The measure, backed by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, would impose a 5% tax on the personal wealth of California’s estimated 200 billionaires. Supporters say the money would help protect health care access while also providing funding for public education and food assistance programs.

But the proposal has drawn sharp opposition from some of the state’s wealthiest residents, business interests, Gov. Gavin Newsom and even some labor groups. The dispute has renewed a long-running debate in California politics: who should pay for public services, and how much?

California’s initiative system was created in the early 20th century as part of a reform movement led by figures such as Gov. Hiram Johnson, who argued that voters needed a way to bypass a Legislature heavily influenced by powerful interests. More than a century later, ballot measures have become expensive political battles, often funded by groups with major financial stakes in the outcome.

Recent elections have shown how costly those fights can become. In 2022, casino-owning tribal governments and online gambling companies spent roughly half a billion dollars on competing sports betting measures. Voters rejected both, but the campaign underscored the enormous sums that can be spent when billions of dollars in future revenue are at stake.

The billionaire tax proposal is part of a broader set of tax-related measures expected to shape the next statewide ballot. Public employee unions and other advocates for expanded services are pushing for additional revenue, while opponents argue California already depends too heavily on high earners and businesses to fund state government.

Under the SEIU-UHW proposal, 90% of the money raised from the billionaire wealth tax would go toward health care. Smaller portions would support public education from kindergarten through community college and food assistance programs. The measure’s backers have estimated the tax could generate tens of billions of dollars, potentially as much as $100 billion.

That allocation has caused friction even among groups that often support tax increases. Some unions have objected to the plan because health care would receive the overwhelming majority of the proceeds, leaving comparatively modest shares for schools and anti-hunger programs.

Newsom has emerged as the most prominent opponent of the proposal and has been pressing SEIU-UHW leaders to withdraw it before the ballot is finalized. The deadline to remove measures from the November ballot is approaching quickly.

Opponents argue the measure could damage the state’s budget by prompting wealthy Californians to leave. California relies heavily on income taxes paid by high earners, making state revenue especially sensitive to the financial decisions of a small number of residents. Critics say a tax on wealth, even if described as a one-time levy, could convince billionaires and other wealthy households that California is becoming too unpredictable.

Some wealthy Californians have already left the state, citing the potential tax as a factor, while others may have quietly changed their residency. Opponents have also formed campaign committees and pursued countermeasures intended to blunt or undercut the tax if it reaches voters.

A central issue in the dispute is whether the proposal would truly be limited to a one-time tax. The measure states that lawmakers could amend the tax if changes are consistent with and advance the purposes of the Billionaire Tax Act. Those stated purposes include protecting access to high-quality and equitable health care and supporting funding for education and food assistance by raising revenue from billionaire wealth.

Critics contend that language could give the Legislature room to extend the tax or broaden it to people with lower levels of wealth, depending on how courts interpret the measure. Supporters frame the proposal as a targeted way to raise money from the very richest Californians for essential public needs.

California’s political history gives opponents another argument. In 2012, voters approved what was described as a temporary income tax increase on the state’s wealthiest residents. Four years later, unions and other supporters backed a successful measure extending that tax through 2030. A new proposal this year seeks to make it permanent.

That history has become part of the case against the billionaire tax. Once a revenue source is created, opponents say, groups that benefit from the funding have strong incentives to keep it going.

For voters in Southern California and the Inland Empire, the debate could have practical consequences. State funding for health care, schools, community colleges and food assistance affects counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino, where demand for public services remains high. At the same time, the statewide budget depends heavily on revenue from high-income taxpayers, making any shift in where wealthy residents live or pay taxes a matter of concern for local governments and service providers.

Whether the billionaire tax actually appears on the November ballot now depends on the final days before the deadline. If it remains, California voters will be asked to decide another high-stakes tax question — one likely to draw major spending from both supporters and opponents.

Original source: CalMatters

The post With Ballot Deadline Looming, California Billionaire Tax Faces Uncertain Path to Voters appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In a video statement, Newsom said he was “proud” to be counted among Trump’s political opponents and alleged that the U.S. Department of Justice is searching for wrongdoing rather than investigating an established crime. He said federal agents recently contacted family friends and former employees of him and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom.

Newsom tied the scrutiny to his possible interest in a future presidential campaign, saying the Trump administration is using federal law enforcement against perceived rivals.

According to the governor’s office, neither Newsom nor Siebel Newsom has received a subpoena. But the office said it believes federal agents have issued subpoenas seeking financial records from businesses connected to the Newsom family. Newsom accused investigators of misusing the grand jury process by seeking years of documents.

Newsom founded the hospitality company PlumpJack before entering statewide office and placed his business holdings in a blind trust when he became governor. Siebel Newsom runs two nonprofit organizations, the California Partners Project and the Representation Project.

A person in the U.S. Department of Justice familiar with the matter told CalMatters that at least two criminal investigations involving Newsom have been underway. One concerns Siebel Newsom’s taxes, while the other is connected to Dana Williamson, Newsom’s former chief of staff.

Williamson pleaded guilty in May in a corruption case. The governor has not been implicated in that scandal.

The governor’s remarks come as Newsom continues to position himself as one of Trump’s most forceful Democratic critics, a role that has raised his national profile beyond California. The dispute also places renewed attention on the governor’s family businesses and nonprofit work as federal investigators seek records tied to those entities.

Newsom’s office framed the investigation as part of a broader pattern of retaliation by Trump against political adversaries. The Justice Department has not publicly detailed the scope of the inquiries or announced charges against the governor or first partner.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Rebukes Trump as Investigations Into Trump Family Intensify appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That expectation did not last long.

Only months into his term, Davis publicly bristled at legislative leaders who were pursuing priorities different from his own. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, Davis said lawmakers’ role was to carry out the agenda he had campaigned on, arguing that he alone had won a statewide mandate.

The remarks landed hard in Sacramento. Davis was already at odds with Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, who wanted to focus on health insurance while the governor put education proposals at the center of his agenda. The conflict grew so bitter that Burton and Villaraigosa effectively cut off communication between Davis’ aides and legislative staff.

The episode became an early example of a recurring force in California politics: Even when the governor and legislative leaders belong to the same party, the rivalry between the executive branch and the Legislature often shapes — and sometimes stalls — the state’s agenda.

That dynamic is surfacing again as Gov. Gavin Newsom enters the final stretch of his governorship and looks toward what is widely expected to be a presidential campaign.

This time, the conflict centers on the state budget and the size of California’s ongoing deficit. Newsom is seeking to close a series of multibillion-dollar shortfalls that followed years in which state spending outpaced revenue. His revised budget proposal totals $349.4 billion, and he has described it as balanced not only for the coming fiscal year but also for the first budget cycle after he leaves office.

To get there, Newsom’s plan restrains spending in areas that are central to Democratic lawmakers’ priorities, including education, health care and social services. Those programs are closely watched across Southern California and the Inland Empire, where large numbers of residents rely on state-funded services such as Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents.

Since Newsom released his revised budget in May, lawmakers have faced pressure from advocates who oppose reductions to safety-net programs. Organizations representing health care providers, schools and social service programs have warned that cuts or delays could affect vulnerable Californians and local agencies that already operate under tight budgets.

Legislative leaders responded last week with their own budget plan, released ahead of Monday’s constitutional deadline for passing a spending blueprint. Their proposal would restore many of the reductions Newsom recommended or postpone them for the next governor to address. Compared with Newsom’s plan, the Legislature’s version would increase spending by more than $6 billion.

That difference is at the heart of the dispute. Newsom is pushing for a tighter budget that reduces the gap between revenue and spending. Legislative leaders are betting that state revenues will improve and want to avoid deeper cuts now.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, a Santa Barbara Democrat, said the Legislature’s approach is intended to prevent severe reductions to programs that many Californians depend on to get by.

The passage of a budget bill by the deadline does not end the negotiations. Newsom and lawmakers now have until the start of the new fiscal year on July 1 to reach agreement on a final spending plan that authorizes specific expenditures.

The coming negotiations will test how much influence Newsom retains as his time in Sacramento winds down. Governors typically have significant leverage in budget talks, but that power can weaken as they approach the end of their tenure. Lawmakers, meanwhile, must answer to districts where constituents may be more concerned about health care, schools and public benefits than about the governor’s long-term political future.

The tension is familiar. California governors often enter office claiming a statewide mandate, while legislators argue that they represent the needs of their communities and must protect the programs their constituents rely on. Party unity can narrow ideological differences, but it rarely erases the institutional competition between the branches of government.

For Davis, that rivalry emerged almost immediately. For Newsom, it is playing out near the end of his governorship, with the stakes centered on how California manages a difficult budget and who will bear the consequences of closing the gap.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Capitol Tensions Flare as Newsom and Lawmakers Clash Over Budget appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Some party activists and strategists feared that too many Democratic candidates could split the vote in California’s top-two primary system, potentially allowing two conservative Republicans to advance to the November runoff. They wanted Newsom to intervene, endorse a favored candidate and effectively clear the field.

He stayed out. The primary results suggest that decision may have served him well: Democrats still advanced a candidate to the runoff, while Newsom avoided the political risk of appearing to dictate the party’s future.

But even without endorsing a successor, Newsom has already shaped the next generation of California politics in a way few governors have. Through a series of vacancies, appointments and national political shifts, he has placed allies and rising figures in some of the most powerful elected offices in the state.

The chain of appointments began after President Joe Biden selected then-U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate in 2020. When Harris became vice president, Newsom chose then-Secretary of State Alex Padilla to fill her U.S. Senate seat. Padilla, a longtime Newsom ally, had chaired Newsom’s 2010 gubernatorial campaign before Newsom stepped aside for Jerry Brown and ran for lieutenant governor instead.

Padilla’s move to the Senate created another vacancy. Newsom filled it by appointing Assemblymember Shirley Weber as secretary of state.

Soon after, Biden nominated California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to serve as U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services. Newsom then selected Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who had been viewed as a potential future candidate for attorney general, to take Becerra’s place.

The appointments continued after the death of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein in 2023. Newsom chose Laphonza Butler, a labor leader and Harris ally, to temporarily fill the seat. For a short time, both of California’s U.S. Senate seats and a significant share of the state’s elected constitutional offices were held by people Newsom had appointed — including Newsom himself.

Weber and Bonta later won full terms in 2022. Padilla also won election that year, though his situation was unusual. Because he had been appointed to Harris’ seat, he appeared on the ballot twice: once to serve the final weeks of Harris’ unexpired term and once for a new six-year term. The arrangement stemmed from legal requirements tied to how appointed U.S. senators must face voters.

Butler’s appointment unfolded differently. Newsom had faced criticism for not appointing a Black woman to replace Harris in the Senate. He later pledged to appoint a Black woman if Feinstein’s seat became vacant, but also initially said the appointee should not run for a full term. He later said she could.

After taking office, Butler announced she would not seek the seat. Rep. Adam Schiff won the election for the full term. Butler then resigned before the term ended, and Newsom appointed Schiff to serve the brief remaining period, giving him a small amount of additional Senate seniority.

In all, Newsom made three appointments to the U.S. Senate.

Many of his selections were historic. Padilla became California’s first Latino U.S. senator. Butler became the state’s first openly LGBTQ senator. Bonta is California’s first Filipino American attorney general, and Weber is the state’s first Black secretary of state.

Those milestones are likely to be a central part of Newsom’s legacy in California. They also could become part of his national political argument if, as widely expected, he runs for president in 2028.

Newsom’s influence extends beyond statewide office. As governor, he has filled vacancies on eight county boards of supervisors. Including his years as San Francisco mayor, when he also appointed a supervisor, the total rises to nine. He has appointed three of the seven justices on the California Supreme Court and is expected to name a fourth.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown appointed more state Supreme Court justices over his 16 years in office, but no California governor in the past century has matched Newsom’s volume of appointments to high-profile elected positions. Brown also played an indirect role in setting off the sequence by appointing Becerra as attorney general after Harris was elected to the Senate. When Harris and Becerra later joined the Biden administration, Newsom gained the opportunity to fill those vacancies.

The political importance of those decisions may grow as Newsom looks beyond Sacramento. If he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination, possibly against other prominent Californians such as Harris, he would enter the race with a deep network of officeholders whose careers were advanced by his appointments.

He also would be able to point to a record of elevating officials from historically underrepresented communities, a message that could resonate in a Democratic primary. That record would fit alongside another major chapter of his political career: his decision as San Francisco mayor to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, helping push same-sex marriage into the national debate.

At the same time, opponents will likely scrutinize some of his past appointments. Republicans emphasizing crime and public safety are expected to highlight Newsom’s role in appointing George Gascón first as San Francisco police chief and later as San Francisco district attorney.

For Newsom, the argument may be that those choices must be judged alongside the long list of other appointments he has made — appointments that have reshaped California’s political leadership and could prove valuable if he turns his attention to the White House.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s California Protégés Could Be Key to a Presidential Run appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“Pro tip: unbranded gas comes from the same refineries, storage tanks, and pipelines, and it meets the same state standards to keep your engine running clean,” Newsom’s office posted Thursday on X. “Big Oil is already making billions off Trump’s Iran War; don’t let them rip you off even more by overpaying for the brand name.”

Newsom’s office cited an analysis by a group within the state’s energy commission, which oversees the oil and gas industry, that found that Chevron averaged more than 60 to 80 cents per gallon above unbranded alternatives.

The call-out follows Chevron posting signs at California gas stations blaming the state’s climate policies for the high cost of gas. The average price of gas in California sat at $6.14 per gallon on Thursday, about $1.58 higher than the national average, according to the American Automobile Association. The state taxes consumers about 70 cents per gallon of gas, according to the state’s energy commission. That is the highest gas tax in the country.

“California politicians are choosing foreign oil and fuels over local jobs and lower costs,” the signs read. They feature a QR code that directs to a Chevron webpage asking people to “speak up for affordable, reliable energy.”

It is not clear when Chevron put the signs up, but spokesman Ross Allen said they are part of a campaign the company launched three years ago to inform drivers on the price impacts of California policies.

“We’ve been very vocal about the importance of customer education in California so that our drivers and our consumers understand where their tax dollars are going,” Allen said.

There are hundreds of Chevron gas stations operating in California, and most of them are operated independently and set their own prices, he said.

Memorial Day is typically one of the busiest travel weekends of the year.

Prices at the pump have swelled nationwide since the Iran war began, launching a global energy crisis. The price of crude oil, which is the main ingredient in gasoline, has climbed during the war because the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s crude oil normally passes, has effectively been shut. Oil tankers have been stranded there unable to deliver crude.

Newsom, who often touts the state’s status as a global climate leader, has passed policies in recent years aimed at cracking down on oil company profits and reducing gas prices.

He signed a law in 2023 allowing the state’s energy commission to penalize oil companies for excess profits, declaring the state had “finally beat big oil.” But regulators voted last year to hold off on plans to penalize businesses until 2030 and prioritize other efforts to protect consumers at the pump.

The postponement came after two oil refineries that accounted for roughly 18% of the state’s refining capacity announced their plans to close, reigniting debate over the price impacts of the state’s ambitious climate policies.

Newsom signed another law in 2024 giving the commission the authority to require refineries to keep a certain amount of fuel on hand. The goal is to try to keep prices from increasing suddenly when refineries go offline for maintenance. But that regulation has also stalled.

The post Newsom’s office warns Californians to avoid Chevron this holiday weekend, citing high gas prices appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time, 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, which would largely be used to offset federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people.

“California’s health is at stake,” said Liz Perlman, executive director of a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a major labor union. “Hospitals are closing and people will die. Why? So billionaires can get another tax cut that they don’t need.”

The California Secretary of State still has to verify the signatures and officially place the measure on the ballot. Backers say they collected more than 1.5 million signatures, well over the roughly 875,000 they needed. California allows ballot initiative campaigns to pay people per signature they gather. The cost of gathering petition signatures can vary widely, but it typically runs around $15 for each signature.

If the measure goes before voters in November, it could prompt one of the costliest ballot fights ever and will draw national attention as a litmus test for voter attitudes on raising taxes on the rich. An effort to oppose the tax has already raised millions and led to proposals designed to nullify the tax. Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has campaigned in support of the idea.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Silicon Valley tech moguls are adamantly opposed. They warn it will drive California’s wealthiest residents out of the state. Nearly half of California’s personal income tax revenue comes from the top 1% of earners. Some have already purchased properties out of state in case it passes.

“After playing with matches since October the SEIU has succeeded in lighting a ‘Tax the Rich’ wildfire by getting enough signatures,” said David Lesperance, a tax consultant who’s advised some of his wealthy clients who left California because of the proposal. “The many billionaire targets of their efforts have already responded by executing fire escape plans by relocating to other states.”

Brian Brokaw, a longtime Newsom adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said the measure was poorly constructed and would deal a huge blow to the state’s budget.

“Enacting a so-called wealth tax in just one state wouldn’t target a small group — it would impact all 40 million Californians,” he said in a statement. “This proposal trades a short-term revenue bump for long-term losses.”

At least 25 billionaires listed among Forbes magazine’s 2025 rankings of the world’s 500 wealthiest people either lived in California or had some significant ties to the state, based on a review by The Associated Press. But determining whether they were full-time residents or just frequent visitors could turn into a matter of dispute, since many of them own property elsewhere.

The big tax and spending cuts law President Donald Trump signed last year will cut more than $1 trillion nationwide over a decade from Medicaid and federal food assistance.

The post Billionaire tax proposal in California is on track to qualify for the ballot, backers say appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Yee, a Democrat, had been one of several candidates seeking to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom in what has become a crowded and unpredictable contest. Despite the size of the field, no candidate has clearly emerged as a dominant front-runner.

Speaking during a virtual press conference, Yee said her campaign faced a tough reality as fundraising lagged and polling numbers remained low.

“The idea that voters are prioritizing experience and competence just hasn’t really played out,” she said. “That’s what I built my campaign on, but without the resources to stay competitive, it’s hard to see a path forward.”

Yee, who served two terms as state controller, said she plans to take some time before deciding whether to endorse another candidate.

Her departure comes shortly after another major shake-up in the race. Former Rep. Eric Swalwell, once considered a leading Democratic contender, exited the contest earlier this month following allegations of sexual misconduct. Swalwell, who has denied wrongdoing, is also facing multiple investigations and resigned from Congress soon after the accusations surfaced.

Throughout her campaign, Yee leaned into her reputation as a steady, no-nonsense public servant — even embracing the nickname “Boring Betty.” In a recent post on X, she framed that approach as a strength, writing that California needs “calm, cool, collected change” rather than political drama.

Still, her campaign struggled to keep pace financially in a state known for its costly media markets. Campaign filings show Yee raised just under $583,000 in 2025, far behind some of her rivals.

Although she has won statewide office multiple times — including seats on the Board of Equalization and as controller — Yee never gained broad name recognition among voters. She consistently polled in the single digits.

Even with her withdrawal, Yee’s name will remain on the June primary ballot. Earlier this year, she declined calls from state Democratic Party leaders to reconsider her candidacy amid concerns that a divided Democratic field could open the door for two Republicans to advance under California’s top-two primary system.

Under that system, the two candidates with the most votes in the June 2 primary move on to the general election, regardless of party. While Democrats dominate statewide voter registration, a fractured vote could, in theory, shift the outcome.

Yee dismissed that possibility as unlikely.

“Could it happen? Maybe. But realistically, this is California,” she said, adding that she believes the top-two system should ultimately be eliminated.

Despite her campaign’s challenges, Yee maintained strong support among party activists and previously served as vice chair of the state Democratic Party. At the party’s February convention, she placed second in delegate support with 17%, though no candidate secured the endorsement.

Voting in the gubernatorial primary is set for June 2, with mail-in ballots expected to begin going out in the coming weeks.

The post Former state Controller Betty Yee drops out of the governor’s race appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

That’s according to an executive order signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday. The order followed a dispute between Anthropic and the Defense Department over contract clauses barring the military from using Anthropic systems for domestic mass surveillance and fully autonomous weaponry. 

By designating Anthropic a supply chain risk, the Department of Defense effectively barred the startup from competing for certain military contracts and subcontracts. A judge recently issued a temporary injunction to block the designation.

The broader purpose of Newsom’s order was to place guardrails on the use of AI by state employees while at the same time encouraging them to accelerate their use of the technology. 

Many of the largest AI companies in the world are based in California, and the state also leads the nation in volume of AI regulations.

The order requires state agencies to: 

• Develop recommendations for state contract standards relating to AI and its ability to generate child sexual abuse material, violate civil liberties and civil rights laws or infringe upon legal “protections against unlawful discrimination, detention, and surveillance.” Help employees gain access to “vetted GenAI tools.”
• Update the State Digital Strategy to identify ways generative AI can “strengthen government transparency and accountability, improve performance, and make government services easily accessible for every Californian.”
• Develop generative AI for Californians to gain access to government services.
• Issue guidance on how state employees should place watermarks on AI-generated imagery and videos.

Those mandates come at a time when more than 20 California departments and agencies are working to develop or use Poppy, a generative AI assistant for state employees, and when half a dozen state agencies are testing AI to do things like assist state employees and help homeless people and businesses. They also come as state courts and city governments are increasing their use of the technology.

Newsom’s office said President Donald Trump and Republicans in Washington D.C. have rolled back protections or ignored the ways AI can harm people. 

“Unlike the Trump administration, California remains committed to ensuring that AI solutions adopted and deployed by [California]… cannot be misused by bad actors,” the governor’s office said in a press release announcing the order.

At the federal level, Trump has signed executive orders to discourage states from regulating AI and urged federal agencies to adopt AI to do things like reduce federal regulation and accelerate decisions made about Medicare. The White House introduced an AI policy framework last month that the president wants Congress to take up. That proposal takes a light touch approach to regulation and does not address issues related to bias, discrimination, or civil rights.

This is the second executive order signed by Newsom to address artificial intelligence. A 2023 order aimed exclusively at generative AI, the sort that powers systems like ChatGPT and Midjourney, similarly called for more use of AI by state agencies and ordered them to put guardrails in place.

Newsom’s handling of AI issues is closely watched by both union leaders, who in February pledged that they will not support his run for president without more worker protections from the technology, and big tech donors, who are pouring money into influencing California politics ahead of midterm elections this fall.

The post Newsom orders government to consider AI harm in contract rules appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

    The comment leans into a familiar kind of political attack, but it also echoes a long-standing contradiction. Newsom has been open for years about living with dyslexia, a condition that can make reading and writing more challenging but does not limit intelligence or the ability to lead. By most measures, he has managed it effectively throughout his career.

    Dyslexia forces people to approach learning differently, not less successfully. Newsom has described how he prepares extensively for speeches, often reviewing material multiple times and relying on notes or memorization to stay on track. It’s something he’s dealt with since his teenage years.

    Trump, who has not been diagnosed with dyslexia, framed the issue as disqualifying. In remarks to reporters, he said he supports people with learning disabilities “but not for my president,” adding criticism of Newsom’s abilities. Similar comments followed in radio interviews and on social media, where Trump argued that a president should not have what he called a “cognitive deficiency.”

    The criticism drew attention not only for its tone but for its premise. Learning disabilities have been present among prominent figures throughout history, including U.S. presidents. Historians have noted that individuals such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson struggled with spelling and written communication, while others like John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower are also believed to have had learning challenges.

    Beyond politics, well-known figures such as Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs have also been associated with dyslexia. Researchers estimate the condition affects roughly one in five Americans to some degree.

    Newsom has spoken candidly about how it shaped his development. In his autobiography, Young Man in a Hurry, he describes school as inconsistent and the SAT as particularly difficult. Early in his career, he said public speaking carried the same anxiety he once felt reading aloud in class. Over time, he adapted by memorizing key points and focusing on connecting with audiences.

    That ability, he has argued, became a strength — allowing him to read a room and adjust his message in real time. It’s a skill that carried him through his time as San Francisco mayor and later as California governor.

    During a recent State of the State address, Newsom acknowledged his struggles directly, noting that reading prepared text can still be difficult and requires extra effort.

    None of that settles the broader political question of whether he should one day be president. Voters will ultimately weigh his policies, leadership style, and record in office.

    But reducing that debate to a learning disability misses the mark — and, critics argue, crosses a line that has little to do with governing.

The post Trump’s remarks about Gavin Newsom’s dyslexia spark criticism and renew debate over leadership, disability, and politics appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Documents reviewed from the state controller’s office show Williamson used about $30,000 worth of accrued leave to stay on the payroll through Jan. 31, several weeks after officials indicated she had stepped away from her role. When that time was exhausted, she received an additional payout of roughly $22,000 for remaining unused leave hours.

The payments have renewed attention on California’s growing financial obligation related to unused vacation and leave balances held by state employees.

Across state government, the liability for unused leave has climbed dramatically. State records show California now owes employees about $5.6 billion in accumulated vacation and leave benefits. Analysts say the rising total reflects generous accrual policies and inconsistent enforcement of limits that typically cap vacation balances at 640 hours.

Public employees often build up large banks of unused leave during long careers in government service. When they retire or leave their jobs, those hours are paid out based on their final salary level.

Williamson’s situation drew particular scrutiny because she accumulated 462 hours of unused leave in less than two years while serving as the governor’s top aide. Her salary as chief of staff was $19,612 per month.

Some policy analysts say the practice creates significant financial strain on government budgets.

John Moorlach, a policy expert with the California Policy Center and former state senator, noted that many state workers accumulate leave because of demanding workloads, but he said the size of some payouts can be surprising.

“This kind of benefit isn’t something most private-sector workers would ever see,” Moorlach said.

Williamson’s departure from state service followed news that she was under federal investigation. According to the governor’s office, she informed Newsom in November 2024 that she was being investigated and was placed on paid administrative leave until mid-December.

Federal prosecutors later filed charges alleging Williamson diverted $225,000 from a dormant campaign account connected to former gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra. Prosecutors also claim she improperly deducted approximately $1 million in luxury purchases, including designer handbags and travel, as business expenses on tax filings.

Williamson has pleaded not guilty.

Her legal case remains ongoing. Court records show a status hearing scheduled for April 16 was delayed after Williamson underwent a liver transplant and because attorneys continue to review extensive evidence in the case.

Her attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

State payroll records indicate Williamson received about $40,000 in standard pay during 2025. Officials said that amount reflected compensation covering her final weeks on administrative leave as well as payments drawn from her accrued vacation time.

Combined with the $22,000 lump-sum payout for unused leave, Williamson received approximately $62,000 in total compensation last year despite no longer actively working.

The situation has drawn criticism from some lawmakers who say the state should reevaluate policies surrounding vacation accrual and payouts.

Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Republican from Folsom, said the growing payouts highlight a broader issue with how the state manages employee leave balances.

“State workers deserve vacation time, but we should take a close look if these benefits are creating excessive costs,” Hoover said.

In 2025 alone, California paid roughly $453 million in leave payouts to more than 21,000 employees leaving government service. That averages about $20,000 per employee, though some payouts are significantly higher.

State data shows 80 employees received at least $250,000 in leave payouts last year, while more than 1,000 employees were paid over $100,000.

The post Newsom’s Former Chief of Staff Leaves State Payroll With Vacation Cash-Out Amid Federal Case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.