Did Julie Su Do California a $32 Billion Favor?

Earlier this year, Julie Su’s federal Department of Labor essentially forgave California its $32.6 billion  debt caused directly by the massive defrauding of the state’s unemployment agency, the EDD.

That debt was created when Su was the state’s labor secretary and she did the opposite of little to stop the fraud, which leads to a very simple question:  Did Su do a favor for Gavin Newsom and the rest of the San Fransacramento power blob that runs the state and her reputation by forgiving the debt?

Or, a bit more innocently, was the forgiveness just a (regrettable and dishonest) part of the federal government’s attempt to sweep as many problematic Covid-related issues under the rug before the November election?

Well, since California is the only state so far have been forgiven its debt and Su’s Labor Department is being at best, very cagey about answering questions about other states it appears that the answer is yes. To both questions.

Su let California, and only California so far, off the hook by creating a new rule last December that allows states to simply declare they have done everything they can (snicker) to find the missing money and would, the feds, please, maybe this once, just let it slide?

Even the Department of Labor itself seems to be very wary of answering the simple question of whether or not California is the only state to benefit from Su’s largesse, When asked if any other state had made such a request and/or had been granted one, this is what the department spokesperson said:

Our guidance directs states to inform the Department of Labor if and how state finality laws apply to unresolved monitoring issues related to CARES Act programs. States across the country have told the department that their finality laws prohibit them from taking certain retroactive actions to address some unresolved monitoring issues. 

 Because states are still addressing outstanding findings, we do not currently have a list available of all states that are applying their finality law to the CARES Act programs. 

 According to our guidance, “If a state is relying on its finality law in administering the CARES Act UC programs, it should evaluate its outstanding monitoring findings and, if the state finality law limits the extent of retroactive action necessary, the state should provide an explanation to the appropriate ETA Regional Office.” 

 Outstanding CARES Act findings do not correspond to debts to the federal government by states. The findings relate to whether individuals properly received a CARES Act payment, according to applicable laws.

That was in response to this email:

-Besides California, what other states have either requested and/or been granted finality?

-As to California, besides the letter of request, what proof/figures/etc. did the state have to submit as backing material?

-Is the DOL itself investigating the claims of finality or essentially taking the state(s) word they have exhausted other remedies?

-The finalized debt: where does it go, bookkeeping wise?  I assume because technically it may be considered the debt of recipient it stays off-book or…?

See a pattern there?

Oddly enough, other states have reportedly actually submitted requests, including, possibly, the evil state of Florida. Then why not say which states have asked, unless California really is the only one to get the deal and/or one of the other big ones is Minnesota, the governor of which is currently Kamala Harris’ running mate. $250 million stolen by state education employees? Oops. 

To clarify a bit, the CARES act is where all the extra federal unemployment money came from.  “Finality” is when a state says “hey we looked and we’re pretty sure we can’t find anything, so we are declaring the matter closed  and declaring the money unfindable.”

It should be noted that the $32.6 billion in debt waived by the feds was “off book” and has nothing to do with the state’s current deficit and is – in pretty much an alternate reality – still “owed” by the people that stole it.  And – separately – the state owes the feds another $21 billion it borrowed to keep the EDD float during the pandemic (California business owners have already seen hiked federal unemployment taxes and will soon be paying $420 per employee per year to cover that, by the way, because Newsom did not pay it off like 48 other states did with their “extra” covid money.)

When asked if the Department of Labor even asked California how they were able to declare “finality” or if they asked the state to prove that all of the $32.6 billion that was forgiven did not involve fraud – technically, that’s a condition – or if they audited the request, the response was…well, see above.

Specific crickets.

The looting occurred during the pandemic, when California decided to let pretty much anyone who wanted to get unemployment benefits to get them, including one “Mr. Poopy Pants,” a bunch of prisoners (at last $810 million there,) and overseas enemies like North Korea, money they almost assuredly used to fund their nuclear missile program.  

At the time, progressive political hack Su was the state’s labor secretary and was in charge of the EDD and she was told very specifically that the fraud problem was occurring within a few weeks of the declaration of the pandemic in March, 2020. She did nothing for months. Then, as the Acting (federal) Secretary of Labor she has signed off on the California forgiveness deal, raising both eyebrows and temperatures in DC.

At least two House of Representatives committees that have oversight of Su’s department have complained bitterly about her actions and refusal to answer basic questions (in fact, the above response the department sent to the Globe is more than anything they have sent to Congress, say those in a position to know.)

So that happened, but was it just part of the general clean-up of the financial mess created by the pandemic response, another part of the demanded covid amnesty or at the least amnesia?

Or something else?

It’s not like California has been the only state to get such a deal – that would be unconscionable, wouldn’t it?

Ummm…wait a sec…