California Governor Gavin Newsom recently called President Trump’s military actions in Iran “illegal, immoral, unconstitutional.” This statement raises eyebrows, especially considering Newsom’s record.
For example, his approach to disability rights in California has been questioned. An analysis by the Sacramento Bee highlighted a significant 40% decline in public employment for disabled workers between 2017 and 2023. Furthermore, state initiatives aimed at increasing employment for individuals with disabilities seem to have faltered, almost appearing like mere token gestures.
One might wonder—what truly qualifies as immoral or illegal in this context? While the Americans with Disabilities Act doesn’t confer any property rights, it aims to ensure that individuals with various disabilities can lead independent lives, often requiring straightforward accommodations, like the option to work from home. Yet, Newsom’s administration has often been nonresponsive to the needs of these employees, which has adversely affected disabled workers.
This raises questions about Newsom’s stance. Why does he seem to navigate this hypocrisy?
Both parties seem to have their doubts about Newsom’s leadership and reliability. Despite California’s reputation as a progressive leader, its record on empowering individuals with disabilities is troubling. When figures like Robert Kennedy highlight the challenges faced by autistic individuals, one must consider whether public outrage translates into meaningful change for these communities.
Legal frameworks and initiatives are mere formalities; real change hinges on enforcement and accountability. California’s regulations are extensive, yet monitoring and enforcement often fall short. Newsom’s recent Proposal 1 aimed at improving mental health and substance abuse treatment didn’t pass, reflecting voter skepticism toward the government’s ability to support vulnerable groups. A recent state audit revealed significant shortcomings in tracking spending on behavioral health and homelessness.
California’s treatment of its disabled employees raises further concerns, particularly related to the state’s underfunded retirement system. Although data on the costs associated with disabled state employees is sparse, many former employees face challenges accessing their retirement benefits, especially if they lose their jobs. This scenario creates further incentives to push disabled workers out of state employment.
What’s alarming is the financial burden shifting from state payrolls to unemployment benefits and public health insurance, such as Medi-Cal. Obligations that should be met under the Americans with Disabilities Act are sometimes ignored, leading to additional costs for the state. A striking statistic shows that while individuals with disabilities make up 7% of Medi-Cal enrollees, they account for 19% of expenses.
If Democratic candidates, especially those seeking the presidency, are to gain support from figures like former President Obama, they must align with his vision of expanding federal employment for people with disabilities. Endorsing candidates who contradict these principles would be hypocritical and potentially damaging to the Democratic party’s credibility.
Any contradiction in Newsom’s message could certainly appear hypocritical, adding to skepticism about his administration and policies.
Austin Hill is a writer and advocate for disability rights.
