logo

The Deliberate Undermining of California's Economy: When Political Cruelty Masquerades as Policy

Published

- 3 min read

img of The Deliberate Undermining of California's Economy: When Political Cruelty Masquerades as Policy

The Stark Economic Reality

The latest UCLA Anderson forecast delivers a sobering assessment of California’s economic trajectory, predicting a weak job market that will persist through at least early next year. This economic stagnation isn’t accidental—it’s the direct consequence of specific policy choices that prioritize political objectives over human welfare and economic stability. The forecast reveals that California’s unemployment rate has remained at 5% or above for the past two years, with multiple sectors experiencing weak or declining job growth.

The economic analysis identifies construction, nondurable goods manufacturing, retail, and leisure and hospitality as particularly vulnerable sectors. Even business services jobs—encompassing technology professionals, lawyers, accountants, and architects—have declined across major regions including Silicon Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, San Diego, and the Inland Empire. The sectors showing any growth—state and local government, education, health care, and social services—face their own threats from budget constraints and potential federal funding cuts.

The forecast authors specifically cite “continued uncertainty around tariffs, deportations and federal funding” as primary factors driving this economic pessimism. This represents more than just economic analysis—it’s a damning indictment of policies that deliberately create instability and human suffering.

The Human Cost of Policy Decisions

What makes this economic forecast particularly disturbing is how explicitly it connects economic outcomes to human rights issues. The economists note that based on what happened after mass deportations from 2008 to 2014, they expect continued deportations to have “a negative effect on the California economy both in terms of decreased local consumption and a drop in other employment.” They provide the chilling example that “home building could be delayed because of a reduction in skilled roofers,” demonstrating how policies targeting vulnerable communities ultimately harm everyone.

This isn’t abstract economic theory—it’s about real people, real families, and real communities being torn apart for political theater. The economic analysis confirms what human rights advocates have been saying for years: when you target immigrant communities, you destabilize the entire economic ecosystem. The jobs of immigrants and U.S.-born workers are complementary, meaning attacks on one group inevitably harm the other.

The Constitutional and Democratic Crisis

The economic forecast must be understood within the broader context of California’s ongoing constitutional battles with the federal government. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s creation of a portal for Californians to report “excessive force, unnecessary detentions and unconstitutional searches” by federal agents represents a necessary defense of constitutional principles. His description of “unmarked, military-style vehicles and individuals detained in ways that resemble abductions and kidnappings more than lawful arrests” should alarm every American who values due process and the rule of law.

When economic policy becomes intertwined with what Bonta accurately describes as actions that “resemble abductions,” we’ve moved beyond ordinary political disagreement into territory that threatens the very foundations of our democracy. The 47th lawsuit filed by California against the Trump administration—this time challenging policy changes that decrease funding for permanent housing solutions—demonstrates the systematic nature of this assault on established governance norms.

The Assault on Effective Solutions

The homelessness funding lawsuit reveals a particularly cynical approach to governance. The policy change prohibiting jurisdictions from spending more than 30% of their federal homelessness grants on permanent housing—despite overwhelming evidence that permanent housing is one of the most effective solutions to homelessness—represents ideology trumping evidence. Last year, California communities won more than $683 million in federal homelessness funds, with 90% going toward permanent housing projects that currently house tens of thousands of people.

HUD Secretary Scott Turner’s characterization of these evidence-based solutions as a “Biden-era slush fund” demonstrates a contempt for both effective policy and basic human dignity. The Trump administration’s willingness to make tens of thousands of people homeless again to score political points is a breathtaking display of cruelty masked as fiscal responsibility.

The Broader Pattern of Institutional Destruction

This economic forecast cannot be viewed in isolation from the other stories mentioned in the article. The preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from refusing Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, the reports of pregnant immigrants being held for months in detention despite rules against it, and the plan to pump more delta water south despite California’s objections—all represent a consistent pattern of governance by disruption.

This approach doesn’t just damage specific programs or harm particular groups—it systematically undermines the institutions and processes that make democratic governance possible. When every policy decision becomes a political battlefield and established procedures are routinely bypassed, the result is exactly the kind of uncertainty that the UCLA forecast identifies as economically damaging.

The Moral Imperative for Resistance

As someone deeply committed to democratic principles, constitutional governance, and human dignity, I find this convergence of economic policy and human rights abuses profoundly disturbing. The economic forecast provides empirical evidence for what should already be morally obvious: policies built on cruelty and division ultimately harm everyone.

The connection between mass deportations and economic decline isn’t just an economic observation—it’s a moral indictment. It demonstrates how attacks on vulnerable communities inevitably boomerang back to harm the broader society. The economists’ warning that deportations will reduce local consumption and employment isn’t just about numbers—it’s about the real-world consequences of treating human beings as political pawns.

The Path Forward: Principles Over Politics

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is how economic policy has been weaponized against democratic norms and human rights. The solution isn’t just better economic management—it’s a recommitment to the fundamental principles that should guide all policy decisions: respect for human dignity, commitment to constitutional governance, and evidence-based decision-making.

The bright spots identified in the forecast—aerospace and artificial intelligence—offer potential pathways for economic growth, but they cannot thrive in an environment of institutional instability and human rights violations. The economists note that for California to resume its traditional role of growing faster than the national economy, “durable goods manufacturing, including aerospace and technology-laden sectors, will have to rebound strongly.” But such rebounds require stability, predictability, and a commitment to nurturing all segments of the workforce.

Conclusion: Economic Health as Democratic Health

Ultimately, the UCLA Anderson forecast reveals something deeper than economic trends—it shows how the health of our economy is inextricably linked to the health of our democracy. When governance becomes about scoring political points rather than serving the public good, when established institutions are routinely bypassed or undermined, and when vulnerable communities are targeted for political advantage, the economic consequences are inevitable.

The solution requires more than just technical policy adjustments. It demands a moral reckoning with the kind of society we want to be. Do we want an economy built on stability, inclusion, and respect for human dignity? Or do we want one built on division, cruelty, and institutional destruction?

The economic evidence is clear: policies that protect human rights and democratic institutions are also policies that promote economic stability and growth. The choice before us isn’t just between different economic approaches—it’s between fundamentally different visions of what America should be. For those of us committed to democracy, freedom, and human dignity, the path forward must be guided by principles rather than politics, by evidence rather than ideology, and by compassion rather than cruelty.

Related Posts

There are no related posts yet.