EXTRA SCHOOL DAYS BROUGHT BENEFITS, BUT THEY’RE HARD TO MEASURE

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 2023, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “EXTRA SCHOOL DAYS BROUGHT BENEFITS, BUT THEY’RE HARD TO MEASURE”

 

        It’s a truism by now that children lost a lot of educational opportunities during the coronavirus pandemic, forced for many months to stay home and study via Zoom and other long-distance modalities.

 

        But kids and their parents last winter defied the longtime stereotype that they are essentially uncaring about education, showing up in large numbers over the holiday break when school districts including Los Angeles Unified, with the largest enrollment in both the state and nation, offered extra classes designed to start making up for learning missed during the online-only era.

 

        No one can doubt what was lost – some say stolen – from children during those almost two years when virtually no public school in California operated in person.

 

        Standardized tests have proven this, with drops in student performance at almost all levels in reading and math.

 

        But under the state’s Expanded Learning Opportunities program, school districts over the last year could add three hours to many school days and extend the school year to help students improve their academics. Since every study shows the poorer a child’s family, the more learning was lost, most districts prioritized low-income pupils, English learners or kids in foster care for the extra classes.

 

        In Los Angeles, the first day of extra classes brought out tens of thousands of students, with many teachers reporting pupils enthused even as they lost free time.

 

        But things did not look as optimistic when that same district tried essentially the same thing during its spring break in early April.

 

        Average turnout was almost 15 percent smaller, despite teachers having months longer to recruit students who needed help the most.

 

        Still, the spring turnout of 33,076 students for two days of extra learning was a lot better than nothing, demonstrating that at least some parents and their kids are motivated to learn and try to move ahead.

 

        For the kids who came, there was plenty of individual attention, activities where they practiced basic math and reading skills, got prepped for advanced placement tests or tried to lift their grades in various subjects. Both students and teachers afterward described a calm atmosphere with a solid learning environment for those who came.

 

        All this, of course, cost plenty, with many hundreds of teachers called in to work extra time. In January, Los Angeles district officials said they spent $36 million on the winter break classes. No figures have yet been reported for the spring effort.

 

        It was essentially a way for the district to get in extra school days in a climate where neither adults nor students appeared to want the school year extended deep into the summer, as was authorized.

 

        One thing the extra days demonstrated, with their smaller classes and far more individualized instruction than normal, was that this kind of instruction produces more interested students and likely better long-term results.

 

        But more than 40 percent of students who registered to attend did not turn up once the extra class days arrived. In both winter and spring, students and teachers reported that while the extra activities and individual attention were nice, “it was work that everyone already could do.”

 

        Yet, the teachers who offered this and similar observations were not accounting for oft-proven benefits from reinforcing skills already learned.

 

        The overall reality, then, is that no one knows – and no one may ever know – how much benefit was really bought with the millions in federal Covid-relief funds used for the extra classes.

 

        For Los Angeles and other districts long have offered smaller-scale special instruction during breaks as well as some academic credit for online work accepted late, even after the school year ends.

 

        But many students pointed to benefits that are difficult to measure, like the added simplicity and ability to concentrate when spending a school day in one classroom, rather than shifting from room to room, floor to floor and building to building every 43 or 45 minutes during a regular school day.

 

        “Much simpler,” some students reported.

 

        Any such benefits, of course, went only to those who showed up. Another sign that education can only be as successful as allowed by the interest levels of both children and their parents.

 

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

POLITICAL IRONY: CALIFORNIA COULD BE KEY FOR TRUMP, DESANTIS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
      “POLITICAL IRONY: CALIFORNIA COULD BE KEY FOR TRUMP, DESANTIS”

 

At this early date, about nine months before next spring’s California primary election and seven months before Republicans in Iowa caucuses begin the only polling that actually counts, there appears a decent chance Californians will have a key role in choosing the next GOP presidential nominee.

 

Barring a disabling felony conviction, it now seems

the contest here will essentially pit the twice indicted former President Donald Trump against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by far the early leader among other Republicans.

 

For both men, it’s highly ironic that California could be decisive. Trump has never won a general election in this state. Both times he ran for President, California provided the votes to inflict national popular vote defeats upon him. While in office, he did all he could to exact revenge on California, from trying to skew Census results to minimize the state’s population to acting slowly on getting relief funding for wildfire victims, and more.

 

      DeSantis, meanwhile, publicly feuds with California Gov. Gavin Newsom over everything from tactics for dealing with the coronavirus to sending undocumented immigrants from Texas to California. He also seeks to harm the Walt Disney Co., one of California’s largest corporations and Florida’s biggest private employer, with huge operations near Orlando.

 

But reality says California could be key to the outcome. Republicans changed their primary election rules to give three delegates to whichever Republican does best in every congressional district, and California has 52. So 156 of this state’s delegates to the Republican National Convention will be known after Primary Day next March, more than 12 percent of the 1,276 needed to win the GOP presidential nomination.

 

The vast majority of those delegates will come from the 40 California districts represented by Democrats in Congress. So Republican voters living in liberal California districts might decide the GOP nomination.

 

 This process may matter more than the results of the Democratic primary, because Democratic Party rules mean the “winner” will only get some of California’s Democratic convention delegates. In 2000, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders “won” the state’s primary with 35 percent of the vote but got far less than a majority of its delegates, helping Joe Biden become President.

 

The GOP rules also mean any big winner in the party’s primary here could pick up vast momentum by doing well in most districts, plus picking up 13 more votes from party officials who get automatic delegate slots.

 

 In 2016, the last time a GOP primary here was seriously contested, Trump polled 74 percent and won all the state’s delegates. John Kasich, the former Ohio governor and congressman who finished second with 11 percent, got none, because no one polling under 20 percent wins anything.

 

California would have far more GOP delegates if the party performed more strongly here than it has; the GOP gives “bonus delegates” to states where its candidates fare best electorally.

 

     But there may be great significance to the 12 percent of delegates needed to win the nomination that will be decided in districts here. That prospect has been enough to bring DeSantis to California more than once, even if he’s held his nose because he so disdains this place.

 

        Early polling performed prior to the latest Trump indictment suggests DeSantis might get a fair number of those California delegates. Recent polls on the primary showed only DeSantis and Trump over the 20 percent level needed to win any delegates at all.

 

        DeSantis figures to raise more money here than Trump, as one survey – from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies – found DeSantis leading among college graduates by 39-23 percent.

 

        Generally, college graduates provide more campaign dollars than others. The Berkeley poll surveyed more than 7,500 likely voters, one of the largest samplings in recent years.

 

        Yet, neither Trump nor DeSantis has much chance of carrying California in November of next year, no matter how the primary turns out. No Republican presidential candidate has won here since George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis by 51-48 percent in 1988.

 

        All of which means, very ironically, that the most strongly Democratic state in America just might be among the most influential in Republican politics next year. Go figure.

 

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

STATE FARM FIRES A WARNING SHOT AT HOMEOWNERS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

       “STATE  FARM FIRES A WARNING SHOT AT HOMEOWNERS”

 

        You would never know it by watching the almost ubiquitous television commercials advertising State Farm Insurance to sports fans on a wide variety of telecasts.

 

        But this company just fired the first shot in what might become a war against California home and apartment owners, one with eventual costs amounting to billions of dollars. Allstate Insurance one week later admitted it has already joined in.

 

        The State Farm strike came on May 26, when it announced to little fanfare that it has stopped taking applications for new property and casualty insurance in this state because of extreme risks from wildfires. Take note: the company did not stop writing new car insurance policies, thus ensuring continual growth in the total premium dollars it takes out of California. Neither State Farm nor Allstate asked permission from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, which appears to be required under the 1988 Proposition 103.

 

        “They cannot legally just do this on their own,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of the Consumer Watchdog advocacy group and author of that proposition, the law that governs insurance rates in California. “Any refusal to write new policies will affect rates people pay, and the commissioner must approve anything affecting rates.”

 

        Giving a hint that this is really a pressure tactic, State Farm did say it would work with the California Department of Insurance to eventually resume business as usual.

 

        Translation: State Farm wants Lara to OK the $700 million in property insurance price increases it currently seeks. Allstate has similar aims.

 

        But Lara is constrained by Prop. 103, which limits what companies can charge. The measure has saved consumers well over $100 billion in premiums over its 35 years.

 

        Insurance companies hate this, even with State Farm the largest operator in California, taking in about $7 billion in property insurance premiums here each year and controlling almost 9 percent of the market.

 

        Several other companies also are pushing for insurance rate increases, all claiming risks from wildfires justify almost any price.

 

        At the same time, Lara has said he wants companies to discount policies for property owners who mitigate wildfire risks via measures like fire resistant roofs and enclosed eaves. In a partial response, State Farm is boycotting the entire state, not merely wildfire-prone areas.

 

        If other big operators like Farmers, GEICO and Mercury follow State Farm and Allstate, it won’t be the first time this industry boycotted California when companies felt profits were in peril.

 

        That also happened in the mid-1990s, when then-Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, a former Republican assemblyman, acquiesced as the industry black-listed California. The dispute then was over a rule requiring companies selling homeowner insurance also to offer earthquake coverage.

 

        The companies refused, wounded by payouts after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, and stopped selling new property insurance. Some outfits (like the former 20^th Century Insurance) cancelled all property policies as they expired. Several firms recently resumed this practice in areas prone to wildfires.

 

        Quackenbush, whose elections in 1994 and 1998 were financed largely by insurance companies, could have responded by shutting down ultra-profitable car insurance sales from any company refusing to sell property and quake insurance.

 

        His failure to act caused the Legislature in 1996 to create the California Earthquake Authority (CEA), now the state’s pre-eminent quake insurer. To the CEA’s immense good fortune, a lull in very large quakes since 1994 has allowed a buildup of many billions of dollars in reserves to pay claims if and when large new temblors occur.

 

        But the reality was that Quackenbush caved to the companies. Later, he was forced to resign in an unrelated year-2000 scandal. Eventually, he became a sheriff’s deputy in Florida, where he served until 2016, but was again forced to resign, this time after posting alleged racially controversial comments on social media.

 

        The shameful Quackenbush precedent should guide Lara as he decides how much to grant insurance companies in their current rate increase cases.

 

        Rosenfield insists Lara must okay few or none of those premium increases.

 

        “It’s excessive,” he said. “They don’t want to comply with Prop. 103. They’re pressuring Lara to go along with them despite the law. There can be no doubt this is a pressure tactic and Lara must not do their bidding.”

       

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

JUDGES MISS THE POINT IN ‘MANSON FAMILY’ PAROLE

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

    “JUDGES MISS THE POINT IN ‘MANSON FAMILY’ PAROLE”

 

        Rarely have judges so widely missed the forest for the trees as in a late May decision by a panel of the state Second District Court of Appeal to overturn Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal of parole for a deadly former member of the notorious “Manson Family.”

 

        At issue is the freedom of Leslie Van Houten, a teenage member of the murderous Charles Manson gang when she helped in the 1969 murders of Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary in their home, just one day after “family” members killed actress Sharon Tate and others in nearby Benedict Canyon.

 

        The three-judge panel held that Van Houten, now 73, no longer poses an “unreasonable risk of public safety,” essentially saying they believe she’s reformed after decades of “therapy, self help programming and reflection.”

 

        By a 2-1 margin, the judges overturned Newsom’s rejection of the state Parole Board’s recommendation to set Van Houten free.

 

        It is now incumbent upon Newsom to appeal this decision to the state Supreme Court.

 

        For the two judges in the majority here – Helen I. Bendix and Victoria Gerrard Chaney – badly missed the point.

 

        Imagine for a moment that their ruling prevails and Van Houten is on her own. She would instantly become one of the most sought-after potential guests in the history of talk shows. Hosts would want to put her through the paces of describing Manson Family life on the Spahn Movie Ranch in the Los Angeles district of Chatsworth, where scattered pieces of murdered stuntman Donald “Shorty” Shea were found eight years later.

 

        Even if parole authorities kept her off the air for awhile, hosts would eventually try to walk her through the drive to the LaBianca residence, query her on the racist rationale behind several Manson murders and the concept he called Helter Skelter. They would try to have Van Houten describe stabbing Rosemary LaBianca 14 times because – as Van Houten once said – she wasn’t sure the victim was really dead. They could also ask about slogans she scrawled on nearby walls using Rosemary’s blood.

 

        Then they’d likely let her talk about her claimed reform process.

 

        All this could eventually amount to “sowing the wind,” usually followed in the cliché by “reaping the whirlwind.” In an age of copycat crimes and repeated mass murders, Van Houten’s wide exposure could lead to just that kind of result from any public interview of her or other currently imprisoned Manson Family members.

 

        Parole officers could not ban such interviews forever. The sooner she’s out, the sooner they will occur.

 

        Fellow Mansonite Bruce Davis, who killed musician Gary Hinson and later helped carve up Shea, also wants parole and has been denied repeatedly by multiple governors. Charles “Tex” Watson, once Manson’s right-hand man and still in prison, is another who wants out.

 

        Their crimes, and Van Houten’s, were described this way by then-Gov. Jerry Brown when he denied Davis parole in 2016: "In rare circumstances, a murder is so heinous that it provides evidence of current dangerousness by itself. This is such a case."

 

        Brown believed the same when he also repeatedly reversed Parole Board decisions to free Van Houten, Watson and the late Susan Atkins, who – like Manson himself – died in prison.

 

 

        Newsom hasn’t spoken that way in his several reversals of recommended Manson-related paroles. Rather, he suggested Van Houten, for one, may not be as reformed as some think.

 

        In the current case, he noted inconsistencies between her recent statements and those she made soon after the killings. indicating “gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.”

 

        The bottom line here is that the two judges wanting to set this killer free may believe she deserves mercy despite showing none to her victim. They may even be correct that she meets the letter of parole law.

 

        But they ignore the real danger here, which is the likelihood that others would seek equally lasting notoriety by attempting similar crimes if exposed to details of what Van Houten did. That probability, several governors have realized, far outweighs any public interest in seeing her freed.

       

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net 

DESPITE THE BLEATING, TRANSIT BUDGET CUT MERITED

 CALIFORNIA FOCUS

FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

      “DESPITE THE BLEATING, TRANSIT BUDGET CUT MERITED”

 

        There was no doubt more cuts would be needed from the moment Gov. Gavin Newsom submitted his preliminary budget plan for fiscal 2023 last January, basing it on a minimalist $22 billion estimated deficit.

 

        As expected, the deficit turned out to be much more by the time Newsom’s May spending plan revision appeared – it’s now pegged at $31.5 billion.

 

        So more cuts   are proposed as budget negotiations between the governor and legislators continue. After school programs will likely endure a small slicing. Public schools themselves will probably suffer a cut between 1 percent and 2 percent, somewhere north of $1 billion out of the previous $108 billion. Prisons will see a reduction, but not commensurate with lowered inmate population. Even Newsom’s pet plans to fight climate change will take about a $6 billion hit.

 

        But the single cut that appears most merited, from a place where many billions of previous dollars have been sunk, is the $2 billion reduction for mass transit, down to a “mere” $5.7 billion for building new lines.

 

        From the moment this emerged in January, the transit systems’ most fervent advocate in Sacramento, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco, pronounced it an unmitigated disaster. The cut, he said, “could lead to significant service cuts, which is a downward death spiral for some (transit) agencies.”

 

        Wiener upped his rhetorical ante after the May revise. “If we don‘t address the transit fiscal cliff, we will see massive and devastating service cuts, harming the millions of Californians who rely on transit to get to work, school or the grocery store.”

 

        The “fiscal cliff” is another term for the fact that federal pandemic relief funds expire soon, meaning transit agencies will need to stand on their own much more unless the state bails them out. Newsom appears to want the light rail and bus systems to vastly increase their self funding.

 

        That won’t happen until and unless the systems become cleaner and safer. “Riding the MTA in Los Angeles or Bay Area Rapid Transit…is putting your life at risk,” wrote Jon Coupal, head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., in a recent essay.

 

        To many potential riders, that looks correct. Riders see frequent gang presence on light rail trains, sniff strong urine odors in some cars and occasionally, unpredictably, encounter violence on the big systems.

 

        Neither BART nor the MTA has come close to regaining the ridership they had before the pandemic. Shifts of white collar workers to home offices account for only part of the deficit, which at last reading saw BART carrying barely 60 percent of its pre-pandemic passenger load.

 

        Without those tens of thousands of paying passengers, the big urban systems – which seem continually to build extensions – can’t possibly survive on their own without massive service cuts like Wiener predicts.

 

        Wiener, of course, doesn’t mention one of the key reasons he does not want cuts in transit service levels no matter how many riders switch back to their individual vehicles:

 

        Over several years of steadfast advocacy, he has made himself the face of ever-denser housing in California, even while an abundance of vacancy signs decorating most new apartment buildings seems to proclaim them unneeded or unwanted.

 

        Bills written or endorsed by Wiener and legislative allies like fellow Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley favor lowering or eliminating parking requirements in new buildings, thus allowing more dwelling units. Their theory is that residents of buildings near rail stops and major bus lines will always use public transit and not drive themselves.

 

        But this is not New York. The folks legislators expect to ride transit exclusively will not unless the big systems earn their patronage. All this is beginning to create severe parking shortages in some places.

 

        It is further proof that just because a few legislators convince themselves something will happen does not make it so.

 

        Which means Newsom would be well advised to stick to his guns and stay with his planned cut in transit funding, at least until the systems get more policing, more sanitation and more safety in general, and thus attract more riders.

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

NEWSOM’S CEQA CHANGES SCORN THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2023, OR THEREAFTER

 

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “NEWSOM’S CEQA CHANGES SCORN THE PEOPLE MOST AFFECTED”

 

          It looks at times as if Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to imitate Jerry Brown as he tries to gut California’s main environmental protection law, at least for large infrastructure and housing projects.

 

          Brown certainly did reduce the clout of the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, usually pronounced “see-qua”) during his fourth and final term as governor, mainly clearing the way for large sports facilities like the Golden State Warriors’ Chase Center in San Francisco, the Inglewood SoFi Stadium that’s now home to both the Los Angeles Rams and Chargers and the rapidly rising Inglewood basketball arena under construction for the Los Angeles Clippers.

 

          “We have proven we can get it done for stadiums,” said Newsom, “so why…can’t we translate that to all these other projects?” He means large apartment and condominium buildings, roads, reservoirs and bridges. It’s clear he doesn’t want the very people who figure to be most affected by these changes to have any voice in these matters.

 

          This is one facet of a years-long domination of Sacramento by developers and their allies in the building trade unions. Over the last three years, they have moved politicians whose campaigns they largely finance to eliminate virtually all single-family residential zoning around the state, make permitting of small “granny flats” or additional dwelling units almost automatic, allowed creation of six dwelling units on lots formerly occupied by just one and eased building of high-rises near light rail stops or major city bus routes.

 

          Newsom’s several-pronged attempt to ease CEQA takes this farther, seeking a nine-month limit on legal actions under the law. He also wants more funding for planning departments and other agencies that review large-scale plans and other exceptions to the current law.

 

          Essentially, it would have few teeth if Newsom has his way. One pet plan is a long-stymied version of the old Peripheral Canal project, now morphed into a tunnel to bring Sacramento River water south to customers of the state Water Project via a tunnel under the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.

 

          Lawmakers seem prepared to go along. Said Democratic state Senate President Toni Atkins of San Diego, “The climate crisis requires that we move faster to build and strengthen critical infrastructure.”

 

          Both she and Newsom give lip service to the environment while working steadily to denigrate it.

 

          It was much the same under Brown. The onetime seminarian called his efforts to ease CEQA “The Lord’s Work.” In his time, this meant altering CEQA to let developers qualify initiatives for local ballots to OK their projects and then let city councils adopt those initiatives without public votes.

 

          That’s what enabled building both the Chase Center and SoFi Stadium, plus approval for a former SoFi rival stadium once planned in the nearby Los Angeles suburb of Carson.

 

          This will likely be repeated as Los Angeles gets set to host the 2028 Olympics, with some competitions to be staged in various other parts of the state.

 

          All this essentially leaves out the folks most affected by big projects, just like it did in Inglewood, where citizens had nothing to say about razing of the Hollywood Park racetrack and replacing it with SoFi Stadium’s much larger presence.

 

          Wrote attorney Aruna Prabhala of the Center for Biological Diversity, “CEQA offers necessary protections for communities and the environment. We should be wary of exaggerated claims by development interests that suggest otherwise.”

 

          A housing shortage, she said, “does not give us free rein to build recklessly. It’s not clear that the governor has fully considered the unintended consequences of fast-tracking infrastructure projects.”

 

          Added Barbara Barrigan-Parilla, head of the Restore the Delta group that opposes the Delta tunnel plan, “Newsom does not respect the people in communities that need environmental protection,” she said, citing alleged examples from the coronavirus pandemic era.

 

          What’s clear in all this is that if the people most affected by the potential changes in CEQA don’t speak up to their legislators now, Newsom’s plan will pass, developers will have an even freer rein and those most affected by new projects will have even fewer ways to protect themselves, their homes and their lifestyles.  

       

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

 

Suggested pullout quote: “This essentially leaves out the folks most affected by big projects.”

 

CAN MEDI-CAL HELP SOLVE HOMELESSNESS?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

     “CAN MEDI-CAL HELP SOLVE HOMELESSNESS?”

 

        Settled in for his second and last term in Sacramento, not needing to worry about reelection and possibly looking to establish himself as America’s leading progressive long before a potential future run for president.

 

 That’s  Gov. Gavin Newsom, who lately does not hesitate to push on many fronts for the priorities he vocally espoused back in 2018 during his first run for governor.

 

        There was his call for reviving much of the state mental health program and infrastructure dismantled for financial reasons in the 1960s and ‘70s by Govs. Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown.

 

        There’s his sometimes heavy-handed push to force every city in California to add great numbers of housing units in an effort to solve the state’s affordable housing shortage, which may not be as extensive as he says, but nevertheless remains very real for millions.

 

        There’s his push to electrify new cars and trucks and railroad engines. And more.

 

        But the most revolutionary of Newsom’s causes may be his push to have Medi-Cal (California’s version of Medicaid) not merely ensure health care for every person in this state, regardless of their immigration status, but now to use Medicaid money toward solving the seemingly intractable problem of homelessness.

 

        Newsom says he’s discussed this with President Biden, who would have to approve it for this to happen. He wants to class lack of housing as a cause of illness and treat homelessness with preventive care, much as most preventive care is covered for pregnant women. Poor women getting this coverage may not be ill when they receive services, but Medi-Cal nevertheless gives them

 prenatal care, labor and delivery coverage, post-partum care for a year after pregnancy, plus all other medically necessary dental and mental health treatments during that time.

 

        The principle is that such wide care prevents all manner of illnesses for both mothers and newborns, thus saving many millions of dollars in the long term.

 

        Newsom can’t do this on his own, needing both legislative and federal government approval, but he seeks a new program called “transitional rent” to provide six months rent or temporary housing for low-income persons already enrolled in Medi-Cal who are either unhoused or in danger of losing their housing.

 

        There are doubts even among liberal Democrats about whether this goes too far. After all, Medi-Cal already covers almost all California’s poor, including every person over 50 in the state who qualifies financially, and some who are younger if they are pregnant or have some other medical conditions.

 

        Immigration or citizenship status doesn’t matter here.

 

        If Medi-Cal began covering all or part of the rent for unhoused individuals, it presumably also would cover many of the undocumented to the same degree.

 

        That’s a novel concept, but this has rarely bothered liberal California politicians who have already granted to the undocumented things like drivers licenses and the right to vote in some local elections.

 

        For sure, living in homeless encampments, whether in tents, cardboard boxes or with no shelter at all, can lead to illness and death. The Kaiser Permanente health plan’s news service the other day cited a 60-year-old man who needed open heart surgery and repeated emergency room visits for ailments like diabetes and asthma while homeless. He was able to give up some diabetes medications and became significantly healthier after receiving a federal housing voucher that gave him permanent indoor quarters.

 

        Medi-Cal also reports that 5 percent of its patients account for 44 percent of the program’s spending, a high portion of them with unstable housing, or none at all.

 

        Does the idea of calling homelessness a threat to health and then acting to mitigate it stand a chance of approval? Pilot programs like this already exist in Oregon and Arizona, so why not approve something similar in California?

 

        “Why do we have to wait (until) people become sick?” asks Dr. Mark Ghaly, California’s health secretary. “What we have today doesn’t work.”

 

        He’s right about that, but no one yet knows whether such reasoning will convince Medicaid’s top officials, who would need to approve and will take their cues from Biden.    

 

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net