is one of the causes behind the Medi-Cal deficit. Given his presidential ambitions, he will almost certainly cast aside the needs of undocumented immigrants while quietly continuing to do the bidding of public sector unions.
Yet if Newsom looks at Democrats who have reached the White House, he’ll see two (Clinton and Carter) who hailed from states that limit collective bargaining for public employees; one (Clinton) whose “Reinventing Government” program reduced federal jobs; one (Obama) who had a chilly relationship with teacher unions; one (JFK) whose presidency took place before public sector unions were powerful; and another (FDR) who questioned whether public employee unions should have collective bargaining rights.
Only Biden was an unqualified supporter of public sector unions. History suggests that Newsom’s presidential prospects could improve if he stops bowing to these same forces. If he doesn’t, we should make sure the national electorate knows what’s heading their way.
