Home>Articles>Senate Hearing Reveals California to Spend Estimated $7 billion on COVID-19 Crisis

Senate Budget hearing April 17, 2020. (Photo: screen capture)

Senate Hearing Reveals California to Spend Estimated $7 billion on COVID-19 Crisis

‘Bold unprecedented actions’ needed ‘to protect public health’

By Katy Grimes, April 17, 2020 7:52 am

Thursday the State Senate held their first virtual oversight hearing of the more than $2 billion in coronavirus spending Gov. Gavin Newsom has already committed. Lawmakers questioned Department of Finance officials, and in particular, the $1 Billion contract with Chinese-owned BYD to provide up to 200 million surgucal masks per month.

The hearing, which started late after technical problems, had two senators inside the Capitol hearing room, and seven on Zoom videoconference. Senators wore face masks. The public participants phoned in their questions and comments.

Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), the committee chair woman, called the crisis “a public health and economic pandemic.” She set the tone for the hearing by explaining that “bold unprecedented actions” were needed “to protect public health.”

The Legislature passed Senate Bill 89, a coronavirus emergency measure, which gave stunning power to the governor to spend up to $1 billion “for any purpose” related to the COVID-19 crisis. However, Mitchell said the governor must give notification to the Legislature how the money would be spent ahead of spending, alluding to the many questions surrounding Gov. Gavin Newsom’s $1 Billion purchase of masks from Chinese company BYD.

Once the hearing got started, Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) asked Finance Director Vivek Viswanathan when lawmakers would see the contract Gov. Newsom “inked” with Chinese company BYD for 200 million surgical masks.

Gov. Newsom on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show April 7, said the contract had already been “inked.”

“With 90% of our pharmaceuticals coming from China, why would we buy face masks too from them?” Sen. Moorlach asked. “Why not manufacture them here in California?”

Viswanathan punted Moorlach’s question to Christina Curry, chief deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. She said domestic manufacturers have not come online quick enough.

About the contract with BYD, Curry also said she had “concerns about releasing too many details” until we are in possession of the product, because the PPE protective gear is in so much demand throughout the world.

“The concern with providing all of that information publicly is very high value, highly desired, and it could potentially open up issues with questioning decisions or creating a process outside of what we have,” she said.

It was a “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it” moment.

Newsom’s finance officials also said that they anticipated spending an additional $6 Billion on the state’s coronavirus response, but they didn’t yet have the details on how the money would be spent.

“The course of this pandemic is uncertain, so we ask for your patience on that,” said Viswanathan, of the Department of Finance.

The hearing was also a chance to boost social justice credentials. “The virus has put a magnifying glass on the inequalities in this state,” said Sen. Anna Caballero (D-Salinas). She asked about California’s unemployment fund, noting that during the last recession, California had to borrow from the federal government to pay out unemployment claims.

Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek said unemployment claims indicate 12% to 15% of Californians have lost their jobs recently. He said economically, the state has entered a recession, and quite possibly a very bad one. Petek explained that the government faces not just a drop in taxpayer revenue, but also from the anticipated increased demand for government services such as health care and food assistance.

“It’s very likely that the state has gone from an anticipated surplus and is now likely facing a budget problem and potentially a significant one,” Petek said.

Petek added that two scenarios are possible: He’s hoping for pronounced rebound activity because of the intentionally induced economic slowdown, or if Californians are required to shelter in place at home longer, it will be at best, a sluggish economic recovery.

Either way, the state will have less money than what it has committed to spend in the governor’s largest budget in the state’s history, and inevitable cuts will be forthcoming.

Spread the news:
RELATED ARTICLES
Filter by
Post Page
Highlight Articles Media National Local Los Angeles Governor Legislature
Sort by

California Rep. Maxine Waters Orders Senate Dems to Block President Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee

McConnell: ‘President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States S
September 19, 2020 10:36 am

18

James C. Ramos

Bill To Create A State Suicide Prevention Office Passes Senate, Assembly

AB 2112 awaits Governor’s signature in Sacramento
September 5, 2020 7:31 am

18

Senate, Assembly Pass Mandatory Minority Board Member Quota Bill

AB 979 expected to be signed by Governor by the end of the month
September 3, 2020 6:11 pm

18

One thought on “Senate Hearing Reveals California to Spend Estimated $7 billion on COVID-19 Crisis

  1. It sure is looking now like we can be reasonably confident that we are descending the downside of the bell curve and most of the touted hyperbolic dangers are behind us. They didn’t exist — to the extent they were advertised — to begin with.

    This is not to say that many people did not suffer, get sick or die, and terribly affect families. They did, the same as the 2017 flu season, with little apparent qualitative difference with regard to the disease itself. Individual suffering and individuals passing away and families being terribly affected is not, repeat NOT, being discounted here.

    People like Sen Holly Mitchell and her ilk are obviously devoted to continued scare-mongering in spite of the evidence and in spite of a big list of “boy who cried wolf” reasons to ignore her.

    Can we even have faith, though, that this legislature is actually challenging the Gov on his tyrannical BYD (and other) expenditures? Or is this another choreographed “good cop/bad cop” theatrical production where they are actually on the same side? We see this trick so often. But if the DEM legislators are indeed dismayed by the BYD expenditures, it may be only because THEY were denied the cash…. to use for their own purposes.

    Given the shenanigans, past and present, of this Gov and the Dems in the legislature, having to now cut the massive state budget is not necessarily a bad thing. This is different from what individuals in the state are going through and how they are suffering, mostly financially from business and job losses, largely because of the very actions and fear-mongering of these very same “leaders.” (e.g. the terrifying effect of “25M people will be infected in CA” – Gov Newsom)

    It seems as though it is now up to the public to begin to reject all of this nonsense. Who knows if this will happen. Where I live it doesn’t seem likely. People are too caught up in an almost virtue-signaling type of conformist and scold culture, so we’ll see. Not wearing masks and defiantly taking walks on the beach are rather mild-mannered acts of civil disobedience, but if enough people were to do such things it would begin to signal to these dishonest and manipulative leaders that we are no longer buying their B.S. to the extent we have been and it would likely overwhelm petty enforcement as well as fellow citizen “snitch” efforts.

    It sure looks like we can now be reasonably confident that we are descending the downside of the bell curve and most of the touted hyperbolic dangers are behind us. They didn’t exist — to the extent they were advertised — to begin with.

    This is not to say that many people did not suffer, get sick or die, and terribly affect families. They did, the same as the 2017 flu season, with little qualitative difference with regard to the disease itself. Individual suffering and individuals passing away and families being terribly affected is not, repeat NOT, being discounted here.

    People like Sen Holly Mitchell and her ilk are obviously devoted to continued scare-mongering in spite of the evidence and in spite of a big list of “boy who cried wolf” reasons to ignore her.

    Can we even have faith, though, that this legislature is actually challenging the Gov on his tyrannical BYD (and other) expenditures? Or is this another choreographed “good cop/bad cop” theatrical production where they are actually on the same side? We see this trick so often. But if the DEM legislators are indeed dismayed by the BYD expenditures, it may be only because THEY were denied the cash…. to use for their own purposes.

    Given the shenanigans, past and present, of this Gov and the Dems in the legislature, having to now cut the massive state budget is not necessarily a bad thing. This is different from what individuals in the state are going through and how they are suffering, mostly financially from business and job losses, largely because of the very actions and fear-mongering of these very same “leaders.” (e.g. “25M people will be infected in CA” – Gov Newsom)

    It seems as though it is now up to the public to begin to reject all of this nonsense. Who knows if this will happen. Where I live it doesn’t seem likely. People are too caught up in an almost virtue-signaling type of conformist and scold culture, so we’ll see. Not wearing masks and defiantly taking walks on the beach are rather mild-mannered acts of civil disobedience, but if enough people were to do such things it would begin to signal to these dishonest and manipulative leaders that we are no longer buying their B.S. to the extent we have been and it would overwhelm petty enforcement as well as fellow citizen “snitch” efforts.
    Thanks for listening…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *