Gov. Gavin Newsom knows that many Democrats across the country want to “eat the rich” with wealth taxes. But he can’t bring himself to stomach the meal when it comes to a November California ballot proposal that would do just that.
What’s a guy who wants to run for president in 2028 to do?
Over the past few weeks, Newsom has been appealing to populist messaging by focusing on voters’ economic anxieties, wealth inequality and artificial intelligence-driven job losses, writes CalMatters’ Jeanne Kuang. He’s also calling for a nationwide wealth tax on anyone making more than $100 million, which might capture the Democratic zeitgeist without prompting more California billionaires to move to, say, Austin.
- Newsom, in a statement: “The system the American founders built was designed to prevent the concentration of power in a few hands. But we’ve allowed that concentration to happen anyway, slowly and in plain sight. … It’s time to democratize the American economy to save our democracy.”
But when it comes to a billionaire tax in California, Newsom is against it. The governor pressured the healthcare union behind the proposal to drop the measure in exchange for concessions, but failed. He — along with other Democratic allies and Planned Parenthood — argues that billionaires could simply move their assets to another state.
This needle threading is Newsom’s attempt at “balancing two pressures,” said Kevin Liao, a Democratic strategist.
- Liao: “There’s a desire to meet the demands of his constituents and the current appetite to be against billionaires … (and) the cold political reality that much of his career and presumably his future ambitions have also been built on the financial support from a lot of wealthy folks in Silicon Valley.”
CalMatters’ 11th Anniversary Drive: Double your gift and fund independent reporting that helps you vote with confidence, follow the facts and hold the powerful accountable. Every gift makes a difference, please give now.
Other Stories You Should Know
Why the feds want to own detention centers
California’s resistance to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is a key reason why the federal government said it purchased detention facilities outright in the state, report CalMatters’ Wendy Fry and Nigel Duara.
Earlier this month the feds bought the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego County and the California City Detention Facility in Kern County for $1.5 billion from CoreCivic, the private company that runs them. The government did so because California’s “sanctuary politicians … make private prisons financially infeasible,” said Jason Sweeney, a spokesperson for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
- Sweeney, in a statement: “Unlike in states like Florida and Oklahoma, ICE can not rely on local state and county partners for detention space in California.”
California lawmakers have been pushing bills to make private detention centers financially unviable, and they’re using another state law to demand entry and inspect centers. By owning the facilities, the federal government would be able to lock out local governments and the state from oversight and access.
Myth busting your insurance
As California voters gear up to vote for a new insurance commissioner in November, CalMatters’ Levi Sumagaysay takes a look at four common misconceptions people have about insurance and the various issues plaguing the state’s insurance market.
One of the top myths people have is that California’s insurance issues only affect homeowners and the well-to-do — not the estimated 44% of the state who don’t own their homes. But rising insurance costs affect this population too, with some landlords reporting to CalMatters that they have passed some of those costs to renters.
Increased insurance costs also affect affordable housing, worsening California’s housing crunch. Some insurance companies have stopped offering coverage to commercial properties, including affordable housing units. Owners and operators of these properties are then forced to turn to “non-admitted” insurance companies, which aren’t regulated by the state and not backed by the state if they go bankrupt.
California Voices
As California immigration detention centers become more unsafe and crowded, lawmakers must revisit a state open records law and require local agencies to disclose 911 calls and records about detention centers, writes Paloma Esquivel, journalist and press education specialist at the First Amendment Coalition.
Other things worth your time:
Trump officials withhold $1B in Medicaid funds from CA and MN // The New York Times (gift link)
Medicaid funding is restored to Planned Parenthood, but the pause cost CA clinics // The Mercury News (gift link)
CA fights Trump administration, again, over Santa Barbara oil pipeline // Los Angeles Times (paywall)
Republicans can’t stop talking about a CA dog who voted. Here’s what really happened // San Francisco Chronicle (gift link)
Could a lawsuit stop Newsom and lawmakers from stripping the state superintendent’s power? Probably not // EdSource (free)
Her rape kit had a DNA match. In SF, that’s not enough // The San Francisco Standard (paywall)
The World Cup promised a boom for LA, here’s how businesses actually fared // The LA Local (free)
Armed robots are on the horizon, as Silicon Valley pitches new military tech // The Washington Post (gift link)
