Assembly Select Committee on Poverty and Economic Inclusion

Good afternoon. Oh, call and response. I got you. I'd like to begin the Select Committee hearing on poverty and economic opportunity.

Before I do, I want to thank my colleagues who are here with me, Juan Carrillo from the Antelope Valley, Assembly Member Eloise Reyes from San Bernardino, Riverside County Assembly Member Reggie Jones Sawyer from south central Los Angeles, and Assembly Member Ash Kara from San Jose. San Jose.

If you didn't know, these Members and many others reflect a growing constituency in the State Assembly and in the state Legislature to center the needs of folks who are living in poverty and deep poverty across California.

So I want to thank nearly every seat in this room that is full because your voice is the reason we're having this hearing. And we are having this hearing because this is the week where the State Assembly votes on our budget.

We are having this hearing because we shouldn't vote on a budget that doesn't center the direct experiences, needs, and voice of the people of California who are relying on state government to invest in their opportunity and well being.

We are having this conversation because it is critical that this Legislator be responsive to all Californians, not just those with access and power.

And so this is the room where poor folks across California, folks who are struggling, folks who are on the margins, folks who know that the cost of rent is too high, this is where you have access to the halls of power. So thank you all for coming.

And before we start with our first of three panels today, I wanted to open the floor for any of the Committee Members who are here with us if you'd like to make any opening comments. Assembly Member Carillo.

I just want to say thank you, Mister Chair, for inviting me to this crucial hearing. I'm happy to be here and willing to see how we can come together and keep on supporting the crucial needs of our communities. Thank you for allowing me to be here.

Senate Member Reyes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. As we all know, poverty in California has been rising. It's been rising significantly, and it's affecting our, our working families more than anybody else. And I think it's important. I appreciate that the chair makes a point of this, that this has to be a place for the voices to be heard oftentimes.

And you said this earlier at the rally, that we had the privilege of being a voice and being in those conversations with the leadership in the Assembly and the Senate and the Administration. But the voice that we carry is the voice of the people, and it is your voices. It's so important to have the community present.

And very specifically, SEIU is in the House and I appreciate having all of you here.

Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer.

And I'm actually proud to be here. This is my last year in the Assembly, and the 11 years I've been here, we have not made an effort to actually deal specifically with poverty. We've had Members in the black caucus, Latino caucus, API caucus, LGBTQ caucus, talk about it. In General, we're talking about it.

We talk about housing, but we talk about housing, poverty. We talk about labor and jobs, but we talk about jobs, poverty, but we never specifically have addressed it head on.

As my colleague who I came in with, Holly Mitchell, used to talk about poverty and how even if you have a job, even if you're working 24-7 and some of you are working 48 hours a day a week.

Well, no, some people are working two jobs, and so they're working 24 hours, and then they go back the next day working 24 hours just to put food on the table, and they still can't make the rent, and they still can't meet their necessary needs. And so poverty is not what we kind of think in our head.

People without a job, that are living on the street, that are homeless, poverty can also be with people who have jobs. And so this is why this Committee is so important, because we get the poverty from every point of view. So I commend the chair for putting this together, and I commend you for being here.

And ultimately, we'll finally get to the root causes and the root solutions of poverty.

Thank you Mister Jones Sawyer. Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you Mister Chair. Thank you everyone for being here, continuing to show up for this important conversation. I want to thank the Chair. I can't think of anyone better in our Legislature to lead this conversation, not just now, but into the future. And I represent San Jose, capital of Silicon Valley.

And the reality is that poverty, whether you're in the poorest County of Modoc or the Wealthiest County of Santa Clara County, poverty is deep rooted. And in places like in Silicon Valley, it's so hard to survive when you're working class. And so we need to do more.

We're here so that we can learn how we can do more. And as Senator Jones-Sawyer said, we're here not just identify the roots of the problem, to figure out what those solutions can be. So thank you all so much for being part of this conversation and to the speakers for helping to illuminate us.

Thank you, Mister Kalra. And I also want to thank Speaker Rivas for authorizing the Select Committee and the Select Committee hearing today. As I mentioned before, we're going to have three different panels. The first panel is going to give us kind of an overview and introduction to poverty in California.

With that, I'd like to bring up Devin Gray of in poverty in California and Kayla Kitson from the California Budget and Policy Center, in whatever order you two prefer.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members of this Select Committee. My name is Devin Gray. I'm the President of End Poverty in California, or EPIC for short. We're an advocacy organization that was founded by former Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs a couple of years ago in 2022.

EPIC and our allies throughout the state are thrilled that the Select Committee on Poverty and Economic Opportunity has reconvened for this session, because we understand that the stories, the ideas, and the policy proposals that emerged from this hearing and subsequent hearings are needed now more than ever.

I think this is the perfect venue for us to take stock of the challenges we face, the progress we've made in recent years, and the steps that we must take to make good on the promises that lie at the heart of the California dream, which, in my mind include quality jobs and wages, economic security and upward mobility, a safety net that's robust and readily accessible and safe communities for ourselves and our families.

But the unfortunate reality is that while the California dream has become quite real for some, it's been a pipe dream for far too many. And that has led California to become a State of contradictions rather than a state that has realized shared prosperity. And most of us will be familiar with all of the statistics.

We're the fifth largest economy in the world. We have a GDP of $3.9 trillion. And yet, year after year, California has the highest rate of poverty of any state in the country when we take into account cost of living.

We have more billionaires within California than any country in the entire world, aside from the remainder of the US and China. And yet 5 million Californians live in poverty today. And we have very pronounced and persistent racial income and racial wealth gaps.

In California for every $1 that white families earn, black families earn 60 cents and Latino families earn 52 cents. And this, of course, exacerbates a nationwide racial wealth gap that remains as wide as it was when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

Now, many people will try to explain away these inequities through a number of false stereotypes and narratives that people living in poverty just need to work harder, or that they possess some other kinds of qualities or traits that results in poverty, or simply that poverty is just an inevitability and therefore spending money on it is a waste of our time and resources.

But I think for those of us who live and breathe this work, certainly for those of us who have experienced poverty ourselves, we know that these tropes are easily disproven. Nonetheless, though, this inaccurate story persists in the minds of many Californians and undoubtedly influences our policymaking.

So with these false narratives in mind, our organization has spent the last two years going across California to try to learn and share what the real story of poverty is in the state.

We visited communities in over 20 counties now meeting with people currently living in poverty and people who are advancing solutions to end it in the state. And what we saw won't surprise most people in this room.

We've heard hundreds of stories from Californians up and down the state who are working hard but coming up against a system that has not only made it harder to get ahead, but has made poverty an inevitability for far too many.

For example, we met a young mother in Compton who was working her way through college but couldn't access our safety net when she needed it for the first time. We met tenants in Antioch who faced dramatic rent increases in predatory landlords without adequate recourse, even when raw sewage was spewing on the grounds at their front door.

We met fast food workers in Oakland who have endured workplace harassment and retaliation from their employers, but worked together to fight back and achieve one of the greatest victories for workers the state has seen in recent years. And from all of these stories, there was one giant, unavoidable takeaway. It doesn't have to be like this.

We can have a state with high floors for income and wealth through policies like guaranteed income and baby bonds. We can have abundant and affordable housing such that no Californian has to spend more than a third of their paycheck on their housing costs. We can have access to capital for all aspiring entrepreneurs.

But instead we allow what epic calls the setup, the policy choices that literally create and sustain poverty.

And rather than call out the setup, far too many of us are wed to the story that poverty is fundamentally an individual failing rather than a policy failure, or that we can't afford to do better when in reality we live in a state and in a nation with massive abundance and a need to ensure that the wealthy and huge corporations are paying their fair share towards our state's revenues.

But I think through this Select Committee, we can continue the work of telling the truth about what millions of Californians are experiencing every day and make clear how false narratives have led to adverse outcomes. I firmly believe that if harmful and inaccurate narratives can lead to bad policy choices.

Then telling an accurate story based on people's real experiences can pave the way for very real policy victories. And we don't have to look too far back to see evidence of this.

In concert with dedicated organizing and power building, it was stories like those of Aisha Hightower, a Sacramento burger King worker who spoke at the rally to launch this Committee two years ago, and others just like her, that propelled our state to raising the minimum wage from fast food workers to dollar 20 an hour.

Or Claudio Ramirez, an advocate with Parent Voices who called for a raise for child care providers in this Select Committee's first hearing back in 2022 and helped 40,000 child care workers win a 20% pay raise. So to close, this Committee is going to hear from many brilliant people today.

You'll hear their stories and their expertise, and often an expertise that's informed by their stories. But when we adjourn, my hope is that we leave with an intent to take concrete action together as partners and ensure that their presence and ideas continue to reside in the halls of power here.

Because the stakes of policy decisions are highest for them and the needs and solutions for communities are also the clearest to them. So let us resolve to continue this important conversation in a meaningful way. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all being here.

Thank you, Mister Gray. We'll move on to Miss Kitson and then ask questions afterwards.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan, Members of the Committee. I'm Kayla Kitson, a Senior Policy Analyst at the California Budget and Policy Station Center. And I want to thank you so much for holding this important hearing today.

I'm going to focus my comments on some opportunities for state leaders to equitably raise revenues that can support investments in ending poverty and addressing the racial wealth gap.

While California does lead the nation in having a progressive personal income tax system, there are inequities in the state's tax system that also reduce state revenues, taking money off the table that could instead be used to ensure that all Californians have the resources they need to thrive.

There are a variety of ways to make the state's tax system more fair while raising additional revenues. State leaders can begin by examining the tens of billions of dollars in revenue that the state is losing to tax expenditures every year that largely don't have to be reauthorized through the annual budget process.

Many of these tax expenditures provide a majority of their benefits to highly profitable corporations and higher income Californians. And for many of them, there is little to no evidence that they achieve their policy goals.

Some of these tax expenditures also only benefit people who already have the means to build wealth through things like home ownership, retirement savings and college savings. And they could be restructured to more equitably help people build wealth who don't already have it.

Additionally, the state loses billions of dollars each year to corporate tax breaks, providing immense benefits to large, profitable and multinational corporations. We've seen corporate profits nationally soar in recent years, even throughout the pandemic, and they remain near record highs.

In California, corporate profits increased 155% from 2002 to 2021, compared to only a 13% increase in wages for the typical Californian. And that's after accounting for inflation, the state's largest corporate tax expenditure, the water's edge election, cost the state around $4 billion a year, according to the Franchise Tax Board estimates.

This provision allows corporations to choose whether to use their worldwide income or just their domestic income as the starting point in their state tax calculations. And this creates an incentive for corporations to use complex accounting maneuvers to shift profits actually earned here in California overseas to minimize their state taxes.

The most comprehensive solution here would be to eliminate the water's edge entirely, freeing up around $4 billion in potential new revenues each year. An intermediate step towards fairer taxation here would be to adopt some of the federal measures that were enacted in recent years to address this type of profit shifting and tax avoidance.

Another revenue option state leaders could consider would be to permanently limit the amount of tax credits businesses can take in a given year. For example, some states have limited the amount of tax credits a business can take in a given year to 50% of the taxes they would otherwise owe. Of course, that could be adjusted.

This would prevent corporations from contributing next to nothing in taxes in years when they're turning sizable profits, and it would ensure that profitable corporations are making meaningful contributions to California's vital public services upon which their businesses and workers depend.

A final corporate tax option I'll mention is to move to a graduated tax rate so that the most profitable corporations are paying a higher rate than those with more modest profits. As you may recall, a version of this concept was introduced last year in the Senate.

One simple step that policymakers could take towards tax fairness is just to require data to be regularly, publicly reported on the number of corporations that are paying little to nothing in taxes and the distribution of benefits from those business tax breaks.

Understanding these inequities in the tax system is really the first step to be able to address them. There are many other ways to make the tax system more fair and raise revenue. For example, California doesn't currently tax inherited wealth.

The state had an inheritance taxes as one of its earliest forms of taxation, but in the early 1980s, voters eliminated it. Yet since then, wealth inequality has grown considerably, and we know that racial disparities in inheritances are quite stark.

So asking voters to reinstate a tax on inherited wealth could help to reduce the racial wealth gap, particularly if this were to help the state invest in wealth building programs for families who have been historically excluded from wealth building opportunities. So I'll end my comments there.

And again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important conversation.

I appreciate that. Any questions from my colleagues? So no Member Kalra.

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you both for the presentation. Kayla had a question on something you just mentioned regarding graduated corporate tax rates. Are there examples of that being done anywhere else?

Yeah, I don't have a list in front of me, but there are several states that do have graduated corporate tax rates. Or in some recent years, I think states like New York and New Jersey had instituted just a sur tax on the most profitable corporations. So there are different ways to approach it.

You know, we don't have to have as many brackets as in the personal income tax system, but just something to ensure that those profitable corporations that are really responsible for the most profits in the state are subject to a higher.

And in those cases, those are also just onshore, like the profits they make onshore, as opposed to globally.

Well, so in California, we only are able to tax the share of profits that are allocable or a portion to California.

So the water's edge piece that I mentioned is part of ensuring that we have an accurate representation of what businesses are making globally so that we can accurately then figure out the portion that can be taxable in California.

The last question is on data reporting, you indicated that how it would be helpful for us to actually have clear reporting on the taxes spent, but also you'd mention something about the benefits from something along, the benefits from any breaks they might get, and wait when you.

So I guess a way to kind of quantify, like the rhetoric is always that you give us a tax break, we're gonna create jobs. We don't know if that's necessarily the case because we don't have the data.

And so are there examples of jurisdictions that do that where, hey, this is the taxes you're spending, this is how much you're getting brakes on. This is the jobs that you created year over year that you can attribute to those tax breaks.

Yeah, it's a great question again, I don't have a list in front of me.

I know that a few years ago, the Pew charitable trusts did a report looking at the tax expenditure reporting requirements across states and found that we were actually lagging in what annual, or at least regularly evaluating what the effectiveness of certain tax breaks are.

We have certain tax breaks that are evaluated by LAO occasionally, but building in some kind of more regular evaluation, I think I would have to get back to you on what states do that and what it would look like.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Gray, you went on a listening tour across the state over the last year. Year and a half.

Yes.

since our first hearing. How would you articulate the landscape, what poverty looks like across California, how people feel? Where are we exactly in the richest state in the richest country in the world?

I so appreciate the question, Mister Chair. California, as we know, is a massive state with 40 million people and 40 million stories. And poverty doesn't always manifest in the same way in Los Angeles as it does perhaps in reading or in Del Norte county. There are certainly consistencies, though.

I think Californians and every corner of the state are experiencing a housing crisis where people are paying far too much for far too little, and not having the amount of security and recourse they need if they're tenants, or finding significant barriers to entry for home ownership as well.

I think it's what's driving people out of the state in many cases, or at least leaving people feeling less optimistic about the future of the state as it could. But it's also particularized in the far north of the state. We see very real instances of the digital divide being quite real.

Service delivery is very different in the Central Valley, of course, people experience different types of environmental harms that they do in other portions of the state as well. So it's quite diverse. Like I said, there are consistencies across challenges with housing, both for aspiring homeowners and both, and renters as well. People have challenges accessing the safety net.

It's a very common theme where people find it quite onerous, and rightfully so, for the variety of forms they have to fill out to be able to get access to programs like CalWORKS and calfresh, the constant recertification requirements, the benefits cliff where you make one too many dollars and you're kicked off the program entirely.

All of these things are very real. But I would reiterate, sort of apropos of the statement that I made, that many of these programs and many of the problems with these programs are a result of the story that we've told that ultimately leads to the programs themselves being structured in a way that validates the harmful trope.

So when we internalize the belief that people who are applying for public benefits, for example, are untrustworthy or are leeches on the system until proven otherwise, we then structure the programs accordingly such that we make applicants have to jump through hoops over and over again.

So we hear stories like this all the time across the state, and it doesn't really matter if you're in La or San Jose or in Fresno. There's a lot of parallels.

Appreciate that.

Mister Joe Sawyer. I find this really interesting, what you've done, and I wonder if you ever looked at just the policies of California and how that contributes to poverty. And I look at that through the lens of someone who's just spent the last two, maybe three years of my life dealing with reparations for African Americans.

And as you know, the wealth gap between African Americans and white families is significant. For every $400,000, approximately, the wealth for white families, $4,000 is for African Americans.

And when you look at the policies that were put in place, redlining, not having us being able to have access to capital, even right now, I think there's a Bill going through, hopefully that it got passed, where we're trying to get slavery out of the constitution of the State of California in today's society, that we, a Bill that failed in the California State Senate a couple of years ago, that we're now resurfacing and trying to get through now, those kinds of things where we use the prison system to keep us down and to keep us from being able to achieve the American dream, the dream of, of what we're doing here.

Have you looked at our actual policies, which could be even more insidious than someone just keeping us in poverty?

Absolutely. I don't think that we can make genuine progress on economic mobility without having a very honest and real accounting of not just the crimes of the past that took place here, but also how we're playing, planning to resolve them today and get us back just to square one.

It's almost difficult to imagine how we make progress if we don't catch up to where we should be in the first place.

So I'm very optimistic that we've seemed to make progress on the reparations task force, if for no other reason than to have an honest accounting about what's taken place in the past and such that we can then move forward and advance types of policies that do build wealth.

I'm very proud to have worked with our friends at End Child Poverty California on the Hope Accounts Bill, which is the state's first baby bond program that will see around 50 to 60,000 kids in this state.

Those who were formerly in the foster care system and those who lost a parent to Covid receive a baby bond of around $4500 to $5000 when they turn 18. That's state funded. It's a step in the right direction. Obviously, we would love to see a more expansive program that's even more robust.

But I think it's a demonstration that we're recognizing that we've systemically disinvested in, in certain communities, not just through bias, but through actual hard policy.

And that I think the only way we can do that is through obviously, taking into account what's taken place in the past, but also making affirmative steps forward to correct those wrongs of the past. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Reyes.

It'S clear to me that oftentimes when we talk about what is wrong, we'll have to look to the past to see what we did to set up all of these wrongs.

Setting up policies that will correct those wrongs is extremely important when we talk about having to fill out the forms, and it's a different form for everyone, and one computer program is not talking to the other, so you have to do all these forms.

I know that because we hear from the people that are going through it how wrong it is, then we're able to make changes. And I know that in the Committee on Human Services, that's been a key in the last few years, trying to find ways to streamline the application process on taxes.

I really appreciate the comments about the different ways that we can reform the tax structure. So, because we're really saying, let's make it equitable, if you are making more, you should pay more. There's nothing wrong with that concept. If you're not making any, well, you're not going to pay any taxes.

But the problem is, just as you have stated, that there are ways that those who are making more find ways to show that they are making less, thus the tax base is less. So trying to close those loopholes is extremely important.

And I think that the very specific suggestions that you make, whether it's on performing the tax base or on policies regarding how applicants receive benefits, these are real reforms. And I hope that you will provide those lists to our chair, because next year we'll be looking at new bills to introduce.

And just as the reformation task force, I mean, the work that has been done, the detail and the experts that were brought in to come up with a package of bills is exactly what we need when we're talking about poverty or any other significant issue.

So I hope that our Chair will, will receive those, and then, by extension, the rest of us would be able to see those specific policy changes or policy suggestions that you have. Thank you. Thank you, Sunrayo.

Thank you, Mister Chair. One thing that got my attention during Mister Gray's opening remarks is he said, let's continue telling the truth. That is powerful. The two examples that you share with us, people that you met in, I believe you mentioned one of them. I believe that those are powerful experiences to share with legislators.

And the way that I see the future seems to be bright. I say that because some of us come from foster families, some of us are immigrants. Me, myself coming from Mexico at the age of 15 years old, just trying to get a better life for my family, my younger siblings, and years later, here I am.

And I think that it's very powerful when you have legislators that have experienced foster families and immigrants working as a dishwasher in construction, experiencing the obstacles, trying to send us back to construction when you're trying to get an education, things that I experience.

So for me, being able to understand the struggles that we leave in our communities makes a big difference. And I see that the Legislature is changing. I see that more and more of us are coming here and wanting to make it better for our communities, for our children, for those that we represent.

So to me, again, you're saying, continue telling the truth. To me, that is very powerful. I encourage the people that you work with to be able to come and tell us your experiences, because not everybody in the legislation has experienced those things that I've experienced.

And it's important to make sure that you keep telling us what the truth is about California. Thank you for that.

Thank you. It's very kind. Tell the truth for our two panelists. I also really appreciate the conversations about raising revenues or saving money. Right. We are still subsidizing oil companies. Right. We are doing plenty things across California that we can make a difference on.

Definitely want to follow up with conversations about the limit, the total number of tax breaks that an individual corporation can take and see what kind of models across the country there are to learn from.

But if both of you had to leave this Committee and by extension the entire state Assembly, with kind of a final thought to close out this first panel, what would you leave us with?

I think, sort of simply put, the outcomes that we get are a result of policy choices. Right? Like, we make choices around the revenues that we raise and from whom and how we spend our money and how we design our systems.

And my call to action really is that we should all be examining what the underlying assumptions are that lead to certain policy choices. And I think that can apply to our benefit system, to housing, to our tax code and everything else.

But what I encourage people to do, both in policymaking and as advocates and as citizens of the state, is let's examine the underlying assumptions and the stories that we believe that have informed the types of policies that we ultimately decide on.

Yeah. Just to add on to that, I think kind of a two pronged answer is that I want folks to think about, you know, we spend all this money through the tax code, and it just sometimes just is over here, not part of the budget process.

And it's important that we look at the money that we're spending there that we don't evaluate in the same way that we evaluate through the budget process for spending programs.

And then the second piece that I wanted to note is just looking at revenues as a tool or looking at tax policies as a tool to raise revenue, as well as looking, examining tax policy for the impacts that it could have on things like poverty and the racial wealth gap in and of themselves, in addition to what they could make possible, what the revenues could make possible in terms of investments.

Thank you both for being our first panel. Thank you so much. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Our next panel is going to be on interventions, programs and worker power. And we've got three incredible panelists here with us today, Priscilla Sinobilo from the Dolores Huerta foundation. Also, I'm hearing rumblings that Dolores Huerta herself might be joining us here shortly to testify as well.

Andre Petrona, social worker, and Keely O'Brien from the Western center on Law and Poverty.

And you can begin in any order that you want. But I want to thank all three of you and everybody here for being here.

In addition to getting kind of an overview of where we are and kind of the underlying assumptions that got us here, it's important to know what interventions are working, what kind of programs exist, and what power, what power can we give to to the people by empowering workers? And so with that, I will pass it to you.

Hello, chair and Members. My name is Keeley O'Brien. I use she her pronouns, and I'm a policy advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty. For over 55 years, the Western center on Law and Poverty has advocated on behalf of Californians experiencing poverty in every branch of government.

Through the lens of economic and racial justice, we litigate, educate and advocate around healthcare, housing and public benefits policies. I want to thank the chair and Members for this important hearing and my fellow panelists. Today, I'll review some of the anti poverty interventions that have not yet been covered by other speakers.

So, starting with SSI and SSP SSI and SSP are a critical safety net program that provide basic income to older adults and people with disabilities with no or very limited income or resources.

We're deeply grateful that the governor's proposed budget and the Legislature's agreed upon budget both maintained the grant increase that took effect at the beginning of this year.

But unfortunately, because of inflation, the high cost of living in California and recession era cuts to SSI SSP, the recent increase does not even bring the grant up to the outdated and inadequate federal poverty level, which hasn't been updated in the last 60 years.

Unlike the elder index, which should really be our North Star, despite recent increases, living as an older adult or a person with a disability with Low income is extremely precarious. High rents, as has been mentioned, have devastating impacts, putting Low income people at great risk for homelessness. The current individual SSI SSP grant is only $1,183 per month.

As a result, many elder and disabled adults are spending their entire grant just to avoid homelessness, leaving them with nothing to meet their other needs. The SSI SSP program supports 1.1 million Californians, including 100,000 children. SSI beneficiaries live in every community and reflect the diversity of our state.

As a safety net program, SSI is a critical benefit for seniors and people with disabilities who have had less access to employment and other opportunities, such as women, especially older women of color, people of color, LGBTQ people, and immigrants.

Racial wealth disparities also mean that elderly black Americans rely more on income from SSI and are more than twice as likely to live in poverty in the future.

To truly meet the needs of this community, grants need to be raised to at least 100% of the federal poverty level, which we've already covered, is inadequate, and there needs to be a yearly cost of living adjustment so that the grants retain their purchasing power, especially in these times of extreme high inflation.

In addition, we should look at better measures of poverty to make sure this community is adequately served. Next, I'm going to address guaranteed income. Guaranteed income refers to regular, unrestricted cash payments that are made to families and individuals in need.

Poverty is a lack of access to cash, so, unsurprisingly, when we target cash assistance at people in need, they tend to get out of poverty. Direct payments that people can use on whatever they need are rooted in dignity, self determination and choice. And most importantly, the data shows that this works.

During the pandemic, many households experienced great financial hardship. In response, the Federal Government sent stimulus checks and tax credits. These payments reduced poverty by 67% in 2021, the largest and most effective poverty reduction policy in the last 50 years.

This shows just how effective direct cash aid is in keeping Americans out of poverty and shows that our institutions can issue unrestricted cash payments when there is the political will to do so. There are many programs underway in California and nationally. Just and nationally.

Just last year, California announced the launch of the first state funded guaranteed income pilot programs in the United States. GI is an important tool to disrupt systemic inequalities that can help to shift the trajectory of someone's life and will have long lasting impacts beyond the program.

A few steps the Legislature could take to support GI programs in the future are passing legislation to address the consideration of GI payments as income, which can interfere with the eligibility for other benefits in a more favorable budget year.

We would also love to see the Legislature extend the state funded pilots and then moving on to child support interception. Child support is intended for children, but for almost 50 years, California has required parents who receive public assistance to repay the state by intercepting their child support benefits.

This means that in California, when Low income parents make monthly child support payments, most of their payment will never reach their child. Instead, it will go towards reimbursing the state for the cost of safety net programs that their family is eligible for.

One of our priorities is to end the government interception of child support payments and instead implement full pass through, meaning all child support payments that are collected by the state would go directly to the custodial parent.

California uses this process currently to extract $150 million a year from the poorest families in our state, disproportionately impacting families of color. If a parent falls behind on child support payments, they face severe consequences. There is a 10% interest rate on child support debt in California, one of the highest in the country.

Because of high interest rates and because impacted parents tend to be Low income. This system has resulted in a $6.4 billion government owed child support debt.

And according to the Urban Institute study, more than 95% of that debt is deemed uncollectible, which means the only function of that debt is to trap parents and in turn, their children in financial uncertainty. Luckily, there is a path towards victory. We are on the path to becoming a national leader in redressing this injustice.

And this year, on May 1, California began passing through child support payments to families who were formerly on CalWORKS. The western center has also been working with legislative leaders and the Administration to set the stage for an expansion into enacting pass through for families who are currently on CalWORKS.

This policy change is fiscally the right thing to do because not investing in families now will cost the state more in the future in terms of supportive services and interventions.

And it's morally the right thing to do because by intercepting child support payments, the state is engaged in something that is actively causing lasting harm and financial stress to Low income families and children. Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak on these programs which ensure that all Californians can live with dignity.

Thank you, Miss O'Brien. Priscilla, would you like to go next?

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair. Hi everybody. My name is Priscilla Sinobio. I'm 18 and I am from Tulare county out of a little city called Visalia and I am one of the few minorities in California. My parents are classified as Low income and so am I because we learn we earn less than 20,000 per year.

Do you know how much that is? I can't even afford a car. That's sad. But I'm here to talk to you about why Cal Works and WIC works.

When I was little, my dad used to work in the fields and one day he went off picking cherries as any other farm worker would, and he fell off the ladder and all his ribs were broken. But unfortunately we were too poor to pay for his Medicare and we couldn't pay his medical bills.

So for those years afterwards, he had to take all that pain and continue working. I'm the oldest out of 11 kids, so it's kind of hard maintaining 11 kids.

I thank the government, specifically the Governor who passed Cal Works and WIC and all those safety programs because they allowed me to have food on my plate, they allowed me to have clothes. They allowed me to have shoes. Basic necessities that any human should have.

I was first around eight years old when I first started working in the fields. No child should ever have to go through. I know many others did, but it's something that I was willing to do to protect my siblings.

I was willing to scratch up my hands, to inhale all the chemicals that are often sprayed in the fields. I was willing to work long hours in the fields in exchange for my family to be able to have food and to be able to have clothes.

But with this recent fair budget thing, I could possibly decide not to end up going to college because my family would not have enough money to stay afloat. That means I would have no education. That means that I would have to drop out of school, something that was really hard to get into in the first place.

And I want my family to have the best for them. And that means CalWORKS still has to stay. That means that my dad, he's already 40 something. He should not be working and trying to maintain 13 people in a household. We live in a three room household, and we can barely afford it. And that's sad because my.

My little youngest brother is two years old, and he relies on me to get most of his clothes, most of his food. My other brother is five. He's entering kindergarten, and luckily, he has not known the dangers of working in the fields.

I ask for you guys to please consider all those children who are still working out there, because I have a lot of friends in high school who are still working in those fields. First of all, they don't even get fair wages because most of the time they have to go incognito because they're not allowed to work properly.

And all I ask for you guys is that remember the children, remember us workers who carry California on our backs. Remember that we, too, are human and that we rely on you guys for the help that we need.

We rely on you guys for our daily necessities, because, unfortunately, even though we work hard, we won't ever make it out of the hood, as people say, because we're a big family and we can't afford to keep basic necessities on our table without you guys. So please, like I said, please remember the children, please remember the workers.

Please remember that we, too, are human and that you guys are our support. Thank you.

That was incredibly powerful.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you for providing us with that testimony. Thank you for your advocacy and your leadership.

Thank you.

Your voice is powerful and is making a meaningful difference. So know that. Next. Mister, may I say something?

Thank you for sharing. Sharing that I'm the eldest of eight kids and I know what it's like working the way you do, having to provide for the siblings. And this was in Guadalajara, where I was born. Hearing that this happens here in the fourth largest economy in the world, which just saddens me.

And that's what I mean by let us know your stories, let us know the struggles that you go through, because I identify with you for what you went through. Thank you for sharing that.

That is why hearings like this are important. We have one last panelist, Miss Petrone, to close us out. And I do have a question from my colleague from Lancaster. I'm going to put you on the spot. I've got a run downstairs to add on in privacy, would you mind overseeing this last witness here?

And then I believe Dolores worth is going to be joining us in about 12 minutes.

My pleasure, Mister.

I'm going to pass the gavel to my Vice Chair here and I'll be right back, but you may begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Good afternoon. My name is Andre Petron. I am a San Jose resident. I'm also a Member of the SEIU 521. I'm a supervisor for the Department of Family and Children Services in Santa Clara County. I've been doing this work for 23 years.

I'm here to help you understand the outstanding and life saving work our amazing team and teams like us all over California are doing for children and their families that are in crisis.

Our team is a unique entity that provides 24 hours, seven days a week early intervention, emergency response, particularly in the investigation of cases where there's child abuse and neglect. It's difficult to keep up, but I'm very proud of the number of children and families that we've been able to help.

Our emergency response team works very long hours, going all over the county, day or night, to respond to families every day. Each referral that comes in requires a social worker to have lengthy investigations of child abuse and neglect. Lots of follow up, which frequently involves the local law enforcement or with County Council having consultations.

It is very clear to everyone on our team there is an over representation of children of color. So it is extremely disproportionate compared to the General population of our county.

There is approximately 2% of African ancestry in Santa Clara County, but there is over 14% of African ancestry in the foster care system that tells us that there are contributing factors that are not being addressed. A robust social safety net is not a luxury.

When we make cuts to anti poverty programs and services, it may seem like we are saving money in the short term, but the long term ramifications can be costly and even deadly. The result is increased homelessness and a greater burden on law enforcement. Our emergency response rooms.

I'm sorry, our emergency rooms and hospitals, our prison system and our foster care system, to say nothing of the incalculable trauma that is inflicted on the children that my team works with every day. One of the biggest challenges our team faces is that by nature, our work is reactive.

That's because the families that we see don't have enough access to proactive safety net interventions in the community that could help mitigate the risk of child abuse and neglect. Now, with those safety net resources under threat, I'm very concerned about what this will mean for my team.

When I became a supervisor for the Department of Family Children's Services, I decided to be as solution focused as possible. My aim is to do everything I can to help social workers help these children.

I'm proud to say we are 100% focused on doing what it takes to make it possible for the children we see to stay with their families in a safe way. But the truth is, we cannot do it alone.

It does take community buy in and investment to change the trajectory of families, especially families of color, away from poverty. It should go without saying that securing the safety of children is the first and most important step in fighting poverty.

Once we ensure that children are stable, it is critical that they and their families receive the other safety net services they need to support them out of poverty. Thank you for your time and your commitment to ending poverty and creating a more inclusive economy for all families.

And I have to end with the Whitney Houston song 'Children Are Our Future', and. It's really, it's really important to remember that. Thank you.

Vice Chair Carrillo.

Definitely agree with that. Chilling on our future. The district that I represent is just about 45 miles north of LA County and the high desert area that represents just like the Central Valley, which don't get equal distribution of resources.

Understanding that the City of LA County is the urban center in Southern California, also like San Diego, Orange County, all the limited resources seem to go to those high populated areas. Therefore, areas like the ones that I represent in the Central Valley, we barely get anything left from those resources.

I started being a board Member for the Ponder School district in 2013. That's where I learned that the high desert gets a high number of foster children, and unfortunately, they don't come with the resources that they need. We did the best that we could. We still do the best that we can to provide those resources.

But I just wish that there was more transparency in the way that these resources get distributed again, because those areas just seem to be forgotten time and time again.

And I just wanted to make that statement that that's something that I'd be interested in to see more transparency as to how is it that these limited resources, again, seem to go to just one more urbanized area and the areas with, you know, great need? Because the need is throughout the state, not only those urbanized areas.

So, again, I just wonder if you could comment on along those lines of how these resources get distributed across the state, because the needs are across the state, not just in urban areas. Is there something that you can provide us with?

Yeah, well, I mean, I do know that, you know, Santa Clara County is, if not the richest, one of the richest counties in Santa Clara County.

And when we're, you know, struggling with, you know, trying to provide resources, I mean, we, there's just a lot of, I mean, we don't have the infrastructure that we, I think, used to have at one time. I mean, there were, it just seemed like there were a lot more services out there.

And I don't know, it's because those programs have also got, you know, have also had shortage of funds available. You know, grants are cut or they lose, they lose their funding. And so I think, I think everyone is struggling as far as, you know, you know, doing that.

And I know that the smaller, the much smaller counties, of course, they don't have the robust, you know, services also that, say, Santa Clara County has. Because, yes, we are pretty fortunate to be able to have the, like, the 24/7 service. I mean, we try to be available, you know, around, you know, around the clock.

You know, we have someone always answering the hotline calls. But then I know there's smaller counties that, you know, after 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. that they have to call the local law enforcement if there's, you know, something that's really critical. But I'm not sure if I answered your question or, or made the comment.

It just gives me an idea. Again, it was more of a comment because knowing the limited resources that we have, but again, having those areas of the state that seem to be even getting less of the less that we have.

Right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

I appreciate your point about children being our future and our presence. I think that's part of why the Assembly is working so hard to restore funding in some critical key programs, including the FERS program in the budget proposals that we're putting forward. But we've got a lot more work to do.

Miss Sinobio, you talked about your kind of lived and learned experience. If you had to talk to a bunch of legislatures, legislators who have no idea what it's like to live on $20,000 a year or less and the impact that our decision making up here has, what would you tell all 120 of those legislators?

I would tell them we're slightly better off than a third world country. And that's pretty unfortunate to say. And I would like to tell them that 20,000 alone doesn't raise one kid alone.

I wish to, like, be able to take my siblings, you know, to like a soccer, a soccer club, baseball club to extracurriculars, but I can't afford that. Neither can my parents. I just want to tell them that at the end of the day, I'm human, too, and I want to be able to have fun.

I want my siblings to be able to get an education, first of all. And without that money, they can't even enter, like, the certain demographics of a good high school. You know, the high school that we're going to right now, it's ranked, like, in the bottom numbers of the state.

It's barely a good enough school to learn to read. But it's unfortunate that I have to tell them that we're slightly better off than the third world country because you think when you think about a third world country, you're thinking starvation and stuff like that.

And to think about that, you're like, I don't know what I'm going to have to eat for the next day.

That's like, okay, I didn't know we were that bad, especially in California where everybody's like, Oh, you think of the palm trees and stuff, but you forget that we also have one of the highest agriculture outputs of the state.

Like, I just want them to remember that we're on the tipping end of, like, either having an economic disaster or on the tipping point of having an economic boom. And to remember that children are their future. Like she said, children are the kids of tomorrow. They're the leaders of tomorrow. And yeah.

I think that's incredibly powerful. Miss O'Brien, you talked about a lot of different programs that's hadn't been mentioned yet, the Hope program and baby bonds and how there's a positive impact that we're going to see from that, but we won't see it until those bonds are ultimately accessed.

But there's a reason to make those investments now because they will have that boom effect in the future. You talked about the guaranteed income pilots. I'm curious what degree and this can be for any of you.

But specifically, Miss O'Brien, you workers wages, we have fought tremendously hard to set a fast food standard for the rest of the country because nobody who's working full time in any capacity shouldn't be able to take care of their basic needs. We have fought for healthcare worker wages.

We have fought for child reimbursement rates that are still behind. We have fought for workers, state employees, city employees, labor across the board to fight for fair contracts and fair wages. California likes to promote ourselves as a leader in many of those respects, even though we are still drastically behind.

But what do those kinds of investments in worker income and wages, what do those have on a positive account economy? And where do you think we are right now, given all of the different conditions that California is experiencing?

Oh, wow. I'd say, I think this was mentioned in the first panel as well. But that part, poverty is a policy choice. It's a policy choice made by governments, and it's a policy choice made by corporations.

So there's, I think the best thing that we could do to address poverty is pay people a living wage, pay everyone a living wage that is appropriate for living in the places where they live in California. We obviously have extremely high cost of living across the state, especially in certain areas.

And people just people like also, what was said in the first panel, people have such a false narrative about what it means to be a recipient of public benefits. And people have such a false idea of who is poor. And in General, people who are poor are working poor.

People are doing their best, working really hard, working multiple jobs, and they're not able to make ends meet, which is absolutely shameful. You know, the reason, the poverty choice that the policy choice that is being made, the policy failure that is happening is, has to do with allowing the wealthy, the extremely wealthy, to exploit the poor.

And that's really what it comes down to. So I think addressing Low wages is the best possible way that we can give people what they deserve, what they work for.

And then, you know, the social safety net is supposed to exist to make sure that when people are, when people are temporarily experiencing, you know, maybe they're between jobs or something, then it should be able to kick in. It shouldn't have to be supporting people who are fully employed.

People who are working shouldn't have to be on public benefits, but they, they do have to because they're not making enough.

Thank you for that. So I would ask finally for the three of you before we go to our final panel, same question as the end of the first panel.

If you had to leave us with one last thought to keep in mind throughout the rest of this legislative process and as we're voting and considering different budget proposals as early as this week, what would you leave us with?

I think I would say, remember the children? Because at the end of the day, the children, like she said, we have to emphasize that children are really important. We have to, these most, most of these programs are focused on children. So I just want to keep it. This is the truth.

These children are the ones who are suffering. It's not so much as the adult. It's rather the children who are feeling the effects of such improper policies, like she said. And just remember the children, like, at the end of the day, you are adult.

You might have already gone through your childhood, but these kids are still growing up and we don't want them to go through those struggles. Remember the kids.

Thank you so much.

I have to say that I don't think the government should get into the business of doing funding for everything.

There's definitely things that I don't think the government should be funding, but one of the things that they should be are things that provide the life essentials, like food, clothing, you know, those kind of programs that are, you know, helping people. But, you know, I think there's only. So much money that can go around.

But I really think that when it comes to the livelihood of children and families, I don't think those, those programs should be cut. I think it should be cut from something else that is not essential to people's lives and livelihood.

Yeah, it's hard to follow that. I feel like just, I want to leave on a kind of hopeful note, I guess poverty is a policy failure, but we have a chance to make different choices in the future. And I mentioned a few areas that we're making progress, and there's obviously plenty more.

So if all of us continue to work together against poverty and to create economic equality and equity, I think we can do a lot.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you three so much for your comments. Thank you.

For our final panel. You know, we have had a conversation about what poverty looks like across California, an introduction to where we are. We've had a conversation about programs that work and make a meaningful impact. Priscilla laid it out very playing for us how meaningful these programs are for families who are on the margins.

So to close us out, I'd like to talk about economic inclusion and justice. What are the next steps? And for that, we have Yesenia Jimenez from GRACE and End Child Poverty California, and Kellie Longo Flores from California Association of Food Banks, in whatever order you prefer.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and of course, all the Members that were here with us present for the Select Committee.

As you mentioned, my name is Yesenia Jimenez, here with GRACE and today an honor to join my peers in discussing opportunities to build a more liberated future for California, one free from systemic racism and poverty, where all families experience abundance, dignity, love, and opportunities to thrive today.

Specifically, I will begin by discussing the importance of building upon our existing anti poverty programs, sharing two new key ways California can build a more resilient and equitable future, and emphasize the significance of human dignity.

California has made indelible strides for low-income Californians via the state's California Earned Income Tax Credit program and the Young Child Tax Credit program. Our state has been a national leader, going far beyond other states on who we include in our programs.

We know this would not be possible without the support of our state leaders that have shown bravery and encourage us to introduce bold measures. Two examples of this bravery started with the establishment of the Cal EITC and the Young Child Tax Credit. Refundable credits designed to empower low-income Californians to support their families.

These credits help those earning less than 30,000 a year to afford basic expenses like food, housing, and childcare. And as of 2022, the young child tax credit is also available for households with no income or very low incomes.

The beautiful thing about these two tax credit programs is that they deliver cash directly to families, honoring our families' economic autonomy and supporting their financial freedom. However, 88% of recipients receive less than $300 and 43% receive less than $100 from these tax benefits.

Additionally, the majority of Cal EITC eligible families are ineligible for the federal program, creating clear inequities and causing confusion for families. So two key ways our refundable credits can be improved include raising the minimum credit from $1 to $300 and extending the young child tax credit to include all Cal EITC eligible families.

I do want to spend some time talking about what some of my colleagues shared earlier regarding the racial wealth gap, as poverty is often discussed in terms of income. However, we know childhood poverty extends beyond income, impacting access to proper nutrition, housing, police-free environments, health services, education, and wealth-building opportunities.

Racialized child and intergenerational poverty are symptoms of a larger problem. Racial disparities in wealth rather than income are the paramount indicators of economic inequality. The lack of wealth inhibits fundamental milestones like home ownership and pursuing higher education.

Moreover, limited wealth affects overall well being, leading to increased stress and anxiety due to financial instability, limited access to quality healthcare, and the inability to afford nutritious food, safe housing, or even dream, as Priscilla shared earlier. Let's be clear. In order to build a more liberated California to building more liberty, California requires more than economic inclusion.

It demands that every person in our state is recognized and respected as a fundamental human being. Without this recognition, vulnerable communities will remain trapped in a perpetual state of rightlessness.

To improve the lives of those affected by this gap, we must consistently and intentionally advocate for systemic changes in housing, education, employment, criminal justice, which perpetuate generational wealth inequalities. Two key opportunities to ensure economic inclusion and dignity in our state are establishing a safety net for all and guaranteeing opportunity for all.

While millions of undocumented immigrant workers contribute to California's prosperity, they are unable to access unemployment benefits when they experience job loss or even are injured in the workplace. This harms their well-being, forcing them to exhaust savings and incur debt for basic needs like housing, childcare, and food.

To build a resilient economic future, California must end these unjust exclusions for undocumented workers. Second, undocumented students are blocked from essential opportunities, unable to obtain paying jobs on campus due to their immigration status.

California's higher education systems have an opportunity to remove these barriers, ensuring all students have equal access to opportunities needed to support themselves and complete their degrees. California has taken transformative steps to ensure that every person, regardless of status, has the opportunity to opportunity to thrive. Enacting Medi-Cal for all affirms our belief that everyone deserves healthcare.

Our commitment to food for all ensures everyone has a right to nourishment and freedom from hunger. Opportunity for all recognizes that human dignity goes beyond access to our safety net, securing the right to a dignified and empowering workplace. At the time we build systems of care, we must dismantle failed approaches that reinforce racial inequities.

Moral panics about poverty driven survival crimes do not solve our problems. They subject our communities to suspicion and stigma. We must reform the carceral system, which disproportionately affects marginalized populations, eroding, trusting governance systems and perpetuating cycles of poverty.

In closing, GRACE and our coalition partners will continue to remind our elected officials to follow the lead of everyday Californians that when met with tough choices, hold tight to their values, their kids, and their futures, and are willing to do what it takes to set them up for success.

Let us ensure that our solutions to that, our solutions go beyond increasing monetary assets and focus on empowering future generations by addressing the inequities that impact our community's overall quality of life. Thank you.

That was incredibly powerful. Thank you so much.

Hi Chair, Kellie Longo Flores with the California Association of Food Banks. I just want to start out by saying thank you for holding this. This testimony has been incredibly powerful, and this is what we come here to do. So, again, Kellyie Longo Flores. I'm with the California Association of Food Banks. We work alongside 41 food banks who collectively serve 6 million Californians a month with a mission to hunger.

Thank you again for having me here today. So I'm gonna set the table a little bit about hunger generally. Kind of some of the things that we saw that worked and then end with where we'd like to see things go.

We know that more than one in five California households, one in four with children, one in four with children, are faced with the toxic stress and health consequences of food insecurity with shocking disparities for our communities of color. These are staggering numbers.

And it's clear that the need for food assistance is too large for our food banks to meet alone. Our food banks are seeing 20% more need compared to last year, with only 4% more food in the warehouses.

So I think, like, during COVID there were images showing lines around the block, and there was a lot of attention to the need of food. And now that that attention's gone away, we're not seeing. I don't think folks realize the scope of where we are. But for every one meal that food banks provide, CalFresh provides nine.

So when we're talking about what works and what's meeting that need, I want to focus on CalFresh a little bit. Because CalFresh is our best defense against hunger. We need these robust food benefits. We can't do it alone. It serves over 5 million who rely on CalFresh. And this is a really incredible statistic to me from PPIC.

Roughly half of California's young children participate in CalFresh by the time they turn six. And I think we're talking about economic inclusion and return on investments and what this actually means. Just a recent USDA showed study shows as much as $1.80 is a return for every CalFresh dollar spent.

So when we're talking about our investments and where they make a difference, I think this is a perfect example. CalFresh brought in $13 billion in federal food benefits, 23 billion in total economic activity. And this one always gets me 173,000 jobs statewide. But we know we can do more to boost it.

Our participation rate is some of the lowest in the country. There's complex reasons. I think some of the panels talked about that a little bit. Today we have about 207 million households who aren't receiving, who are eligible.

So for context, if we had those additional people, we would be seeing $3.46 billion in additional federal money coming to California. And Californians use their EBT cards at local grocery stores, farmers markets. They're spending their SNAP benefits over 23,000 retailers. And that's impacting our farmers, our farm workers, truckers, grocers, everybody across the food sector.

So this is a high multiplier effect and it really demonstrates how California stimulates our local economies. But of course, we know it's not just buying power. And according to the Public Policy Institute of California, without CalFresh across the state, we would see a 3% increase in the poverty level and amongst CalFresh participants, an 11% increase in poverty.

So we're here to talk next steps. That's the purpose of our panel. I think the numbers speak for themselves and the stories we hear from our communities speak louder. When we invest in things like minimum benefits and supporting our food safety net, we see the benefits across the board.

It provides, it stimulates the economy, keeps people out of poverty, and of course feeds people and the families and our neighbors in our community. So if I could just very quickly talk about like what we know works. When we had pandemic EBT, which was a huge boost, I want to.

Our fantastic research team at CAFB, when they did a survey, found that folks had a more and greater variety of food when they had additional funds and it helped the households weather the income fluctuations during COVID and it had a stabilizing effect. So we know what works.

So moving forward, supporting policies like food for all without exclusions or delay increasing minimum benefits, which the minimum benefit right now is dollar 23 a month, which we know is wholly inadequate. But it's not just in the food space, it's a broader, larger set of policy solutions. WIC, CalWorks, EITC, YCTC, living wage. But we know what works.

We've seen the impact and we can replicate that moving forward. So happy to answer any additional questions and also speak to what we're seeing on the ground in the food banks. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I mean, you just laid out so many important reasons why these programs are important and effective, and funding them is essential. I think in tough economic times it's easy.

It's not easy, but it seems apparent to want to cut the extremely large expenditures like CalFresh, like CalWorks, like all of these things that so many families are relying on. But as you mentioned, half of young children by the age of six at some point have relied on CalFresh. 173,000 jobs are created from CalFresh.

Our investments in feeding the people of California have a tangible economic rebound effect across the state that is incredibly powerful. And I see your opportunity for all shirt here as well. Right. And it's a reminder that our undocumented communities are a part of this conversation.

You can't talk about deep poverty across California unless you see all of California, including our undocumented. So thank you for all of your work to uplift it. If you could speak one final message to the state Legislature. Right. And specifically to the State Assembly, what would you tell us?

We know what works, and we just need to keep doing what we know works. And thank you for supporting the CalFresh minimum benefit. That is a huge first step. So thank you to the Assembly for that.

First, showing an air of gratitude for holding down the line and pushing back against some of the proposed cuts that were suggested in the main revision, and instead following that up with some powerful opportunities to protect our families, we know that a cut is not just a cut today, but it has devastating impacts.

And so as we think about some of the cuts that many of our panelists today shared about, I think I'm really struck with the words that Priscilla said, remember the children, remember our future, remember our families.

And recognizing that, yes, it's a tough budget season, but cutting a program that literally meets our safety or meets our basic needs will put us on the streets. It has the power to kill us as well.

And so I think it's really important to really put that front and center that these decisions we know are not easy, but they're even less easier for our families. So it's important to make sure that we prioritize our families in our budget.

Thank you for your power. And that was our third panel, and I think it's only appropriate that we close our Select Committee hearing with a trailblazer, an icon, a champion for worker rights, for human rights, for civil rights. I see the great Dolores Huerta has joined us today.

If you'd be open to giving us any comments or thoughts that you have around poverty in California, that would be very powerful for us. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for giving this opportunity. I know it's been a long day, it's been a hot day. But I just want to share the comments that have been made previously in that we know that you all are in a really hard place right now in terms of the budget cuts that have to be made.

But we have to be careful that we don't cut the budgets in places where we have so much poverty. There in the central valley of California, even though it's a very wealthy area with oil and ag and prisons, etcetera, we still know we have so many farmworker families that are living in poverty.

And the people that care for them, the healthcare workers, the people that work in a hospital, all of these service workers, that it's so hard for them to get contracts with the boards of supervisors that we have down there. And so we really need your support, and we don't want the poverty to increase.

And if in all of the budget negotiations that are being made right now, if we can think, where do the cuts need to be made? The cuts to be made from the wealthy sector, not the poverty sector. From the wealthy sector, not the poverty sector. We do not want to increase the poverty.

We do not want to increase the homelessness that we have in our beautiful golden State of California.

So I think many people have been here today imploring you, and I just want to add my voice to the voice of the others to say, please, I know they're hard decisions, but when you make those hard decisions, think of the people that are poor, the marginalized and documented, the people that need your help, that need your support.

Thank you, si se puede. And my colleague Alegria here wants to. And by the way, her brother Arnuljo De La Cruz is President.

I knoe Arnuljo very well. SEIU 2050.

Thank you so much. It's an honor to be here sitting with you, Dolores. And thank you so much for having this important conversation to make sure that we are protecting those who experience the highest levels of marginalization. I appreciate the conversation about ending poverty.

We also know with the generations of the people who have fought, coming way before us, that one of the clearest ways to end poverty is to raise wages. And so, as we talk about you know, how we are ending poverty.

It's not just about the benefits and the needs of people who are experiencing such deep poverty despite working so hard to support their families. So really appreciate the conversation today. Thank you so much for your leadership.

And thank you for making hard choices that will ultimately, hopefully continue to benefit the people who deserve most of our attention and certainly the lion's share of the resources that are available in our state right now.

And the people are there for you.

Thank you, Ms. Huerta. Dolores, you have been a leader across our state for many generations, despite looking not a day over 27. Where are we now with poverty? In all of your lifetime of organizing and fighting, where is the labor movement? Where is California? Are we worse than we've been before?

Do you feel like we're on a pathway better? Have we made strides and fallen back? What do you think of where we are?

Well, in my lifetime, I remember going to Mexico when I was 17 years old and seeing people on the streets sleeping, and I thought, I'll never see that in the United States of America.

And when we see all of the homeless people that we have right now and people that have been kicked out of their homes because they can't pay the rent, you know, we see people that are just living since poverty because they're not getting paid enough money, we know that our system is somewhat failing, and so we have to do something about it.

And as Alegria just said, the best way is to raise people's wages, because we know that working people, when they get a check, they spend that money at the grocery store. You know, they pay their rent, you know, they pay utilities, etcetera. They don't put it in stocks and bonds and stash it away.

Their money goes directly into the income stream. When you have these very wealthy people, you know, they have, they get tons and tons of money, but they don't put that money into the income stream.

So we have to think, how can we keep our economy flowing and making sure that everybody, all society, benefits from the wealth that we have. So I know it's really hard for legislators because we can't control how they raise the rents or how they, you know, raise the prices of food, etcetera.

But we have to do whatever we can within our power, your power, to make sure that the poor people do not suffer from the sins of others. Okay. This is, they are, you might say, who others? The caretakers of the people of California, and especially the poor people, the working people.

Thank you for that. It's an incredible responsibility that it's not lost on me. It is not lost on Speaker Rivas. It is not lost on Assemblymembers Kalra, Jones-Sawyer, Assemblywoman Reyes, Assemblymember Juan Carrillo, who are all with us today. I want to thank all of the panelists who came to testify.

I want to thank all of the SEIU members and workers and poverty alleviation advocates who have been outside the Capitol raising righteous noise all day, calling on us to think critically about this budget that we are working on.

From the testimony that I've heard all day today and in previous hearings of this Committee, it's very clear to me that we have communities that are struggling. At the same time, we have the greatest wealth we have ever had before. We have more people on our streets.

At the same time, we have a larger and growing billionaire class across California. That is why we're feeling this economic instability in the budget. That is why we are feeling the economic anxiety across our state.

And the brunt of that wait is being felt on the same communities where the rent is too high, the wages are too low, the schools are underfunded, the environmental hazards are next door, and the police are around the corner. We've got to think about this comprehensively and critically.

That's what we are trying to do in the Select Committee, and I want to thank you all for giving voice to that process. And with that, that concludes today's hearing on the Select Committee of Poverty and Economic Inclusion. Thank you all so much.

Thank you very much.