In yet another sign that he may have his eyes on a national office run, California Governor Gavin Newsom has again vetoed a bill that was passed by his own party. The measure would have authorized the payment of unemployment benefits to striking workers across the state. Had it passed, striking workers in both the hotel industry and the Actor’s Guild would have been eligible for payments of up to $450 per week if they had been on strike for at least two weeks. The Governor said he supports organized labor and admits to having accepted campaign contributions from labor unions, but he blamed the veto on the fact that the fund used to pay unemployment benefits is already nearly $20 billion in debt and they can’t afford it. (AP)

California won’t be giving unemployment checks to workers on strike, with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoing a bill Saturday that had been inspired by high-profile work stoppages in Hollywood and the hotel industry.

Newsom, a Democrat, says he supports workers and often benefits from campaign contributions from labor unions. But he said he vetoed this bill because the fund the state uses to pay unemployment benefits will be nearly $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.

“Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt,” Newsom wrote in a veto message.

The unemployment fund is already $18 million in the hole because of the record number of people that were sent home during the pandemic, combined with massive amounts of unemployment fraud. So blaming the veto on a lack of funds to cover the checks isn’t actually dishonest or unreasonable. It’s still a puzzling decision, though. Since when has running up more debt on the public’s dime stopped a Democrat from spending money?

But at the same time, Newsom is ignoring the far larger problem with this bill. These payments shouldn’t be made to begin with because that’s not what unemployment insurance is for. Unemployment is supposed to be a safety net for workers who lose their jobs and can’t find a new position promptly. All of the people in question here have jobs. They’re just not showing up for work. This is a decision they made for themselves through their union representatives.

Perhaps if the unions stopped giving all the dues money they collect to Democratic politicians like Newsom they could set up a strike fund to pay their members while they’re on the picket line. But I suppose that would make too much sense, right? Better to dump the burden off on the public if at all possible.

I still can’t help but wonder if there isn’t more going on behind the scenes of this veto decision than meets the eye. As I suggested above, it’s not impossible that Newsome is considering his political options at the moment and wants to give the appearance of being more moderate or independent. Being term-limited, he’s approaching the halfway point in his final term as governor. It’s no secret that he fancies himself as a potential presidential candidate. And now, with Feinstein having passed away, there may be some opportunities on the horizon.

He could technically appoint himself to her seat and turn the state over to the Lt. Governor. Or, in one of the crazier scenarios we discussed here previously, he could appoint Kamala Harris to the seat (if she somehow agreed to the scheme) with the understanding that he would replace her as Vice President. In either case, he might want a few more “moderate” actions on his record to point to if he wanted to broaden his national appeal. We should know soon enough. He’ll probably be looking to fill that seat as soon as Feinstein’s funeral affairs are settled.