Senate approves SB 101 budget package after hours of debate over Medi‑Cal, homelessness and Prop 36 funding

Senator Wiener presented Senate Bill 101, the budget act of 2025, describing it as a legislative budget package that totals $327,700,000,000 in spending with $231,900,000,000 from the General Fund and combined reserves of $13,200,000,000. "This budget represents the work of 56 budget subcommittee hearings and 4 full hearings of the budget committee," Wiener said, noting investments in housing, higher education and homelessness programs.

The package includes a mix of ongoing and one‑time measures designed to balance 2025–26 and to reduce out‑year structural deficits. Key line items cited on the floor included a $1,000,000,000 general fund loan for local governments in Los Angeles County, a $750,000,000 loan for Bay Area transit systems to avoid service cuts, and funding for low‑income housing tax credits, the Multifamily Housing Program, and California Dream for All down‑payment assistance.

Senators debated the budget's approach to Medi‑Cal and other health benefits. The legislative proposal scales back some of the governor's proposed changes: it lowers a proposed premium from $100 to $30 per month for certain enrollees, delays implementation, raises the Medi‑Cal asset limit to $130,000 (protecting home ownership for some families) and preserves protections for seniors. "We will not be disenrolling anyone from Medi‑Cal," Senator Weber Pearson said on the floor; she clarified that the plan limits new enrollments rather than removing current beneficiaries and that a six‑month reenrollment window would apply for people who drop out by mistake.

The Senate also debated funding to implement Proposition 36. The budget includes $110,000,000 for year‑one implementation: $50,000,000 for behavioral health services, $30,000,000 for trial court workload and $15,000,000 for pretrial services and public defenders, as laid out by Senator Adeglio on the floor. Senators on public safety and budget subcommittees stressed that implementation will require multiple years of investment and local‑state cost sharing.

Several senators pressed warnings about structural deficits and risky revenue assumptions. Senator Choi and others cited the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates of multi‑billion dollar out‑year shortfalls tied to volatile capital gains receipts and recommended longer‑term reforms. Senator Strickland and other critics argued the budget increased spending and deferred hard choices, predicting larger deficits ahead.

Supporters described the bill as balancing competing priorities during an uncertain economic and federal policy environment. Senator Laird and Senator Cabaldon said the proposal mitigates draconian cuts, protects the UC and CSU systems, sustains K–12 funding and preserves targeted safety‑net programs. The bill also proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the maximum annual deposit to the rainy day fund from 10% to 25% of general‑fund revenues in surplus years.

After floor debate and a roll‑call, the measure passed with Ayes 26, No 8. The bill will move to final negotiations with the governor and the Assembly.