U.S.

1/5 California Residents Are Poor, Making It The Worst In the Nation

Published

9 years ago

January 15, 2018

Populist Wire Editorial Board

(Via PJ Media)

This just in from what was once the best state in the Union:

Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor. That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income.
Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it’s worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).

The Left’s first, last and only instinct is to throw more money at the problem, but California’s already done that. and guess what?

It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits. California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and “other public welfare,” according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12% of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients.
The generous spending, then, has not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse.

The progressives who control every aspect of the state’s government are not necessarily stupid people, but they are malign. They understand that increasing welfare spending only encourages the arrival of more recipients on whom to spend it, and the high likelihood that those new constituents will vote Democrat as soon as they are able, legally or otherwise. Already, some 55 percent of “immigrants” receive means-tested benefits, while only 30 percent of native Californians do so.

The Tragic Decline of California
California’s army of bureaucrats contributes as well, as does the state’s highly restrictive land-use ordinances and environmental restrictions, which drive up the cost of housing in what is already the nation’s most expensive real-estate market:

With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls.

Further contributing to the poverty problem is California’s housing crisis. More than four in 10 households spent more than 30% of their income on housing in 2015. A shortage of available units has driven prices ever higher, far above income increases. And that shortage is a direct outgrowth of misguided policies.

They’re not “misguided” — in fact, they’re doing exactly what the progressives designed them to do. Higher housing prices means more money in the pockets of Angelenos and San Franciscans when they go to sell, high energy prices have a disproportionate impact on the poor, generous welfare “benefits” mean an endless supply of new Democrats and permanent employment for the public-employee unions who actually run the state.

It’s a perfect racket, and one that will continue unless and until the California Republicans get their act together and begin vigorously contesting what has become a one-party state designed to enrich those at the top, beggar the middle class, and keep those on the bottom in permanent penury.

Iowa

“Despite What You All Think”: Nearly $150 Million in New Water Commitments Follow Reynolds’ Defense of Iowa’s Record

Published

2 days ago

July 18, 2026

Pepe Jones

Gov. Kim Reynolds defended Iowa’s water-quality efforts and the stewardship of farmers during a May 1 press conference. In the weeks that followed, the state and federal governments committed approximately $148.3 million in clearly identifiable new water funding and financing.

During a May 1, 2026, press conference announcing Iowa’s “Farm to Faucet” proposal, Gov. Kim Reynolds pushed back when reporters questioned the condition of Iowa’s water.

“Despite what you all think,” Reynolds told the group of reporters before defending Iowa’s investments and arguing that farmers care about protecting their land because they intend to pass it down to their children.

The governor’s defense came as Iowa continued confronting concerns involving nitrates, lead pipes, PFAS contamination, aging treatment facilities and rural water infrastructure. Reynolds announced what her administration promoted as a nearly $320 million water-quality package spanning 12 years. The proposal was signed into law on June 1 and took effect July 1.

How Much of the $320 Million Is Actually New?

The nearly $320 million headline does not represent $320 million in entirely new state spending.

The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s own announcement states that the legislation works partly by “re-directing existing dollars.” Approximately $76 million can be clearly identified as new or additional state funding:

$52 million over 12 years for conservation practices in the Greater Des Moines watershed.
$6 million over 12 years for additional water-quality monitoring, based on an additional $500,000 annually.
$8 million as a one-time investment in drinking-water and wastewater treatment grants.
$10 million to establish the Rural Iowa Infrastructure Bank, which will provide low-interest loans for smaller communities.

That equals approximately $76 million in clearly new state commitments—about 24% of the administration’s advertised $320 million package.

Another $25 million is designated for Central Iowa Water Works to expand nitrate-removal capacity. However, the state says that money will come from the existing balance of an underused program, meaning it is redirected funding rather than an entirely new appropriation. Other portions of the $320 million package similarly involve restructuring existing water-excise-tax revenue and moving money between programs.

More Than $72 Million in Federal Support Followed

Separate from Reynolds’ state package, federal agencies announced approximately $72.3 million in water-related funding and financing for Iowa after her May 1 comments.

The documented federal commitments include:

$46.116 million announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 20 for identifying and replacing lead service lines.
$9.457 million announced by the EPA on May 19 for PFAS testing, planning and treatment projects in small or disadvantaged Iowa communities.
$344,000 announced on June 26 for small and rural drinking-water systems.
$16.373 million announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for rural Iowa water infrastructure, including new wells, a treatment plant, a water tower and pipelines. Of that amount, approximately $15.5 million consists of loans and $874,000 consists of grants.

The federal money addresses several different problems, including lead exposure, PFAS, insufficient rural water supplies and aging infrastructure. It should not be presented as though every dollar directly addresses agricultural nitrate runoff.

The Combined Total

Since Reynolds’ May 1 remarks, the clearly identifiable commitments are:

New state funding: approximately $76 million
Federal funding and financing: approximately $72.3 million
Combined total: approximately $148.3 million

These numbers represent appropriations, allotments, grants, loan funds and financing commitments. They do not mean that all $148.3 million has already been spent or that the projects have been completed.

The state portion is also spread across as many as 12 years, while several federal awards will flow through state or local programs before construction begins.

Still, the scale and timing of the investments matter. Reynolds told reporters, “Despite what you all think,” while defending Iowa’s water record. Yet within weeks, her administration signed a major water package and federal agencies committed tens of millions more to Iowa’s lead pipes, PFAS contamination, nitrate-treatment capacity and struggling rural water systems.

Investment is welcome, but the funding itself demonstrates that Iowa faces real and costly water challenges. The final measure of success will not be the size of a press-release headline. It will be whether nitrate levels decline, unsafe pipes are removed, rural systems become reliable and Iowa residents can trust the water flowing from their faucets.