Enacted appropriations
$351.7BState-fund expenditures: General Fund, special funds, and selected bond funds. The official budget detail excludes federal funds, reimbursements, and other nongovernmental cost funds.
California budget, debt, and interest
California state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is California state government. Federal debt is not allocated to California; a state budget is not the federal budget.
State debt outstanding$166.39BFY2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$5.39BFY2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$265.55BFY2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
California over time
Explore California readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. California officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a California effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a California change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
California government actions California · source units
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
13 of 13 reviewed California actions match · 13 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
How major events are selected
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
State debt and interest
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
California · FY2024$166.39B
California rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
State debt outstanding
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California · your comparison | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state revenue comes from
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
California · FY2024$53.33B
California rank#2among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
General sales-tax collections
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California · your comparison | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state operating spending goes
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current California appropriations act.
California · FY2024$156.71B
California rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public welfare current operations
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California · your comparison | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
State operating costs and the enacted budget
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
California · FY2024$287.03B
California rank#1among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operation expenditure
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from California’s FY2026–27 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. California stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. California has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare California with every state · 50 ranked
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California · your comparison | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Where state tax revenue comes from
FY2024–25 audited actualShares of the $263.0 billion in taxes reported as general revenue by California's primary government. This denominator excludes federal grants, service charges, investment income, and locally collected property taxes.
- Personal income tax
- $136.9B · 52.1%
- Sales and use tax
- $53.6B · 20.4%
- Corporation tax
- $42.3B · 16.1%
- Managed-care enrollment tax
- $12.7B · 4.8%
- Motor vehicle excise tax
- $9.5B · 3.6%
- Insurance and other taxes
- $7.9B · 3%
Enacted state-fund spending plan
FY2026–27 enacted state-fund planAgency shares of the $351.7 billion state-fund budget. These figures exclude federal funds, reimbursements, and other nongovernmental cost funds, matching the budget total above.
- Health and human services
- $145.4B · 41.4%
- K–12 education
- $92.8B · 26.4%
- Higher education
- $28.1B · 8%
- Transportation
- $18.8B · 5.3%
- Corrections and rehabilitation
- $18.6B · 5.3%
- Other state functions
- $48.0B · 13.6%
Audited government-wide results
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025- Revenue
- $524.8B
- Expenses
- $520.0B
Audited government-wide activity for California's primary government, rounded to the nearest million in the ACFR's management discussion. These are accounting results, not the FY2026–27 state-fund budget.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s California candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 3 — General Election
Samuel P. Sukaton
1 statementBudgets, spending & debt
Expand awareness of online tools and data-portals so taxpayers can track assessments, appeals, and exemptions easily – from tax prep clinics to budget season dashboards, Sam wants to make it easier for you to invest in California and see results.
Read exact statement & source
Expand awareness of online tools and data-portals so taxpayers can track assessments, appeals, and exemptions easily – from tax prep clinics to budget season dashboards, Sam wants to make it easier for you to invest in California and see results.Sam Sukaton for BOE | Empower Communities Now ↗
2026 California Board of Equalization Member District 4 — General Election
Denis Bilodeau
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
Vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization. I’m running to lower your cost of living. Your electric bill, your gas bill, your water bill. The Board of Equalization assesses the property of California’s regulated utilities, and that assessment directly affects your utility rates. When an assessmen…
Read exact statement & source
Vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization. I’m running to lower your cost of living. Your electric bill, your gas bill, your water bill. The Board of Equalization assesses the property of California’s regulated utilities, and that assessment directly affects your utility rates. When an assessment is wrong, it shows up in your rent and your utility bills. I’m Denis Bilodeau, P.E. • Licensed Civil and Traffic Engineer. • University of California, Irvine graduate. • Taxpayer Association President. • Mayor Pro Tem, City of Orange. • President, Orange County Water District. • Chairman, National Water Research Institute. I’ve spent 25 years fighting for ratepayers. I know how a wrong assessment lands on a working family’s budget. The Board of Equalization also oversees the 58 county assessors. Your property should be assessed fairly, without inflation from errors or special interest loopholes. I signed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Pledge to Save Proposition 13 and have their endorsement. I’ll oppose the proposed car mileage tax. I’ve led a team that set affordable water rates, protected our watersheds from forever chemicals, balanced budgets every year, invested in our infrastructure, and delivered high-quality drinking water that met the highest safety standards in the country. As a City Councilmember, I’ve worked to keep our neighborhoods safe. I’ll fight so working families can afford a home again with engineering precision and fiscal discipline. An independent voice for taxpayers. I care whether things work, not who gets credit. Please vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization.Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
View 1 more statement from Denis Bilodeau
Budgets, spending & debt
Southern California taxpayers deserve a government that protects families from higher costs and small businesses from job-killing regulations. I am running to bring strong taxpayer protections and independent oversight to California's $8.7 trillion property tax system. I signed the Howard Jarvis Tax…
Read exact statement & source
Southern California taxpayers deserve a government that protects families from higher costs and small businesses from job-killing regulations. I am running to bring strong taxpayer protections and independent oversight to California's $8.7 trillion property tax system. I signed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association pledge to protect Proposition 13 & oppose tax increases. I am endorsed by Reform California and will fight the proposed car mileage tax. As President of the Orange Taxpayers Association, I fight government waste and demand transparency. I bring 25 years of public service, including leading the Orange County Water District, where I balance budgets, deliver the highest quality drinking water in California, and protect the environment. As a City Councilmember, I've focused on keeping our neighborhoods safe and eliminating homelessness. On the Board of Equalization, I will work to reduce costs for everything from electric and gas bills to groceries and prescription medications. I support common-sense growth that protects neighborhoods and gives future generations a fair chance at home ownership. I will protect homeowners from higher property taxes that lead to higher rents. I'll be an independent voice for taxpayers. Please vote Denis Bilodeau for Board of Equalization.Board of Equalization Candidate Statements | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State ↗
2026 California Governor — General Election
Steve Hilton
5 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
Steve will dedicate two percent of the state General Fund to water affordability and infrastructure, with no tax increase. It will be paid for by cutting waste and ineffective spending elsewhere in the bloated state budget.
Read exact statement & source
Steve will dedicate two percent of the state General Fund to water affordability and infrastructure, with no tax increase. It will be paid for by cutting waste and ineffective spending elsewhere in the bloated state budget.CUT CALIFORNIA'S WATER BILLS IN HALF BY ENDING MAN-MADE WATER SCARCITY ↗
View 4 more statements from Steve Hilton
Budgets, spending & debt
Recent laws restricting non-disclosure agreements during negotiations over legislation and regulations are a start. Steve will extend the ban to state budgets, contracts, labor agreements, legal settlements and major public-works projects.
Read exact statement & source
Recent laws restricting non-disclosure agreements during negotiations over legislation and regulations are a start. Steve will extend the ban to state budgets, contracts, labor agreements, legal settlements and major public-works projects.PUT THE PEOPLE BACK IN CHARGE ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
Workers will not pay for the expansion through higher SDI deductions. The additional benefit will be funded from the General Fund, with matching spending cuts identified in every state budget.
Read exact statement & source
Workers will not pay for the expansion through higher SDI deductions. The additional benefit will be funded from the General Fund, with matching spending cuts identified in every state budget.12 WEEKS PAID LEAVE FOR CALIFORNIA FAMILIES ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
Reserve funding for independent and mid-budget projects
Read exact statement & source
Reserve funding for independent and mid-budget projectsBRING HOLLYWOOD HOME ↗
Budgets, spending & debt
Steve will use his appointments, agency authority, budget powers and existing infrastructure-streamlining laws to accelerate qualifying water projects. He will also push broader reforms so storage, treatment, recycling, recharge and repair projects do not spend decades trapped in bureaucracy and lit…
Read exact statement & source
Steve will use his appointments, agency authority, budget powers and existing infrastructure-streamlining laws to accelerate qualifying water projects. He will also push broader reforms so storage, treatment, recycling, recharge and repair projects do not spend decades trapped in bureaucracy and litigation.CUT CALIFORNIA'S WATER BILLS IN HALF BY ENDING MAN-MADE WATER SCARCITY ↗
Xavier Becerra
2 statementsBudgets, spending & debt
Creating the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Housing Development and Finance Committee is the right structural move, but standing up a new agency is the beginning, not the end. The hard work of turning that framework into something that actually cuts costs and speeds production fa…
Read exact statement & source
Creating the California Housing and Homelessness Agency and the Housing Development and Finance Committee is the right structural move, but standing up a new agency is the beginning, not the end. The hard work of turning that framework into something that actually cuts costs and speeds production falls largely to the next governor. I have done this before. At HHS I managed an agency with a budget larger than the size of California’s entire state government, and I know what it takes to build a new entity into something that works: the staffing decisions, the interagency coordination, the accountability structures that keep it from drifting. As Governor, I will resource the Agency to succeed, set the production targets it will be held to publicly, and make clear that California’s housing crisis demands results, not just reorganization.Housing - Xavier Becerra ↗
View 1 more statement from Xavier Becerra
Budgets, spending & debt
Some of California’s largest and most profitable corporations pay wages so low that their workers qualify for taxpayer-funded Medi-Cal, effectively subsidizing their labor costs with public money while disadvantaging competitors who do the right thing. This year’s state budget laid the foundation fo…
Read exact statement & source
Some of California’s largest and most profitable corporations pay wages so low that their workers qualify for taxpayer-funded Medi-Cal, effectively subsidizing their labor costs with public money while disadvantaging competitors who do the right thing. This year’s state budget laid the foundation for this fight through the Fair Share from Big Corporations Act, directing the Department of Finance to bring forward options by March 2027 — and if I have the honor of serving as Governor, I would look forward to working with the Legislature to turn that groundwork into a real, enforceable policy. I will pursue a fee on large employers who do not offer health coverage to their low-wage workers who qualify for Medi-Cal, so that corporations who shift their healthcare costs onto taxpayers pay their fair share. Profitable companies should not get to pass their obligations onto working families.Health Care - Xavier Becerra ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 14
How statements are selected
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published California candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current California legislators and California’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from California’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
12 matching sponsorships or proposals · 9 California incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Asm. Dr. Joaquin Arambula
California State Assembly · District 31 · D–CA
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Dr. Joaquin Arambula
Medi-Cal: eligibility.
Dec 7, 2020 · Session ended · final outcome unverified
Asm. Dr. Joaquin Arambula · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes a determination that…
The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated December 7, 2020 and records: Senate - Died - Appropriations. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Existing law provides that Medi-Cal benefits for individuals who are 65 years of age or older, and who do not have satisfactory immigration statuses or are unable to establish satisfactory immigration statuses, as specified, are to be prioritized in the Budget Act for the upcoming fiscal year if the Department of Finance projects a positive ending balance in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties for the upcoming fiscal year and each of the ensuing 3 fiscal years that exceeds the cost of providing those…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Asm. Jesse Gabriel
California State Assembly · District 46 · D–CA
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Jesse Gabriel
Legal Services Trust Fund Commission: Homelessness Prevention Fund: grants: eviction or displacement.
Oct 8, 2021 · Vetoed
Asm. Jesse Gabriel · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law prescribes certain rights and limitations for landlords and tenants subject to eviction and certain procedures for civil actions involving evictions.Existing law, the State Bar Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation, governed by a board of trustees. Existing law requires an attorney to maintain short-term deposits of client funds in an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA) and requires the interest and dividends earned on the account to be paid to the State Bar for the funding of certain programs that provide civil legal services without charge to indigent persons. Existing law requires the board of…
The official California Legislative Information record shows the veto action on October 8, 2021.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The bill would require the commission, subject to appropriation to the State Bar by the Legislature, to distribute moneys in the fund in the form of grants, awarded on a competitive basis, to fund prescribed legal services, education, and outreach for tenants relating to eviction or displacement.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Asm. Juan Carrillo
California State Assembly · District 39 · D–CA
1 proposalView proposals from Asm. Juan Carrillo
Public social services: support for older and aging immigrants.
Oct 6, 2025 · Enacted
Asm. Juan Carrillo · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law, the Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act, establishes the California Department of Aging and states that the mission of the department is to provide leadership to the area agencies on aging in developing systems of home- and community-based services that maintain individuals in their own homes or least restrictive homelike environments. This bill would, subject to an appropriation for these purposes, require the department to oversee a stakeholder process to support findings and recommendations on how to best support older and aging immigrants, as defined, regardless of their immigration status, in California through the establishment of a panel.
The official California Legislative Information record shows this action on October 6, 2025: Chaptered.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses immigration status, immigrant services, asylum, deportation, or immigration enforcement. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed foreign-born population share.
Retained California evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would, subject to an appropriation for these purposes, require the department to oversee a stakeholder process to support findings and recommendations on how to best support older and aging immigrants, as defined, regardless of their immigration status, in California through the establishment of a panel.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Fiona Ma
Treasurer of California · –CA
1 proposalView proposals from Fiona Ma
State Treasurer Fiona Ma Announces Passage of Bill to Explore Path to Reduce Government Spending and Enhance Resources for Social Security Payment Recipients
Sep 8, 2022 · Proposed policy
Fiona Ma · Issued
FactVote reviewed summary
State Treasurer Fiona Ma Announces Passage of Bill to
Published by the official office
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Social Security benefits, eligibility, administration, financing, or beneficiary protection. It does not establish an effect on California's beneficiary count.
Retained California evidence context: Social Security beneficiaries. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
State Treasurer Fiona Ma Announces Passage of Bill to State Treasurer Fiona Ma Announces Passage of Bill to Explore Path to Reduce Government Spending and Enhance Resources for Social Security Payment Recipients State Treasurer Fiona Ma Announces Passage of Bill toReview official supporting evidence ↗
Gov. Gavin Newsom
Governor of California · D–CA
3 proposalsView proposals from Gov. Gavin Newsom
California leaders announce historic Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 to expand homeownership and build affordable housing for generations of Californians
Jun 22, 2026 · Proposed housing bond agreement
Gov. Gavin Newsom · Issued
FactVote reviewed summary
The Governor and legislative leaders announced an agreement on a proposed affordable-housing and homeownership bond. The June 22 source describes further legislative and voter approval steps; it does not establish that the bond was authorized or funds were spent.
On June 22, 2026, the Governor and legislative leaders announced an agreement on a proposed housing bond. The source still required legislative passage, governor signature and voter approval; this announcement is not bond authorization or spending.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The bond would make long-term investments in affordable housing and homeownership, accelerating housing production while creating lasting housing opportunities for Californians.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Governor Newsom Proposes Reproductive Health Package to Strengthen Protections, Expand Access, and Welcome Businesses from Anti-Abortion States
May 11, 2022 · Proposed reproductive health package
Gov. Gavin Newsom · Issued
FactVote reviewed summary
The Governor proposed additional investment in reproductive-health facilities, patient access and services for people without coverage. The announcement sought legislative action; it does not establish that the proposed investments were enacted.
On May 11, 2022, the Governor proposed additional reproductive-health investments. This record is a proposal announcement, not a signing or implementation record.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses abortion access, abortion-related services, or Medi-Cal coverage of those services. It does not establish an effect on the displayed Medi-Cal service count.
Retained California evidence context: Medi-Cal-funded abortion-related services. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
As California prepares for an influx of people seeking abortion care, Governor Newsom’s proposal would provide new investments in reproductive health facilities, remove barriers to services, help cover costs of uninsured patients, and more Incentives for businesses to relocate and bring jobs to California from anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ states Governor Newsom is committed to working […]Review official supporting evidence ↗
Governor Newsom Announces Golden State Stimulus, a Budget Proposal to Help Low-Income Californians through $600 Rapid Cash Payments, and Calls for Extension of Eviction Moratorium
Jan 6, 2021 · Proposed stimulus and eviction relief
Gov. Gavin Newsom · Issued
FactVote reviewed summary
The Governor proposed cash support for eligible low-income taxpayers, extending eviction protections and distributing rental assistance. This January announcement describes proposed budget actions, not completed payments or an enacted eviction extension.
On January 6, 2021, the Governor proposed Golden State Stimulus payments and an extension of eviction protections in his budget. Later legislative actions are separate records.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses residential rent, rental housing, tenant protections, housing assistance, or housing supply. It is housing-cost context and does not establish an effect on California's median gross rent.
Retained California evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Governor Newsom Announces Golden State Stimulus, a Budget Proposal to Help Low-Income Californians through $600 Rapid Cash Payments, and Calls for Extension of Eviction MoratoriumReview official supporting evidence ↗
Sen. Maria Elena Durazo
California State Senate · District 26 · D–CA
2 proposalsView proposals from Sen. Maria Elena Durazo
Medi-Cal: eligibility.
Jun 14, 2021 · Session ended · final outcome unverified
Sen. Maria Elena Durazo · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, Services (department), under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes…
The 2021–2022 regular session ended on November 30, 2022. The retained bill text is dated June 14, 2021 and records: Assembly - Died - Appropriations. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, and effective July 1, 2022, extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who are 60 years of age or older, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Medi-Cal: eligibility.
Sep 4, 2019 · Session ended · final outcome unverified
Sen. Maria Elena Durazo · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes a determination that…
The 2019–2020 regular session ended on November 30, 2020. The retained bill text is dated September 4, 2019 and records: Assembly - Died. Its final disposition and action date still require the official bill history; this measure is not shown as currently pending.
Why this record is included
The official record directly addresses Medi-Cal, health-insurance eligibility, enrollment, continuity, or premium assistance. It does not establish an effect on California's under-65 uninsured rate.
Retained California evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, and effective July 1, 2020, extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who are 65 years of age or older, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status.Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us
Only current California officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a California statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 6, 2026.