Bummer: PRC Gov Newsom Proposes Climate Crisis (scam) Program Cuts

It’s a real shame when the real world intrudes and the money is drying up to deal with a scam, eh?

Newsom proposes cuts to climate change programs amid cloudy economic outlook

Facing a projected $22.5-billion budget deficit in the upcoming fiscal year, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday announced plans to reduce investments in the state’s move to zero-emission vehicles, make cuts to other climate change programs and delay funding for 20,000 new child-care slots as California transitions from a time of economic surplus to shortage.

The governor’s administration blamed high inflation, the Federal Reserve raising interest rates and volatility in the stock market as the major forces causing state revenues to drop well below projections from last summer when he anticipated an $100-billion surplus in the current budget year.

His $297-billion budget plan for 2023-24 relies on delaying multi-year investments and shifting funding to bonds to offset the shortfall. Newsom said he was careful to preserve the state’s rainy day fund and its other budgetary reserves given warnings about a nationwide recession and possibility that California’s financial problems could become more dire in the months and years ahead.

But, since California has mismanaged itself from a budget surplus to a deficit

The governor said he was hopeful that federal funding would supplant the cuts proposed to climate programs and he promised that those reductions would be restored in the future if the state’s revenues turn around.

LOL. Good luck with the GOP House giving you money for your scam, Gavin. Anyhow, Gavin realized that there are real world things, like the massive amount of homeless people, that need dealing with first.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Bummer: PRC Gov Newsom Proposes Climate Crisis (scam) Program Cuts”

  1. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host concluded:

    Good luck with the GOP House giving you money for your scam, Gavin.

    The Senate, of course, would try to add that back.

    The House can prevent this, if the Republicans exercise some f(ornicating) discipline. Congress used to fund the government with 13 separate appropriations bills, for the various departments and agencies. If the GOP will do their job, and pass those appropriations bills, we can avoid these stupid omnibus appropriations bills that have to pass, or the entire government shuts down, and the House can refuse to pass amended-by-the-Senate appropriations bills with stupid things in them and only see parts of the government closed down. If the Commerce and Labor Departments shut down, who cares? If the Department of Education, without which we did perfectly well up until 1977, shuts down, that would be a good thing.

  2. joe says:

    with the magnetic field getting weaker and weaker and the poles shifting, a really strong sun flare and we are back in the stone age anyway…so it really doesn’t matter much…

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Does anyone know when the commie plot/scam/hoax for global dominance was hatched? Of did it just evolve organically?

    Was it Joseph Black in the 18th Century? Or Fourier, Tyndall, Eunice Foote or Svante Arrhenius in the 19th Century? Or maybe it was Guy Callendar in the early 20th Century. In 1938 Callendar published a paper linking CO2 emissions with CO2 levels with temperature measurements. Callendar predicted that we’d see even greater temperature increases, which was fine in his view as it would help stave off the possibility of a new Ice Age. He was wrong, as ironically a cooling period began soon after!

    Or maybe Charles Keeling who developed a simple and accurate method for measuring atmospheric CO2. James Hansen? Al Gore?

    Or did the NWO/commie/Dem/Science cadre come together and plot the takeover of the world?

    Who do you feel/believe had the initial thought to use global warming as the trigger for complete dominance? Karl Marx? Lenin?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      One must assume your silly little rhetorical questions reflect a general lack of knowledge on your part.

      Cry harder, Rimjob. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cry.gif

      Bwah! Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • david7134 says:

        Notice how the little fat guy throws in science figures to make it seem like he has intelligence.

    • James H Lewis says:

      Dear Elwood:

      Politicians are always looking for a reason to rule. This is not new.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:


        Thanks. Your take is that the scientists reported their findings over the centuries and the politicians looking to rule are taking advantage of it.

        Mr Teach (and others) feel the scientists today are colluding with the politicos, largely by being paid by gov’t bodies to generate data in support of global warming.

        • CarolAnn says:

          Mr Teach (and others) feel the scientists today are colluding with the politicos, largely by being paid by gov’t bodies to generate data in support of global warming.

          And I’ll bet you don’t believe that. I mean, why would scientists keep generating crap for the guys who pay them to generate crap?

          Your problem is Elwood, you believe the people who have something to gain by their groupthink. We don’t. We are the real rebels, renegades individualists.

          You see all the lies and corruption around you (for example the 3 years of lies about Covid) and believe it all. Every word. Even when they change their minds or even worse change their definitions to meet their needs. They play you like a fiddle. And you buy in every time as long as it’s leftist spouting the bullshit.

          Just like you still obey Erlich who has been proved a charlatan ten times over but he’s a leftist so it’s okay with you. The easily fooled (Elwood, Hairy and the entire radical left) still love them some Paul Erlich.

          Just a few of this charlatans wrong by a mile predictions:

          “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

          “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

          Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

          Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

          Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.”

          • James H Lewis says:

            “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.

            Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

            Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for “Discover” magazine, Oct 1989)

  4. James H Lewis says:

    Dear Elwood:

    My take is that you are too dumb to be educated.

Pirate's Cove