You Paid $10.7 Million Per Patient… Gavin Said “We’ll Learn From It!”

Welcome to Tax Hackpro, where we delve deeper than headlines and audit the truth behind government spending.

If you’re tired of wondering where your hard-earned tax dollars are going, hit that subscribe ʙuттon now.

Today, we’re uncovering a shocking revelation about California’s recent homeless initiative, Care Court, and the staggering amount of money wasted in the process.

Imagine winning the lottery—not just a scratch-off, but a whopping $10 million cash, tax-free.

You could buy a mansion in Beverly Hills, hire a personal staff of doctors and chefs, or invest for a lifetime of financial security.

Now, imagine taking that $10 million and setting it on fire, then doing it again 22 times.

That’s essentially what California has done with $236 million allocated to the Care Court program, which aimed to address homelessness.

After burning through this mᴀssive sum, do you know how many people were actually enrolled in the full program during the reporting period?

Just 22 individuals.

Yes, you heard that right—22 people.

When you do the math, that breaks down to approximately $10.7 million per person.

It sounds absurd, like a bad comedy sketch, but this is the grim reality of taxpayer-funded initiatives in California.

Today, we are conducting a forensic audit of one of the most expensive bureaucratic failures in modern history.

We’ll examine the promises made, the money spent, the excuses given, and the alarming consequences of a government that prioritizes learning over tangible results.

But before we dive into this financial black hole, please subscribe to Tax Hackpro.

We are building a community of taxpayers who refuse to be treated like an ATM.

Let’s rewind to 2022.

Governor Gavin Newsom was on a media blitz, signing bills with flair and presenting himself as a confident leader.

He introduced Care Court as a solution to the homelessness crisis, claiming it would help individuals suffering from severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia.

The program was designed to intervene before these individuals found themselves in handcuffs, offering them the help they desperately needed.

The governor’s team promised that Care Court would ᴀssist between 7,000 and 12,000 people.

With this ambitious target in mind, the legislature allocated a staggering $236 million to launch the program.

Fast forward to today, and the data reveals a shocking truth: only 22 people have benefited from this initiative.

Initially, I thought there must have been a typo in the reports.

Surely, they meant 220 or even 2,200.

But no, the number is indeed 22.

So, where did all that money go?

If it wasn’t spent on housing, medical care, or treatment, what happened to it?

The answer lies in the bureaucratic machinery that consumes taxpayer dollars.

When the government spends $10 million per person, it isn’t handing cash directly to individuals in need; instead, the funds are devoured by administrative costs.

This includes paying consultants exorbitant fees to design logos, hiring outreach coordinators to discuss how to hold meetings, and investing in IT systems that fail to communicate effectively.

It’s a quarter-billion-dollar stimulus package for white-collar bureaucrats disguised as a homeless ᴀssistance program.

The most frustrating part is that many warned the governor this would happen.

Mental health experts cautioned that you can’t force treatment without adequate facilities, and county officials expressed concerns about staffing shortages.

Civil rights groups raised alarms about the legal implications of the program.

Yet, Governor Newsom dismissed these warnings, insisting that he knew it would work.

When the scandal broke, one might have expected humility from the governor.

Instead, his response was dismissive, claiming, “We learned from it.”

This atтιтude reflects a fundamental flaw in government accountability.

In the private sector, if you hire a contractor for a significant sum and they deliver subpar results, you demand accountability.

But in California politics, failure often leads to requests for more funding.

Let’s analyze the mechanics behind this failure.

The Care Court system was designed to allow families, first responders, and medical professionals to peтιтion a court for treatment for individuals suffering from severe psychosis.

The premise was that a judge would mandate treatment, and the county would be legally obligated to provide it.

However, the critical flaw was that the necessary housing and treatment facilities simply did not exist.

You can have all the judges and courtrooms in the world, but if there are no treatment facilities available, those orders are meaningless.

California spent hundreds of millions establishing the bureaucratic framework without ensuring the infrastructure was in place to provide real help.

It’s akin to building an elaborate train station without purchasing any trains—lots of staff and facilities, but no actual service.

The governor’s office has attempted to downplay the numbers, claiming that hundreds of people engaged with the system voluntarily, suggesting a higher number of beneficiaries.

But even if we accept their figure of 600 people engaged, that still amounts to nearly $400,000 per person.

For that kind of money, you could provide each of those individuals with a condo in many parts of the country or cover their rent for a decade.

Instead, the funds were squandered on outreach and engagement, not on tangible solutions.

This highlights a fundamental issue in how California—and increasingly the federal government—approaches its problems.

There is a pervasive belief that simply spending money equates to solving issues.

Success is measured in terms of financial allocations rather than actual outcomes.

If a charity collected $236 million to feed the hungry but only managed to feed 22 individuals, it would face severe repercussions, yet in government, this is often overlooked.

The timing of this failure is particularly alarming.

California is grappling with a mᴀssive budget deficit, cutting funding for schools and public safety while raising gas taxes and proposing a mileage tax.

At the same time, the state is squandering taxpayer revenue on programs that achieve a mere 0.2% success rate.

This is why it matters, even if you don’t live in California.

Governor Newsom is positioning himself as a future presidential candidate, aiming to take this model national.

Imagine the implications if the Department of Defense or Social Security were managed with the same level of incompetence.

The prospect of such a scenario is chilling.

Since Governor Newsom took office, California has spent approximately $24 billion on homelessness, yet the homeless population has only increased.

If you paid $24 billion to fix a leaky roof, but the roof continued to leak, would you hire the same contractor again?

The answer is no, yet taxpayers are being asked to do just that.

California’s approach to homelessness is characterized by expensive insanity.

They prioritize housing-first models that cost nearly a million dollars per unit to build and create complex legal frameworks that become bogged down in red tape.

They refuse to enforce laws against public camping and drug use, fostering an environment where treatment is optional and chaos is tolerated.

When critics suggest alternative approaches, they are met with arrogance and dismissal.

Governor Newsom is doubling down on this failed initiative, expanding Care Court to more counties and requesting additional funding, insisting that momentum is building.

However, 22 individuals in the pilot program do not equate to momentum; it represents stagnation.

What could have been accomplished with $236 million?

With that amount, you could have provided 1,000 small businesses with $236,000 grants to hire local workers, repaired thousands of miles of crumbling roads without raising gas taxes, or offered full-ride college scholarships to numerous low-income students.

If the goal was genuinely to help the homeless, basic, safe shelter beds could have been built for thousands at a fraction of the cost, instead of creating a convoluted legal maze that benefits almost no one.

The government fails to consider opportunity costs because it’s not their money—it’s yours.

This is the ultimate hack: recognizing that the system is designed to sustain itself, not to serve you.

So, what’s the takeaway from this situation?

We need to demand real accountability—not just plaтιтudes about learning from mistakes, but concrete actions such as firing those responsible, returning unspent funds to the general budget, and repealing ineffective laws.

We must stop accepting good intentions as a subsтιтute for good results.

If I hire a surgeon, I don’t care about their compᴀssion; I care about their competence.

We need to scrutinize government spending with the same rigor we apply to our personal finances.

Additionally, we must share this information widely.

The mainstream media often glosses over these failures, celebrating program launches while burying the disappointing results.

That’s why channels like Tax Hackpro exist—to expose the truth and show you the receipts.

But we can’t do it alone.

Share this video with friends and family, especially those who believe that more funding will solve everything.

This isn’t a partisan issue; it’s about competence versus incompetence, math versus fantasy.

There are Democrats and independents in California who are outraged by this situation.

Waste is the enemy of everyone.

As we approach the next election cycle, remember the number 22, the $236 million spent, and the governor’s dismissive “spare me” atтιтude.

Can we afford to let them continue learning at our expense?

California has the potential to be a leader, but it is being drained by a bureaucratic system that has lost sight of its purpose.

If you’re fed up with waste, excuses, and gaslighting, join our movement.

Subscribe to Tax Hackpro, and together we will expose the financial truths that demand attention.

Let’s recap the numbers one last time: Care Court budget—$236 million; results—22 court-ordered plans; cost per result—$10.7 million.

The governor’s response?

“I’m not the mayor.”

This is the most expensive game of H๏τ potato in history, and sadly, those 22 individuals likely didn’t receive $10 million worth of care.

Instead, they were caught in a bureaucratic process that failed to deliver real solutions.

So, the next time you pay your taxes or see that deduction from your paycheck, remember: you’re not funding roads or schools; you’re paying for bureaucrats to sit in meetings discussing how to learn from wasting your money.

We will continue to track where the next tranche of funds goes because they are always asking for more.

Don’t let them get away with it unnoticed.

Shine a light on this issue.