THIS Is What ‘Compassionate’ Government Really Looks Like

My impression is that most people who consider themselves bleeding heart liberals are not, in fact, bleeding hearts. Their commitment to expanding government to “take care of” the poor and vulnerable is more about easing their consciences than actually doing good. 

But there still are plenty of bleeding heart liberals who really DO want to use government money and power to do good things. This is why I keep insisting that there are good Democrats out there. I know some of them, and many are honestly good people believing that they are doing the right thing by supporting big government, and who see government’s failures and corruption as just a price you pay to help people. 

Boy are they wrong. 

Remember over two years ago when @GavinNewsom went on @60Minutes and talked about he was going to spend “billions” on “Care Court” and how it was going to be this HUGE “game changer?”

Whatever happened to that?

There are still crazy people doing drugs all over the city of San… https://t.co/kephgyASJk pic.twitter.com/a4ZuH3x3xC

— Thomas Hawk (@thomashawk) February 9, 2026

Remember over two years ago when @GavinNewsom went on @60Minutes and talked about he was going to spend “billions” on “Care Court” and how it was going to be this HUGE “game changer?”

Whatever happened to that?

There are still crazy people doing drugs all over the city of San Francisco.  

Maybe @60Minutes should do a follow up on why this program was such a failure 

@bariweiss

California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York are all examples of why entrusting the government to exhibit compassion and care for people is a really, really bad idea. It’s no secret that all of these states are run by powerful Democratic politicians with national profiles, and four of them have governors who are presidential (or Vice Presidential) aspirants. They are all heroes to the left, and have left a wake of crushed dreams, ruined lives, and fraudulent spending. 

Generally speaking, governments don’t help PEOPLE; they create programs intended to help some class of people or another, and you can’t successfully help classes of people, and the government quits trying rather quickly. Social programs become graft machines, with “clients” simply existing as excuses to keep increasing money. 

Leo Tolstoy captured this truth in one line: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” People in need must be helped one by one because there is a story behind their troubles. 

Gavin Newsom is the poster child for lying sack of excrement politicians who promise the moon if only taxpayers fund one or another program or project. His nearly 20-year-old “10-year” program to end homelessness is just one of many examples. To hear him tell it, California is the model for successful governance, taking care of every person and providing high-speed public transport to zip people between cities, and keeping its cities safe and clean. 

Newsom’s latest “plan” to help the homeless was widely touted as an innovative way to help the mentally ill leave behind homelessness and drug addiction; instead, it has been a huge money sink that has helped almost nobody. 

Launched two years ago, CARE Court was envisioned as a new, streamlined path into the state’s mental health system before someone becomes so sick they need involuntary care or ends up in jail. Families who had struggled for years to get their loved ones into care viewed it as a lifeline. 

But just 706 people had received treatment plans or agreements through the court as of October 2025, according to the Judicial Council of California, far fewer than the 7,000 to 12,000 once predicted by the governor’s office. For some like Connor, CARE Court has faltered in fundamental ways — proving both too restrictive in its requirements and not powerful or convincing enough to reach the most vulnerable or resistant people for whom it was designed. 

Newsom and lawmakers have appropriated more than $424 million for the program, state figures show. An early analysis by the Legislature found that California was spending about $700,000 per person referred, much of it for operating the court and for health agencies to conduct patient assessments

CARE Court has in many cases offered little more than an expensive new layer of bureaucracy. To Ann, it was “amazing” to see multiple city staffers at each court hearing whose job seemed to be to argue that the government couldn’t help her son. 

“CARE Court.” What a great name to use in order to hide the fact that the system helps nobody except the bureaucrats who run the system, who see their main job as keeping actual people from getting help.” 

The “Ann” in this story is a mom who begged the system for help to save her son. She spent years trying to get him help, and hoped the CARE Court might finally make it possible. It was not to be, as it has not for almost anybody else. 

What’s most striking about the CARE Court process is how dedicated everyone involved is to keep “clients” out of the program. Judges, lawyers, social workers—they apparently are paid to deny services to people who are very clearly in need. Not that their approval for the program is likely to help, given that following the treatment plan is entirely voluntary. 

Schizophrenics and other addicted and severely mentally ill people rarely follow treatment plans without compulsion. 

But, apparently, none of that matters to the people who keep voting for the people who come up with these money-sucking schemes that help nobody. The more expensive the failure, the better, and every failure is proof that if only more money were poured into a system designed to fail, it might overcome the odds. 

Admittedly, no society has ever conquered human weakness or bad luck, and it is unfair to expect 100% success. We live in a fallen world, and the best we can do is help people one by one, hoping that at least some will crawl out of the hole with some help. 

But that is not what liberals promise; in fact, they promise the opposite. Their pitch is that they can create a utopia, as long as you open your wallets and hand the money over to them. You can give at the office, and they will take care of the rest. 

Just as successfully as they have provided that high speed rail. 

Editor’s note: If we thought our job in pushing back against the Academia/media/Democrat censorship complex was over with the election, think again. This is going to be a long fight. If you want to join the conversation in the comments — and support independent platforms — why not join our VIP Membership program? Choose VIP to support Hot Air and access our premium content, VIP Gold to extend your access to all Townhall Media platforms and participate in this show, or VIP Platinum to get access to even more content and discounts on merchandise. Use the promo code FIGHT to join or to upgrade your existing membership level today, and get 60% off!PRINTS