Californias latest flirtation with a punitive wealth tax has triggered a billionaire exodus and exposed the political tightrope Gov.
Gavin Newsom is attempting to walk as he eyes higher office.
According to RedState, the proposal would impose a one-time five percent levy on the worldwide net worth of billionaires, a move that has already prompted some of the nations wealthiest individuals to relocate their homes and business operations to friendlier states, draining an estimated trillion dollars from Californias economy.
Among those reportedly heading for the exits are Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, whose combined fortune is valued at roughly $518 billion, underscoring just how much capital is at stake when a state openly targets success.
Newsom, long suspected of preparing for a presidential run while neglecting the deepening crises in his own backyard, is now attempting to distance himself from the very kind of confiscatory policy his party has championed for years. He is doing what seasoned politicians do when their ideological allies go too far: insisting he opposes the measure and portraying himself as a reluctant critic of a plan that aligns neatly with progressive redistributionist instincts.
On Monday, he told Politico that the proposal was his worst nightmare, a striking admission from a governor who has presided over some of the highest tax burdens in the nation. This is my fear, the California governor said. Its just what I warned against. Its happening.
Newsom has publicly styled himself as a vocal opponent of the measure, a five percent tax on billionaires assets advanced by a health care workers union, and claims he has been working behind the scenes for months to persuade the union to abandon the effort. Yet even as he criticizes the specifics, he cannot resist the broader progressive framing, suggesting that a national conversation about wealth taxes could be worth having, as if the problem were insufficient debate rather than the fundamental injustice of government seizing private assets.
We need a "national conversation" about it? No, we don't. It's a terrible, socialist-style idea; there, conversation over. For conservatives and anyone who values economic freedom, the notion that Washington should be empowered to reach into accumulated wealth not just income is a red line, not a discussion starter.
The wealth tax initiative still requires 900,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot, but its mere existence is already damaging Californias reputation as a place to invest and build. It makes no sense, Newsom complained to the outlet. Its really damaging to the state.
In a rare moment of candor about economic reality, Newsom recently warned, You can't isolate yourself from the 49 [other states]. We're in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury particularly people of that status. They already have two or three homes outside the state. It's a simple issue. That observation, while accurate, raises an obvious question: why did it take a looming ballot measure and a billionaire stampede for the governor to acknowledge that confiscatory policies drive wealth and jobs away?
The governors protests ring hollow for another reason: the proposal is backed by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU?UHW), a powerful public-sector union whose parent organization, the SEIU, has been one of Newsoms most generous and influential patrons throughout his political career. For years, he has accepted their money and advanced their agenda, helping entrench a public-union-driven model of governance that prioritizes government expansion over private-sector vitality.
Newsom has captained California for seven years, presiding over an era of soaring taxes, rampant regulatory overreach, and deteriorating public services that leave taxpayers wondering what, exactly, they are funding. Corruption and mismanagement are so pervasive that the states political culture is widely rumored to make Minnesotas look like playground antics, a damning comparison for a state once held up as the national standard for prosperity and innovation.
It also strains credulity to believe that Newsom would oppose this wealth tax if he were not positioning himself for a national campaign, where overt support for such a radical measure could alienate moderate voters and donors. His record suggests he has never met a tax he didn't like before, making his sudden skepticism look less like principle and more like political calculation.
The next presidential election may be years away, but the maneuvering has already begun, and Republicans would be wise to make Newsoms California a case study in progressive failure. The GOP and its eventual nominee must continually remind voters that under his watch, more than a trillion dollars in wealth has fled the state, even as he now scrambles to disown the consequences of the ideology he helped entrench.
He can flip and flop like a beached fish and try to distance himself from this asinine proposal all he wants, but the economic damage is real, and he is the man at the helm while the Golden State lists. You helped create the Golden State's one-party progressive nightmare, Mr. Newsom, and now you have to live with it.
Login