If you’ve supported the Democrat state politicians’ $24 BILLION already spent on “homelessness,” or Newsom’s $10+ BILLION for “free homeless housing”(Prop. 1), you’ve flushed away big money.
The California State Auditor on April 9 issued a scathing report that basically asks, “Where’s the money gone?”
Democrat Party Governor Gavin Newsom appoints the co-chairs of the “California Interagency Council on Homelessness.” Yet the State Auditor, also appointed by Newsom, says the “council” hasn’t been doing its job:
“(The council) has not tracked and reported on the State’s funding for homelessness programs statewide since its 2023 assessment covering fiscal years 2018–19 through 2020–21. Currently, it has no plans to perform a similar assessment in the future. In the absence of an up-to-date assessment, the State and its policymakers are likely to struggle to understand homelessness programs’ ongoing costs and achieved outcomes,” reads the report. “(It) has neither ensured the accuracy of the information in the state data system, nor has it used this information to evaluate homelessness programs’ success.”
As veteran California newspaper columnist Dan Walters writes:
The number of homeless Californians has increased by 50% in the last decade and 20% since Newsom became governor in 2019, despite the state’s spending about $20 billion on the various anti-homelessness programs during the last five years.
Meanwhile, the proliferation of anti-homelessness programs continues. Just last month, voters – by the thinnest of margins – approved Newsom’s multibillion-dollar plan to overhaul mental health treatment in California, including providing more housing for those with ailments.
The fact that his measure, Proposition 1, barely survived despite many millions of dollars being spent on the campaign for it, indicates anew that Californians are growing weary of politicians’ promises to end the crisis.
The new audit implies that the public’s skepticism is well-founded. If the agency created to coordinate homelessness responses is falling short of its mission, why should we think that any specific programs are having a lasting impact?
Critically-thinking Californians, along with SaveCalifornia.com, knew Gavin Newsom’s Prop. 1 was a scam, with zero requirements for transients to go to counseling, classes, or training. And now we know even more, don’t we?
…the state is spending money faster than it can track it, that the money being spent is exorbitant, that spending money on homelessness, at least in California, actually increases the problem due to the induced demand (people from out of state coming for the benefits and yes it is a very high percentage,) and that the homeless-industrial complex – which stands between the state and the homeless person – is hoovering up vast amounts of cash with little or no oversight. “California State Auditor’s scathing homeless report: Where did the money go?”, California Globe, April 10, 2024
Thursday, March 14, 2024, 8:12 am | Randy Thomasson
SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
March 21 update: We’ve added State Senate District 37 in Orange County, where a Republican challenger could oust an incumbent Democrat.
March 19 update: All election-tracking links on this post have been updated due to Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office changing her urls right in the midst of processing ballots. Two more Assembly races that could be won by Republicans have been added.
* * *
In California’s March 5 (actually month-long and not over yet) “jungle primary” election, it was a chance for pro-family voters to support constitutional fighters over RINOs. Were conservative voters wise or foolish?
Now that the “dust has settled” the week after voting ended in all the California races for State Assembly, State Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, here are my observations, which I hope will help you vote, volunteer, and donate this election year.
Needed: Constitutional fighters to expose evil
The overwhelming need of pro-family citizens — who live in California or who have family and friends to live here — is to have at least one Republican in each house of the California State Legislature who will stand and speak to expose the harm of Democrat Party politicians and their evil bills.
In recent decades, reliable speakers in the Assembly for constitutional, moral/social/fiscal conservative values have included Tim Donnelly of the Inland Empire’s high desert, and before him, Steve Baldwin of San Diego County. And in the California State Senate in the 1990s, we had Ray Haynes and Dick Mountjoy.
But now, they’re gone, and more than two decades later, I can’t count on one reliable, consistent California state legislator who knows he or she is accountable before God and who will speak up for family values and expose the harm of “LGBTQIA+” bills, baby-killing bills, and other immoral bills, whether they be moral, social, or fiscal in nature.
Yes, I know there are some legislators who speak up for parental rights, but did you know they also vote for “LGBTQIA+” or increasing union-boss power or are otherwise mute when bad bills come up?
Which means, today, because of silence, acquiescence, and lack of exposure, the devilish Democrat Party supermajority in both houses in Sacramento has had “smooth sailing” — because no current Republican legislator will reliably stir up a storm whenever a bad bill comes up on the Assembly or Senate floor!
Believe that conservative, constitutional, pro-family legislators standing and raising their microphones is the priority. Because when you’re in the numerical minority in Sacramento, your voice matters more than your votes.
RINOs getting worse and more plentiful
Here are some of the RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) who are likely to be reelected, return to Sacramento, and vote for some evil Democrat bills:
California State Assembly Voting in 2023 in favor of both pro-“LGBTQIA+” bills or pro-abortion bills or both were:
• Greg Wallis of Bermuda Dunes: AB 659, AB 5, AB 223, AB 352, AB 443, AB 492, AB 576, AB 598, AB 957, AB 1078, AB 1194, AB 1432, HR 33, ACA 5, SB 345, SB 385, SB 760
• Juan Alanis of Modesto: AB 5, AB 352, AB 443, AB 492, AB 598, AB 1194, AB 1432, HR 33, ACA 5, SB 541, SB 760
• Marie Waldron of Escondido: AB 5, AB 443. HR 33, ACA 5, SB 58, SB 541, SB 729, SB 760
• Laurie Davies of Laguna Niguel: ACA 5, AB 1194, SB 541
Of the 4 biggest RINOs in the Assembly: Greg Wallis, whose district is in the Greater Palm Springs area, is likely returning because no conservative, pro-family primary opponent who would take him on.
Similarly, Juan Alanis, whose district covers Stanislaus and Merced counties, had no conservative, pro-family Republican primary challenger for Alanis’ reelection campaign.
Marie Waldron, of inland San Diego County, is termed out of office, yet this final year she’s pushing her AB 941 to require the State to embark on a path of legalization of “hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances,” which make our society more dangerous.
The rest of the Assembly Republicans listed above, who’ve supported either pro-“LGBTQIA+” or pro-abortion bills or both, are likely to be reelected due to having no conservative Republican primary challengers.
California State Senate In the California State Senate, 2 “Republicans” voted for Democrat bills promoting baby-killing or “LGBTQIA+” or both were led by:
• Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita: AB 352, AB 659, AB 1194, ACA 5
• Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh of Yucaipa: SR 33, SB 760, AB 1194
In addition:
• Both Wilk and Ochoa Bogh supported AB 1352 (which fortunately did not pass the Legislature) to permit liberal school boards to boot off conservative members.
• The sole Republican voting in favor of the Democrats’ SB 274 (signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom) to largely eliminate government-school suspensions or expulsions of disruptive, defiant “students,” was Brian Dahle of Bieber.
The State Senate’s biggest RINOs: Scott Wilk, whose district covers Southern California’s Antelope and Victor Valleys, is termed out. Despite adding to California’s immorality, Wilk says he’ll move out of state.
Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, whose sprawling Inland Empire district runs from Rancho Cucamonga to Hemet, is running for reelection in the newly-drawn 19th District covering much of eastern San Bernardino County. This primary election, she did not have a true pro-family, conservative Republican challenger.
RINOs in California’s Republican congressional delegation: Among California’s current 11 Republican U.S. Representatives, some have cast controversial votes for or against impeachment; yet there are six (in alphabetical order) who’ve supported the unnatural, unhealthy, unbiblical, tyrannical “LGBTQIA+” agenda:
Ken Calvert (1)
Mike Garcia (1)
Jay Obernolte (1)(3)
Darrell Issa (1)(2)
David Valadao (1)(2)
(1) Voted to “codify” homosexual “marriages” in federal law (July 19, 2022)
(2) Supported or did not oppose taxpayer-fund “sex changes” in U.S. military (July 13, 2017)
(3) In the 2818-2019 California State Assembly, Obernolte twice voted in support of “LGBTQIA+” and abstained on pro-“LGBTQIA+” resolution attacking Christian churches
In the northern reaches of Los Angeles County, Suzette Valladares, who was the most liberal Republican in the State Assembly*, was the top vote-getter in the primary election for the newly-drawn State Senate District 23 stretching from Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County to Hesperia in San Bernardino County.
* On June 27, 2022, then-Assemblywoman Suzette Valladares was the only Republican voting yes on SCA 10 to ask voters to place “the right” to unlimited taxpayer-funded abortions into the California State Constitution. Sadly, the Democrat politicians’ baby-killing SCA 10 (Prop. 1 on the November 2022 ballot) is now state law.
Is it wise to vote for ‘the lesser of two evils’?
You might think, “If I don’t vote for the lesser of two evils, I’m contributing to a worse government.” Or you might think, “It’s better to get anyone in office who’s registered as my party of choice — even a liberal — than someone from the opposing party.”
Yet both these ideas contribute to mid-term and long-term evil. Because you and I see what liberal Republicans have wrought: Political prostitution, failure to fight or speak against evil, deeper debt, more baby-killing, more sexual perversity, less religious freedom, less free speech, and less medical freedom. When “Republicans In Name Only” (RINOs) become numerous in a Republican caucus, the result is all that frustrates and grieves you about the modern Republican Party.
For only a liberal Republican can redefine or replace the Republican Party. And that’s what’s been happening the last few decades, all because of the fallacy of voting for “the lesser of two evils.”
Then how should you, a moral, constitutional conservative, vote? This is how I vote in a general election: I will only support dependable conservatives, but not RINOs, and not Democrats. If the Democrat wins, then the RINO has lost, and I and my friends get to work a) exposing the misdeeds of the elected Democrat, and b) recruiting a true, conservative, constitutional fighter for the next election.
Will these conservatives expose the darkness?
As I’ve already explained, there are too many RINOs and seat-warmers (conservative legislators who mostly vote right but do not speak up for moral, family-values issues). Again, we need pro-family fighters who will speak up and expose the harm and dysfunction of the ruling Democrats. Republicans can’t win with their votes, but they can expose the lies and harm of Democrat Party agendas, if they wish.
These following non-incumbent candidates are moral conservatives, who, if elected, might have the vision to stand and speak for you and your values. Because articulate moral voices to expose evil are desperately needed on the Assembly and Senate floors in Sacramento.
California State Assembly Covering parts of Fresno and Madera counties, much of the Sierra Nevada mountain range, Inyo County and Death Valley, Assembly District 8 looks like it will have a Republican winner in November because, right now, Republican candidates are both of the top two vote-getters. If former congressman George Radanovich wins, he could expose much evil in Sacramento. For, as Radanovich says on his own website, he “believes many societal problems can be traced directly to the breakdown of families.” How refreshing for someone to tell it like it is. In Congress from 1995 to 2011, Radanovich is rated by the voter-tracking-database OnTheIssues as a “Hard-Core Conservative.”
In Orange County’s Assembly District 73, Scotty Peotter is a long-time moral, Christian conservative activist. If he beats incumbent Democrat Cottie Petrie-Norris, Peotter could be a noticeable moral-values voice on the Assembly floor.
In west Riverside County, will Republican Leticia Castillo (already earning 48.5% of the primary vote) take back this formerly Republican seat? On her website, Leticia seems strongly pro-family, with faith in God.
In Stockton and San Joaquin County, could parental-rights and medical-freedom activist Denise Aguilar Mendez win an open Assembly seat? In Assembly District 13, she’s received 36.2% so far. But as the second-highest vote-getter, if she works hard, Denise’s ability to attract followers could surprise many.
California State Senate Covering San Joaquin County and the 680 corridor in Alameda County, the newly-drawn State Senate District 5 is an open seat, where super-patriot and strong moral Californian Jim Shoemaker, as the Republican candidate, received 44.1% on just a “shoestring” campaign against two well-funded Democrats. Going into the general election, if Shoemaker receives adequate funding to reach non-union, “common man” voters and diligently exposes the wrongs of his favored Democrat Party opponent, former U.S. Representative Jerry McNerney, Shoemaker could win an upset victory.
Another State Senate seat that Republicans might pick up is a newly-drawn open seat in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. District 31‘s primary election shows that a Republican can win it, because Republican Cynthia Navarro has, so far, received 45.8% of the counted votes despite spending hardly any money. If State Senate Republicans fund her general election campaign, Navarro could reach independents and Hispanics throughout the district with her popular message — as she outlined in this newspaper interview — of fighting crime, championing parental rights, and supporting small businessowners who provide jobs. Navarro’s Democrat opponent, “LGBTQIA+” activist Assemblyperson Sabrina Cervantes, has voted the polar opposite in Sacramento.
Still another State Senate seat in Orange County could flip Republican. This is the newly-drawn District 37 stretching from Fullerton to Laguna Niguel. In the primary election, Republican candidates (combined) received 52.9% of the vote, putting reliably-conservative-voting Steven Choi (a former state assemblyman) in the functional lead to defeat current Democrat State Senator Josh Newman in November.
U.S. House of Representatives There are more than a dozen California congressional races where the Republican U.S. House candidate or all of the Republican candidates together received at least 40% of the vote in the March 5 primary election. Can they pull off victories in November?
Let’s look at the U.S. House primary contests with non-incumbent Republicans advancing to the general election (Caution: For most of these races, I do not yet know whether the Republican is a RiNO, a seat-warmer, or a conservative, constitutional, pro-family fighter):
In Sacramento County, will the Republican Party target Democrat incumbent Ami Bera and help conservative Republican Christine Bish pull off an upset?
In Stockton/Lodi, will Republican Kevin Lincoln oust Democrat incumbent Josh Harder?
From Fresno to Bakersfield in District 20, will the more conservative Republican Mike Boudreaux beat the less conservative Republican Vince Fong in November?
In the heart of the southern San Joaquin Valley, will Republican Michael Maher oust Democrat Jim Costa in November?
In Greater Palm Springs, will Republican Ian Weeks oust Democrat incumbent Raul Ruiz in November?
In Ventura County, will Republican Michael Koslow oust Democrat incumbent Julia Brownley in November?
In San Bernardino, will Republican Tom Herman beat Democrat incumbent Pete Aguilar in November?
In District 35, will Republican Mike Cargile oust incumbent Democrat Norma Torres in November?
In District 38, will Republican Eric Ching oust incumbent Democrat Linda Sanchez in November?
In District 39, will Republican David Serpa oust incumbent Democrat Mark Takano in November?
In Orange County, will Republican patriot Scott Baugh take back this Democrat seat in November?
In San Diego County, will Republican Matt Gunderson oust incumbent Democrat Mike Levin in November?
I hope this special election update has informed you — please share with others! But most of all, please grasp the opportunities presenting themselves this election year. If moral conservatives rise up in California, Right can overcome Wrong for the benefit of all.
To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom. Proverbs 10:2
Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. Romans 12:9
Wednesday, January 31, 2024, 8:57 am | Randy Thomasson
Proposition 1 on California’s March 5, 2024 ballot is another deceptive Democrat Party scheme of imagery over substance that rejects tried-and-true solutions.
And “homeless housing” has already been an abject failure in California’s Democrat-controlled big cities because it’s “free housing without any requirements.” So no “change” required — no wonder transients flock to California. If the transient magnet of Prop. 1 passes, you can bet California will have more “homeless,” not less.
“Despite Spending $1.1 Billion, San Francisco Sees Its Homelessness Problems Spiral Out Of Control,” Hoover Institution, May 10, 2022 It is hard to imagine a more inhumane outcome than watching the train wreck of homelessness evolve in San Francisco, as the city spends billions on flawed policies that facilitate drug abuse and on badly designed systems to carry out those policies. But this is what happens when there is no accountability within government, and with voters who would prefer feeling good about electing progressive politicians to facing the reality of the awful mess that has been created by those they have elected.
California’s ruling Democrats don’t require transients to enter treatment-and-recovery programs as a condition of housing, so these costly programs fail:
“California homelessness: Where are the state’s billions going?,” CalMatters, May 22, 2023 The state keeps spending more to address the crisis, and the crisis keeps getting worse. So where, they ask, is all the money going? The state’s Interagency Council on Homelessness, a state body tasked with overseeing the state’s homelessness strategy and divvying up funding to local governments, issued a report detailing just how much the state has spent on the crisis between 2018 and 2021 — and what it’s gotten in return.
The answer to those questions, according to the report: The state has spent nearly $10 billion and provided services to more than 571,000 people, each year helping more people than the last. And despite all that, at the end of year three, the majority of those more than half a million Californians still didn’t end up with a roof over their heads. The number of unsheltered Californians continues to swell.
Presented at a three-hour joint committee hearing in the Assembly, the report has sent housing policy experts across the state into a twitter. Services for the homeless are so disjointed — split among nine state agencies, hundreds of county and municipal governments, nonprofits and charitable organizations — the 253-page document may be the first statistical birds-eye view of the state’s many-tentacled efforts.
But it also shows just how intractable the problem is. “One of the largest challenges facing the state is the inflow of new people into homelessness, even as efforts to help people experiencing homelessness expand,” the report reads. What the report did not address is how the state can spend its money more effectively. Nor was it asked to. The report comes at the request of the Legislature, which included an ask in its 2021 budget for a “comprehensive view of the homelessness response system,” not an audit nor a list of recommendations.
Why doesn’t permanent housing help people exit from homelessness? A simple reason is that it appears to attract more people from outside the homeless system, or keeps them in the homelessness system, because they are drawn to the promise of a permanent and usually rent-free room.
A recent economic analysis shows that cities have to build 10 PSH beds to remove a single homeless person from the street, since the vast majority of such units go to people who would not have been permanently homeless. Even the removal of that sole homeless individual from the streets seem to fade over time as more people enter the homelessness system.[4]
…
Another reason Housing First doesn’t work is that it ignores that the major problems for the chronically homeless aren’t just lack of a home. A recent UCLA study found that more than 75% of this population have a serious mental illness, and 75% have a substance abuse problem, and the majority have both. These individuals are reluctant to accept assistance without mandates and requirements, and a house without such mandates will not encourage use of these services.[9]
There was once some hope that housing alone could help reduce drug use and mental health problems. Yet studies have now shown that simply providing people subsidized housing does not reduce drug use, and often encourages it, which makes sense because there is no mandated treatment in PSH and the free unit provides people with more money to pursue their habits.
More fact-based perspective:
“The ‘Housing First’ Approach Has Failed,” The Heritage Foundation, Aug. 4, 2020 Homelessness has gained national attention with the growth of public encampments and street disorder, particularly in West Coast cities. Over the past decade, the federal government has spent billions on “Housing First” programs, which provide permanent housing for the homeless without requiring sobriety or participation in treatment. Although Housing First programs demonstrate strong rates of short-term housing retention, they do not improve symptoms related to drug addiction, mental illness, and general well-being—and have not reduced overall rates of homelessness.
“To Fix Homelessness, Stop Fixating On Housing,” The Federalist, May 30, 2023 Cities and states, for their part, should stop releasing without bail or jail time drug addicts and mentally ill people who commit crimes, and they need to use the threat of punishment as a way to induce street criminals to accept treatment.
At its core, Prop. 1 is throwing more money away, will make California’s homeless population grow, and will make generations of Californians poorer with the multi-billions in bonds to pay back — all so presidential wannabe Gavin Newsom can say he’s “solved” the homeless problem. Defeat this thieving scam — vote NO on Prop. 1.
If any would not work, neither should he eat. — This is a just maxim, and universal nature inculcates it to man. If man will work, he may eat; if he do not work, he neither can eat, nor should he eat. The maxim is founded on these words of the Lord: In the sweat of thy brow thou shall eat bread. Industry is crowned with God’s blessing; idleness is loaded with his curse. This maxim was a proverb among the Jews. Men who can work, and will rather support themselves by begging, should not get one morsel of bread. It is a sin to minister to necessities that are merely artificial. Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 3:10
RSS 2.0 Feed