The time for Gavin Newsom honoring himself isn’t over yet.

California’s governor wants taxpayers to spend $33,000 on an official portrait of Newsom, even as Democratic lawmakers fume over his “absurd” $20 million proposal to honor the state’s living former governors — an exclusive club of which he’ll soon be a member.

Funding for the proposed painting is included in Newsom’s proposed 2026-27 budget under “Governor’s Portrait,” which says the money would pay for the “traditional painting of the Governor’s portrait” to be displayed in the State Capitol alongside portraits of every other California governor. 

The $33,000 would come from the state’s General Fund at a time when all new discretionary spending is being discouraged by Democratic lawmakers and state budget analysts. California faces long-term structural budget deficits while residents are dealing with high gas prices, soaring housing costs and increasingly expensive health care services.

State Sen. Suzette Valladares (R-Santa Clarita) scoffed at the price tag.

“Only in Sacramento would a governor look at struggling families and think, ‘You know what this moment needs? A painting of me,’” she said.

Assemblymember Alexandra M. Macedo (R-Fresno) — who has excoriated Newsom’s over the boondoggle high-speed rail project that will supposedly begin service in her district in 2032 — joked that the governor’s proposed portrait is “a real tribute to modern California governance.”

“At least future generations will have a painting to remember who kept spending billions carving a permanent scar through prime Central Valley farmland for a train that will never connect Northern and Southern California,” Macedo said.

California governors have traditionally had official portraits displayed in the Capitol after leaving office — Jerry Brown started the practice with an infamously ugly portrait in 1984, which some legislators joked to New York magazine looked as if it had been painted with “spilled ketchup and soy sauce.”

The artist, Don Bachardy, was reportedly paid $13,000, which would be about $41,000 today when adjusted for inflation.

The timing of the governor’s request is especially awkward after The Post reported that Newsom tucked a vague $20 million “Governors’ Legacies” fund into his final, record-setting $349.9 billion budget plan.

The proposal would give the administration authority to distribute money to state departments for unspecified projects honoring California’s living former governors just months before Newsom becomes one himself. He also hired a dedicated photographer at annual cost of $200,000.

“This governor’s vanity knows no bounds,” state Sen. Brian Jones (R-San Diego) told The Post.

“It’s truly unreal the brazen, egomaniacal behavior he continues to display. But just like infamous dictators erstwhile and elsewhere, all the gilded propaganda and pageantry won’t fool the real Californians suffering everyday under his regime.”

Newsom’s office did not respond to The Post’s request for comment on the portrait after defending the $20 million proposal. A spokesperson for the governor said the plan does not include spending on the current governor and would focus on the public service and policy milestones of past living governors from both parties. 

Democratic lawmakers were already openly mocking the broader governors’ legacy proposal last week.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, D-Los Angeles, called the $20 million fund “absurd” during a budget hearing focused on health care services.

“I do not care to recognize the legacy of governors past or present,” Menjivar said.

“I care about seniors having health insurance and seniors with disabilities having health insurance.”

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Yolo County, said lawmakers were being asked to approve millions of dollars with no clear plan, comparing the idea to President Trump’s White House ballroom renovations.

“There’s really nothing here,” Cabaldon said. “There’s no proposal here to be responsive to.”

Republicans were even more agitated, saying Newsom’s budget priorities show he’s more concerned with cementing his own image than fixing everyday Californians’ problems.

Steve Hilton, the leading Republican candidate in the governor’s race, ripped the $20 million proposal as a “ridiculous vanity project.”

The portrait request, however, is explicitly for Newsom’s own place in the Capitol gallery.

Newsom is no stranger to self-tributes. 

A bronze bust commemorating his time as San Francisco mayor was installed at City Hall in 2018, months before he was elected governor. That $100,000 sculpture was funded through private donations from businesses tied to Newsom.

Newsom’s navel-gazing has been compared to President Trump commissioning projects such as the White House ballroom, or a commissioned portrait at the Smithsonian.

The ballroom’s cost has reportedly ballooned to somewhere close to $400 million and appears to have been funded through an immigration enforcement bill that included White House repairs, while the president’s portrait was funded by a $650,000 donation from Trump‘s political action committee.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger picked up the tab of his own massive portrait — painted by by Austrian-born artist Gottfired Helnwein — for an unknown cost.

Newsom has sought millions in behested payments to fund his travel and pay for his wife’s political activities as “first partner” of California — sometimes taking large sums of money from special interests with business before the governor.

But state records do not show Newsom attempted to get someone else to pay for his portrait, leaving the tab to taxpayers.