Newsom’s Budget Houdini Act: All Smoke, Mirrors, and Wishful Thinking

Gavin Newsom has once again pulled off a dazzling feat of financial gymnastics. 

In his May 14 revised budget for fiscal year 2026-27, California’s governor stood tall and declared victory: no deficit this year, no deficit next year, and the dreaded structural deficit magically erased through July 2028.

With general fund spending at $246.6 billion and a total state budget of $349.4 billion, Newsom insists he’s protecting health care, education, and all the vital services while somehow blending progressive dreams with rock-solid fiscal discipline.

Such bold claims deserve a proper reality check.

In January, the administration was staring at a $2.9 billion deficit for 2026-27. Then—presto!—the May revision waved a wand and added $16.5 billion in new general fund revenue projections over three years. Personal income taxes delivered $13.6 billion of that windfall, thanks mostly to a juicy 2025 capital gains spike that poured an extra $11.9 billion into the coffers through April. Spending got trimmed by $1.8 billion from the original plan, and reserves are swelling to nearly $30 billion, including $15.1 billion tucked away in the rainy-day fund.

On paper, it looks downright impressive. But here’s the catch: Newsom’s triumphant declaration that the structural deficit is “solved” relies completely on the bet that this flood of volatile revenue—mostly from high-earner capital gains and tech billionaires’ stock options—will keep gushing forever. That’s not reform. That’s optimistic crystal-ball gazing.

Imagine your neighbor gets one fat bonus check and immediately declares the family finances fixed for the next decade. They buy the shiny new truck, book the Disney cruise, and start eating out every night. When that bonus doesn’t show up again, reality hits like a ton of bricks. California is running the exact same playbook. Capital gains can make up 25% of personal income tax revenue in boom years and only half that in lean ones. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that a market dip or tech slowdown could wipe out tens of billions—possibly $100 billion—in revenue.

Even with all the rosy assumptions, the office still sees ongoing deficits averaging about $10 billion a year after 2028—$10.3 billion in 2028-29, and $9.6 billion in 2029-30. Reserves will get drained, and debt will climb toward $30 billion. The real problem—spending that races ahead of reliable revenue—was never fixed. It was covered up with this year’s lucky money.

Newsom’s magic act relies on three favorite tricks.

The first is aggressive revenue optimism. The budget assumes capital gains will stay red-hot with no real backup plan for a downturn. It’s like planning your entire household budget around your teenager’s summer job paying big bucks every month forever, then signing a fat mortgage on that hope.

The second is raiding reserves, deferrals, and borrowing. The plan pulls roughly $20 billion from reserves and suspended deposits, adds $4 billion in new borrowing, and creates a $9.7 billion surplus holding account. Picture raiding your 401(k) and the kids’ college fund, delaying the mortgage, and shuffling credit cards just to look solvent. It balances today but piles up expensive IOUs for tomorrow.

The third is modest spending “restraint” that’s mostly theater. The $1.8 billion cut includes some Medi-Cal tweaks, but overall spending stays huge with record school funding and about $300 million to backfill Obamacare. It’s like canceling Netflix while still hitting restaurants five nights a week, buying the new truck, and maxing out the credit cards—then bragging about your ironclad budget discipline.

Crime policies pile on even more budgetary headaches. Proposition 47 turned theft under $950 and many drug cases into misdemeanors, creating a classic catch-and-release revolving door. Arrest them in the morning, release them by afternoon, and repeat tomorrow. 

That drives up spending on police overtime, court backlogs, prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers, and local jails—tens to hundreds of millions extra every year. Stores get hammered by theft, raise prices, and sometimes cut hours or close, shrinking sales tax revenue. 

Voters tried to fix some of it with Proposition 36 in 2024, but the changes are still rolling out unevenly across counties. Many catch-and-release habits linger, so the budget stays stuck with unpredictable, expensive chaos.

In both cases—a catch-and-release revolving door and re-criminalizing of theft—the budget is strained. Taxpayers pay the price for soft-on-crime policies and hard-on-crime policies that lead to incarceration. 

Homelessness efforts tell the same sad story. California poured more than $24 billion into one-time programs, yet street encampments grew by tens of thousands. Now that money is sunsetting without solid replacements, meaning future budgets will have to cough up fresh cash for the same stubborn problem—robbing Peter to pay Paul while taxpayers foot the bill again.

Add in businesses fleeing to Texas and Florida, the nation’s highest gas prices, electricity rates nearly double the national average (California sits at around 33-34 cents per kilowatt-hour), and summer blackouts tied to green energy mandates, and you see why the tax base keeps shrinking while costs keep climbing. 

In the end, this isn’t a structurally balanced budget; it’s a “balanced on my watch, suckers” budget built on hopeful projections and clever accounting. Newsom gets the victory lap and a shiny legacy as he heads for the exit. Future governors and everyday Californians get the hangover: drained reserves, rising debt, and tough choices between higher taxes or slashed services.

When the next downturn hits, that beautiful fiscal illusion will vanish faster than one of Houdini’s rabbits. Real responsibility means matching real spending to real, dependable revenue, not praying the stock market stays drunk forever, or that more billion-dollar businesses won’t flee the state.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.