Founder & CEO Worksite (acquired by @aconex) | Founder & CEO Marketron International (acquired by WicksGroup)
San Francisco, CA
Joined August 2006
- Tweets720
- Following798
- Followers326
- Likes111
Mike Jackson retweeted
Californiaโs billionaire tax was supposed to raise $100 billion.
Now a new study estimates $30 billion in collections against $39 billion in lost income tax revenue.
When you chase away the people paying the bills, everyone else gets stuck with the tab.
Mike Jackson retweeted
this California wealth tax thing is just incredible.
so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time).
polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it).
there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate.
supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right?
well as it turns out, they did.
a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative.
proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave.
just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues.
but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion.
so when you add it all up you get:
+ $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated)
- $69b in present value of lost future income taxes
= - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax
of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time.
and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes.
[1]: nber.org/system/files/workinโฆ
Mike Jackson retweeted
Yes, 5 percent of what America's 989 billionaires own is real money. About $420 billion. To reach Khanna's $4 trillion, you take it again every year for a decade. But don't worry, it's only the billionaires.
And they pay in stock, true. Tesla, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, the same companies sitting in your 401(k). Every year, billions in shares get sold to pay the bill, right on top of the stocks you're retiring on. You can watch your balance drop while they make the rich pay.
Take 5 percent a year for ten years and, with no growth, 40 percent of the base is gone. Not one dollar goes to the $40 trillion Washington already owes. All of it goes to new promises, free college, free childcare, a government fund for factories, that cost money forever. When the billionaire money runs thin, the bill moves down to the next bracket, and the next, while the old debt keeps growing.
But feel the warmth of collectivism: everyone's retirement shrinking together, equal at last.
The billionaires pay 5 percent. That was the promise, and your 401(k) pays the rest.
Mike Jackson retweeted
What Is To Be Done?
I propose a simple plan:
Big AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can โ but not allowed to achieve regulatory capture, not allowed to establish a government-protect cartel that is insulated from market competition due to incorrect claims of AI risk. This will maximize the technological and societal payoff from the amazing capabilities of these companies, which are jewels of modern capitalism.
Startup AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can. They should neither confront government-granted protection of big companies, nor should they receive government assistance. They should simply be allowed to compete. If and as startups donโt succeed, their presence in the market will also continuously motivate big companies to be their best โ our economies and societies win either way.
Open source AI should be allowed to freely proliferate and compete with both big AI companies and startups. There should be no regulatory barriers to open source whatsoever. Even when open source does not beat companies, its widespread availability is a boon to students all over the world who want to learn how to build and use AI to become part of the technological future, and will ensure that AI is available to everyone who can benefit from it no matter who they are or how much money they have.
To offset the risk of bad people doing bad things with AI, governments working in partnership with the private sector should vigorously engage in each area of potential risk to use AI to maximize societyโs defensive capabilities. This shouldnโt be limited to AI-enabled risks but also more general problems such as malnutrition, disease, and climate. AI can be an incredibly powerful tool for solving problems, and we should embrace it as such.
To prevent the risk of China achieving global AI dominance, we should use the full power of our private sector, our scientific establishment, and our governments in concert to drive American and Western AI to absolute global dominance, including ultimately inside China itself. We win, they lose.
And that is how we use AI to save the world.
Itโs time to build.
Mike Jackson retweeted
Dario has written that we need to โpace the frontier,โ and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric โ market share, revenue growth, model capability โ the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. Youโve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I donโt see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone elseโs permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropicโs investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who arenโt even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sandersโ โshut it all down.โ China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, youโll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you donโt, weโll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture โ or an election-season psyop.
Mike Jackson retweeted
As a renter, I'm thankful for my landlord, who takes on immense risk so that I can invest my money in assets that have a much higher return than San Francisco real estate.
If you look at a chart of SF real estate prices against the Nasdaq, it's not even close! And when you add on the taxes, maintenance, and liability, it's insane that anyone is willing to be a landlord in SF!
The only good reason to own SF real estate is as a luxury for personal use, given that the returns are so bad compared to stress-free alternatives.
Why don't more renters feel this way?
Why are so many renters demonizing landlords despite getting such a good deal compared to the cost of owning?
For example, I'm renting a 3 bedroom/2.5 bathroom, 1700 square feet (enough space for 5 people to live comfortably), a place worth millions, for only 5k a month!
The stock market historically earns 10 percent, so if a landlord put $2 million in the market, they'd earn about $200k per year! But since they're renting to me instead, they're only getting about 40k/year after costs, with far more liability.
I could stop paying rent, and it might take them years of legal battles to remove me. They're taking on HUGE risk with relatively low returns.
So is anger from renters just jealously of someone with enough wealth to make a poor investment and not care?
Do they not understand the returns that landlords in SF leave on the table by not liquidating?
Do they not understand the risk and headaches a renter gets to avoid that all falls on the owner?
Mike Jackson retweeted
This is a 2 minute video about taxing the wealthy.
There is no mention of programs it will fund. Or why the tax dollars are needed. Or what the money would be used for. Or how those less fortunate could be supported to themselves become wealthy.
The benefits are no longer the point.
The implicit message is about punishment. Punishing those doing well is now good politics.
Sign of the times โ
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth.ย Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.ย
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code were written for a different set of Americans.ย
Itโs time for an economic reset.
substack.com/@gavinnewsom
Mike Jackson retweeted
Iโm not a big election fraud guy - but the 24,000 ballot drop showing Spencer Pratt didnโt receive a single vote, is just not realistically possible. Irreducible error rate is even more prevalent when functional literacy of LA is 50%.
Mike Jackson retweeted
Okโฆ most of you know I was in the organic baby formula business, but what you donโt know is I dabbled in diapers as well.
I also know this baby2baby โnon profitโ and have had past interactions with them.. Iโll leave that out for now..
Letโs dive into this absolute grifting nonsense. Prepare to be shocked.
California is about to spend $20 million of taxpayer money to give 100,000 newborns 400 diapers each through Baby2Baby.
Do the math with me:
100,000 babies ร 400 diapers = 40 million diapers
$20,000,000 รท 40,000,000 = $0.50 per diaper!!!!!
Now walk into any Costco in California and you can buy the same quality diapers for .12 to .15 cents each!
Thatโs $48 to $60 for 400 diapers.
So the state is paying 8โ10x more per diaper than a regular family buying in bulk.
They couldโve just handed every low-income new mom $100 cash and told her to go to Costco. Sheโd get more diapers, better ones if she wanted, and still have money left for formula, wipes, or whatever the hell she actually needs.
But nahโฆ that wouldnโt let Gavin and his connected โnonprofitโ girls running the show there cut ribbons, take photos, do galas and be friends with celebrities and brag about the โfirst-in-the-nationโ program while skimming their cut for โadministrationโ and โpartnerships.โ
This is peak government stupidity!!!
Spend way more money to feel good and look good, instead of just trusting parents with their own damn money.
Weโre not helping babies. Weโre funding another bloated nonprofit-government grift.
Math doesnโt lie. The diaper math is brutal.
What a scam and a joke!!!!!
Mike Jackson retweeted
Iโm told the California Attorney Generalโs wife has introduced legislation that is being interpreted as making exposing fraud a crime.
What I would propose is legislation eliminating all California income taxes until fraud is greatly reduced.
Why this defense of fraud?
Mike Jackson retweeted
Setting aside whether her childhood accident was an unconscious act for the moment, her astonishing theory that most of the rapists, murderers, and child molesters in prison acted โaccidentallyโ is mind-boggling. More importantly it is a powerful lesson about the liberal mind. We can now be assured that this opportunistic little piece of work, like so many of her ilk, will invariably weep for the criminal, but consider his victims, if she indeed considers them at all, as collateral damage. One thing is clear: sheโs an even more dreadful monster than her vile, dangerous, deranged husband.
Mike Jackson retweeted
๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐: ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Gavin Newsom wants to run for President. Before a single ballot is cast, every American deserves to see what he did to the largest state in the union.
I did a little research and coalesced everything into this post from public resources.
๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฑ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ:
๐๐๐,๐๐๐ net population loss in 2024โ25 alone (U.S. Census Bureau). Over ๐.๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง residents fled since 2020 (CA Dept. of Finance). The largest outbound migration of any state in America. People aren't leaving paradise โ they're escaping a dumpster fire with a coastline.
๐๐ก๐ $๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ:
California spent $๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ on homelessness over five years. That's roughly $๐๐๐,๐๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ ๐ก๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐จ๐ง. The result? Homelessness ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ by 30,000 people โ from 151,000 to over 181,000. That's a ๐๐% ๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐ since 2013 (HUD).
It gets worse. The California State Auditor found the agency responsible for tracking outcomes โ the Interagency Council on Homelessness โ ๐ก๐๐๐ง'๐ญ ๐๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ณ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐๐๐. No consistent method to collect outcome data. Didn't verify accuracy of data from municipalities. The state database was riddled with deleted records and test entries. They burned through $24 billion and ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ง'๐ญ ๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ง๐ญ.
And in San Jose and San Diego, over ๐๐% of homeless placements were into temporary housing โ not permanent. ๐๐% of those people ended up back on the street. A $24 billion revolving door.
๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐ฒ๐๐ซ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐:
$๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ for a high-speed rail that was originally budgeted at $33B and has moved ๐ณ๐๐ซ๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐ฌ (CA HSR Authority). A $๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ budget deficit in 2024โ25 (LAO). That's not governance. That's arson with a spreadsheet.
๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐ฑ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ:
Chevron, SpaceX, Tesla, Oracle, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Charles Schwab โ all relocated their headquarters to Texas. Over ๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฌ fled California between 2018 and 2024 (Hoover Institution). These aren't strip malls. These are the engines of the American economy voting with their feet.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฑ-๐๐ง๐-๐๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ฅ:
California charges the highest income tax in America โ ๐๐.๐% โ and gets half its income tax revenue from the top 1% of earners. So what happens when you squeeze the golden goose? It leaves.
In 2022, Newsom saw a one-time post-COVID revenue spike โ fueled by federal relief money, not real growth โ and declared a ๐๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ "$๐๐.๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ" that never appeared in any actual budget document (CalMatters). He went on a spending spree. Two years later, the state quietly admitted to a $๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ revenue forecasting error over four years (LAO). Personal income tax collections crashed ๐๐% in a single year. The "Big Three" revenue sources dropped ๐๐% (LAO).
And it's getting worse. An estimated $๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง in billionaire wealth has left the state. Six billionaires alone โ including @elonmusk and Larry Ellison โ took roughly ๐๐% of California's aggregate billionaire wealth with them. Every dollar of capital gains they generate for the rest of their lives will now be taxed at 0% in Texas instead of 13.3% in Sacramento.
Sacramento's response? Propose a new wealth tax โ which is accelerating the exodus even faster. The LAO projects deficits of $๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง/๐ฒ๐๐๐ซ for the remainder of Newsom's term. They are taxing themselves into bankruptcy.
๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ :
Electricity costs ๐๐% ๐๐๐จ๐ฏ๐ the national average (EIA). Gas at $๐.๐๐/๐ ๐๐ฅ vs. $3.20 nationally (AAA). Californians pay more for the privilege of watching their state crumble.
๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐ & ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐:
Prop 47 reclassified theft under $950 as a misdemeanor โ retail theft surged so badly that Walgreens and Whole Foods shuttered locations in San Francisco. ๐๐๐,๐๐๐+ homeless residents โ the largest unsheltered population in the United States (HUD).
This is Gavin Newsom's California. The population is fleeing. The businesses are gone. The billionaires took a trillion dollars with them. The budget is a crater built on a $165 billion fantasy. They spent $132,000 per homeless person and ended up with 30,000 ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ of them. The trains don't exist. The lights barely stay on. And the shoplifters have more legal protection than the store owners.
This isn't a resume. It's a rap sheet.
And this is what Gavin Newsom is running on. This is all he has to offer. He can't point to a single crisis he inherited โ he ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ them. Population loss, revenue collapse, a homeless crisis that got worse the more money he threw at it, a business exodus with no end in sight, and a budget held together with accounting gimmicks and borrowed time.
The question every voter should ask: is this the model you want copied to all 50 states? Because that's the only thing he's selling.
๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ง'๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฑ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐จ๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐. ๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐จ๐ซ๐ง๐ข๐'๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ.
And no, the other 49 states don't want him either.
Mike Jackson retweeted
Something I've been mulling, inspired by @EjmEj: Tax competitiveness is less about outmigration โ though it certainly matters! โ than about the dynamics of wealth formation.
Consider how new technologies improve productivity. Yes, existing firms adopt new technologies and make incremental gains over time. The biggest gains, however, come when new firms adopt new business models around the new technology. We saw this with electrification and the internet, weโve seen this in the advent of remote-first firms, and weโre tentatively starting to see it in the domain of AI.
One can think about location decisions along similar lines, and this is something policymakers in New York City and other high-tax urban jurisdictions need to understand.
There is no question that middle-aged people with mortgages, established professional networks, etc., are sticky. (This is me, plus I don't drive, I hate humidity and change, and I love public transit and museums more than life itself.) They make location decisions in response to big shocks, positive or negative, macro and micro. For example, Covid and the sudden shift in norms around remote work represented a macro shock that made relocating a more attractive option. On the more personal, prosaic side, well-off people often relocate as they plan for retirement or a realization event, or to be closer to children or grandchildren.
Viewed through this lens, you donโt want to limit your analysis to, say, the absolute number of high-income households in a given jurisdiction. (โNYC has more millionaires today than we did a decade ago!โ) Rather, you want to look to where the hockey puck is going.
Iโd pay close attention to a cityโs share of high-income households. Why? Because agglomeration matters, and if other cities are gaining market share while youโre losing it, that is going to shape location decisions for ambitious professionals going forward.
This is why I was so spooked by @EjmEj's excellent new report on the limits of New Yorkโs โTax the Richโ policy. Consider the shift in "market share" for wealth:
Since 2010, the Empire Stateโs share of all U.S. millionaire earners has dropped from 12.7% to 8.7%. Yikes.
You might also look to the aggregate capital gains of high-income households. Why? If you set an arbitrary threshold, e.g., households earning over $1M, you lose the distinction between households that are realizing massive capital gains and double-earner, salaried professional households that simply wonโt represent the same revenue bonanza.
Lo and behold: In 2010, NY held 14% of the nationโs total capital gains realizations for millionaires, while Florida held 8%. By 2022, they essentially swapped places: Florida rose to 16.7% while New York plummeted to 8.9%.
The data shows that the "apex" of the pyramidโwhere income is most mobileโis shrinking fastest:
This trend is particularly stark: Between 2015 and 2022, NYโs count of filers earning above $10M decreased by 31% relative to the national total.
Moreover, for those earning $10M+, capital gains and nonwage sources constitute 83% of their income. Unlike wages, this wealth is highly portable and follows the taxpayerโs residence, not their office.
We are left with a revenue base that is incredibly fragile. Just 3,172 households now account for $10 billion in state income tax. On average, every 32 filers in that top bracket represent $100 million in revenue. If just 320 of those families decide the "Tax the Rich" climate is no longer worth it, it blows a $1 billion hole in the budget.
The real danger, though, isn't just who is leaving today; itโs who is deciding not to arrive tomorrow. Ambitious professionals and "remote-first" founders look at where talent is clustering, and if they see a jurisdiction losing its share of the national wealth base, they might conclude the environment is too hostile, unwelcoming, etc. They won't wait for the next tax hike to blow a hole in their own future; they will simply build the next great firms, and the revenue base that comes with them, wherever the puck is actually going.
manhattan.institute/article/โฆ
Mike Jackson retweeted
Bay Area BART lost 55% of its riders since FY2019. It responded by hiring more people. Now it wants a billion-dollar sales tax from five counties to cover a $376 million deficit.
Pre-pandemic: ๐ฐ,๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ญ๐ญ๐ด ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. FY2025: ๐ฐ,๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฝ๐น๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฑ๐ฏ ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐. That's 15% more staff serving half the customers. Per-employee comp is up 32%, from $140K to $171K.
Any private company that lost half its customers and then grew headcount would be bankrupt. BART just asks for a tax increase.
Here's some shocking examples of waste:
- $๐ด๐ฌ๐ /๐๐ฒ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ. 57 employees doubled their salaries through OT.
- $๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐๐ค at $1,000/sq ft.
- ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฒ๐ณ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ฟ: $318K.
- ๐๐ถ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด: $258K. Who are they marketing to?
- ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฌ% ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐๐๐, down from 71% pre-pandemic.
The Connect Bay Area measure hits the November 2026 ballot asking for $980 million a year in new sales taxes. Bay Area residents already pay among the highest state and local taxes in the country.
Can anyone explain why we should pay more taxes to fund an organization that lost half its customers?
ALT BART Lost Half Its Riders, Then Hired More People
Mike Jackson retweeted
๐จ A brutal op/ed from the WSJ Editorial Board exposes the pure energy absurdity unfolding in California under @GavinNewsom. "Newsom's Climate Policy Backfires" is a must-read.
Here are the key points of Newsom's energy catastrophe:
โข California has already lost roughly 25% of its refinery capacity since Newsom became governor in 2019
โข Refineries are shuttering left and right thanks to his relentless regulatory assault
โข Result? The state is now importing more foreign #oil to keep the lights on and cars moving
โข All while delivering higher energy costs for families, fewer jobs, and โ wait for it โ more #CO2 #emissions from all those tanker ships
This is peak California: Demonize domestic #refining, drive out producers (including U.K. oil interests fed up with the madness), then wonder why gasoline prices are insane and supply is shaky.
Newsom's "climate leadership" isn't saving the planet โ it's just exporting emissions and importing pain for working Californians.
What a clown show.
Classic #EnergyAbsurdity on full display. Read the whole thing: wsj.com/opinion/gavin-newsomโฆ
