Wins Worth Fighting For: Prioritizing the Taxpayer

The Fight: The Medi-Cal Shortfall

Back in March, Governor Newsom requested a $3.44 billion loan and an additional $2.8 billion in immediate funding to bail out our state’s over-budget Medi-Cal program. What was the reason for the shortfall? Well, this was because the state expanded Medi-Cal to include undocumented immigrants, drastically underestimating how many would enroll. The program was expected to cost an extra $3 billion—today that number is $9.5 billion, just for 2024.

We walked through what that really means for us as taxpayers. This isn’t just a budget number—it’s your money being mismanaged. When your tax dollars are used to fund something that exceeds its cost by 300%, that’s not just an oversight, it’s a breakdown in leadership and planning. And when $9 billion goes to cover those overruns, that’s $9 billion not going to services that impact your everyday life—like fire departments, road maintenance, or schools.

The administration’s response to this crisis was to shift money around with a general fund loan and hope for the best. But as we discussed, that’s just a band-aid fix—and it’s only going to mean higher taxes or fewer services down the line if structural changes aren’t made. This situation is a prime example of how bad policy becomes our problem, and why we have to stay informed and vocal.

This expansion is the result of a years-long policy trend, driven by Newsom’s push for universal healthcare regardless of immigration status. Supporters argue it’s a moral obligation, a public health necessity, and justified because some undocumented immigrants pay taxes. But I pushed back on all of that.

Healthcare is not a human right — it’s a service, and no one is entitled to it simply by existing. The government’s duty is to its citizens, not to people who are here illegally. Even if some undocumented immigrants pay taxes, their contributions don’t cover the cost of services they use, and legal immigrants often face more restrictions on social services than illegal immigrants despite following the law.

Beyond the cost, this policy undermines federal immigration law, encourages more illegal immigration, and unfairly shifts the burden onto taxpayers. It’s a violation of both fiscal responsibility and basic fairness — especially when many Californians can’t afford healthcare themselves. If we’re serious about fixing Medi-Cal, we need to stop funding illegal programs and redirect those resources to the people the system was actually designed to serve.

The Win: Recent Policy Rollback

Well, in a surprising turn of events, Newsom now appears to be walking that policy back! Facing a projected $12 billion budget deficit, which is just insane, Newsom announced earlier this month that he plans to freeze new Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented immigrant adults starting in 2026. On top of that, existing undocumented adult enrollees would be required to pay a $100 monthly premium starting in 2027. This shift is expected to save the state around $5.4 billion by years 2028–2029. That is huge! This will save us literally billions in dollars! It’s just ridiculous that this policy was ever implemented in the first place, considering the giant cost it has posed to taxpayers.

But, this marks a major reversal for Newsom, who just last year celebrated California becoming the first state in the nation to offer full-scope Medicaid coverage to all undocumented adults, regardless of age. It was a cornerstone of his push for “universal healthcare,” and it aligned with his progressive brand. So, what changed?

Well, for starters, reality caught up with him. When Newsom rolled out the expansion in January 2024, state officials expected the annual cost to land around $2.6 billion. But by the start of 2025, as I explained, it became clear that costs were skyrocketing, in part due to the sheer number of enrollees — more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants aged 26 to 49 entered the program within the first year alone.

At the same time, California was facing an economic slowdown, declining tax revenues, and increasing pressure on its budget. Add to that a $1 billion deficit in the city of Los Angeles alone — leading to massive layoff threats — and the consequences of unsustainable spending started to show in ways that even Newsom could no longer ignore.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that the best way to change public opinion is to show people the real-life implications of the policies being passed by the politicians they support. All policy is theoretical to start, and it’s really easy to push an ethereal, intangible idea on voters. But, when they start to see the effects on their lives and on our government, then voters see clearly the connection between policy and real life. Newsom chose to throw money at this issue – real, taxpayer issue – but reality always catches up in the end, and so by spending more than we make in revenue, he landed us in a massive deficit that can’t just be ignored or explained away – and people are starting to notice!

Politically, this is also a significant moment. Newsom, who has long postured himself as a national progressive leader, is now scaling back one of his hallmark progressive achievements — not because he changed his ideology, but because the math simply doesn’t work anymore. This isn’t a shift in values so much as a recognition that California can’t afford to keep doing what it's doing. I don’t believe Newsom has changed his mind on the idea of paying for the healthcare of illegal immigrants, and he hasn’t claimed to change his mind on this idea, but he also knows that he can’t spend us into oblivion without rightly facing some sort of backlash, and he wants to avoid that, so he has to do something to address it.

Of course, not everyone is on board with this rollback. Immigrant rights groups and some Democratic lawmakers are outraged. They argue that this is a betrayal of vulnerable communities and a step backward from California’s commitments. But let’s be honest — when a program grows to three times its projected cost in just over a year, something has to give.

So, what does this all mean going forward? Well, it means that even in a deep blue state like California, there are limits to progressive spending when it's detached from economic reality. It means that budget shortfalls still matter, and eventually, even the most ideologically-driven policies can’t survive if the dollars just don’t add up. Whenever I talk about budget shortfalls on this show, it’s tempting to think that it doesn’t really matter. Talking about spending billions of dollars over budget feels ridiculous. After all, that’s enormous – where do we even begin to change that?

But, this win shows us that public pressure, fiscal accountability, and political consequences can still influence policy — even in our one-party state. Is this a small course correction? In the grand scheme of things, yes. But small corrections add up to big corrections, and we have to take the first step toward doing what is right – economically and morally. It’s a reminder that truth and consequences always catch up, no matter how bold the vision or how big the promises.

Real-Life Effects

Let’s go through what the real-life effects of rolling back this policy will be for us.

The first category of change is economic change. As I mentioned, by freezing new enrollment for undocumented immigrants in Medi-Cal and requiring monthly premiums for those already in the program, California is projected to save $5.4 billion over the next four years. That’s a massive relief to a state facing a $12 billion budget shortfall and signals that, finally, some level of fiscal sanity is being reintroduced in our state.

Think about what that $5.4 billion could mean. That’s money that can now be reallocated to core services for law-abiding residents — like improving infrastructure, funding law enforcement, boosting public education, and addressing the homelessness crisis that continues to spiral out of control. For years, the government has been draining funds from essential services in order to bankroll free social services for people who aren’t even legally allowed to be here. That’s unsustainable. This rollback is a win for California taxpayers, who’ve been forced to foot the bill for a reckless social experiment. It’s a small but meaningful step toward restoring accountability in how our money is spent. No household could survive spending three times what it budgeted — and no government should expect to either.

It also sends a broader economic message: states can’t run forever on ideology. Sooner or later, the numbers matter. And when a single healthcare program for illegal immigrants is eating up more than the entire amount that demographic pays in taxes — as we saw when Medi-Cal costs for undocumented immigrants topped $9 billion while they paid just $8.5 billion in state and local taxes — you’re not helping the economy – an economy that affects the lives of Californians.

Rolling this back won’t solve everything, but it’s a long-overdue acknowledgment that California cannot sustain open-ended entitlements for people who’ve broken the law to be here. It’s a signal to investors, business owners, and taxpayers that maybe — just maybe — fiscal responsibility isn’t completely dead in California. And that’s a step in the right direction.

Now beyond the dollars and cents, let’s talk about the moral implications of this policy rollback — because this isn’t just a budget issue, it’s a values issue. At its core, government exists to serve its citizens. That’s not controversial — that’s foundational. But for years in California, we’ve watched our leaders flip that priority on its head — bending over backwards to provide benefits for people who are here illegally, while hardworking citizens are left to struggle with unaffordable healthcare, rising taxes, and crumbling public services. That’s not compassion. That’s neglect — and frankly, it’s a betrayal of the social contract between the government and the governed.

This rollback is a long-overdue reminder that citizens come first. We have veterans on the streets. We have working families drowning in insurance premiums. We have elderly Americans skipping medications because they can’t afford copays. These are the people our tax dollars are supposed to support. By scaling back Medi-Cal benefits for undocumented immigrants, Newsom’s administration is inadvertently acknowledging what conservatives have been saying all along: resources are finite, and when you give taxpayer-funded benefits to those who are here illegally, you are choosing to take something away from the people who obeyed the law, followed the rules, and trusted the system.

There’s also a principle of law and order at stake. When the state rewards illegal behavior with free healthcare — or free anything — it undermines the rule of law. It sends a message that breaking the law is no big deal — in fact, it might even come with perks. And that erodes the very foundation of a just and orderly society. You can’t run a functional state — or country — where the people who violate the law get treated better than the people who follow it. It’s unjust, it’s demoralizing, and it encourages more of the same behavior. If you want to deter illegal immigration, you stop offering incentives. You stop making California the land of free handouts for non-citizens.

This is about prioritizing the people who are citizens of our country and who pay taxes in our state. And it’s not just practical — it’s the right thing to do. Compassion doesn’t mean sacrificing justice. Generosity doesn’t mean abandoning accountability. And good government doesn’t mean trying to save the whole world while letting your own house fall apart.

So yes — rolling back this policy sends an important economic message. But more than that, it sends a moral one: California is not obligated to fund the world. It is obligated to serve its citizens first.

Newsom may not be doing this for the right reasons, but we can still celebrate the victory and the practical effects it will have on all of us! And we can feel reenergized and committed to pushing for policies that prioritize the citizen, the legal resident, and the taxpayer – because we see that change is possible and that accountability does have consequences.