Fact Check: "The Legislature’s budget reverses the most 'draconian' of Newsom’s cuts."
What We Know
In June 2024, California lawmakers made significant adjustments to Governor Gavin Newsom's proposed budget, particularly concerning Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for low-income residents. Newsom's original proposal included a freeze on Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented immigrants aged 19 and older, the cancellation of dental care, and the introduction of a $100 monthly copay for these individuals. In contrast, the legislature's budget plan rejected some of these cuts, proposing instead to lower the monthly premium to $30 and delay the elimination of dental benefits until 2027. However, they also sought to expand the enrollment freeze to include more non-citizens, which some critics argue still perpetuates inequities in health care access for immigrants (CalMatters, Lookout).
The legislature's budget cuts overall state spending by $3.5 billion and delays or borrows an additional $8.8 billion in spending for the 2025-26 budget year. Despite rejecting some of Newsom's more severe proposals, the legislature's approach has been criticized for not fully addressing the needs of immigrant communities and for failing to identify new revenue sources to sustain Medi-Cal's growing costs (CalMatters, Lookout).
Analysis
The claim that the legislature's budget reverses the most "draconian" cuts proposed by Newsom is partially true. While it is accurate that the legislature rejected some of the more severe cuts, such as the complete cancellation of dental care and the $100 copay, they did not eliminate the enrollment freeze entirely. Instead, they expanded it to include more individuals, which some advocates argue is still a significant reduction in access to care for vulnerable populations (CalMatters, Lookout).
The source of the claim comes from Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, who characterized the legislature's budget as a reversal of the most extreme cuts. This statement reflects a political perspective that emphasizes the rejection of certain proposals while downplaying the broader implications of the remaining cuts (CalMatters, Lookout). Critics, including health equity advocates, argue that the legislature's budget still falls short of providing equitable health care for all Californians, particularly immigrants (CalMatters).
In assessing the reliability of the sources, both CalMatters and Lookout are reputable news organizations that focus on California politics and policy. They provide detailed reporting on legislative actions and their implications, making them credible sources for this analysis.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that "The Legislature’s budget reverses the most 'draconian' of Newsom’s cuts" is Partially True. While the legislature did reject some of the more severe cuts proposed by Governor Newsom, they also expanded the enrollment freeze, which continues to limit access to Medi-Cal for many immigrants. Thus, the claim captures some truth but does not fully encompass the complexities and ongoing challenges within the budget negotiations.
