News

In its first 10 years, California’s “temporary” income tax increase enacted 13 years ago extracted $75 billion of extra payments from taxpayers. Since then, two more tax years have elapsed, implying $95 billion of total extra tax payments to date.

13 years ago voters approved a seven-year increase in the top income tax rate. Sold as an education measure, the real reason was to cover up a tripling in annual school pension costs:

Early in my tenure in the Schwarzenegger Administration I learned about a 60+ person group inside a Cabinet agency that was responsible for handing out program grants. After a review, I concluded that the group’s work could be done by 10 people.

All too often, political donors enable poor governance by not engaging in due diligence. Eg, in 2022 an entertainment industry executive spent $1.85 million to help Karen Bass defeat Rick Caruso in the contest for mayor of Los Angeles. Do you think he exercised due diligence before making that choice? That doesn’t seem likely to me.

At this moment the best way to help GFC is to encourage your friends to subscribe to our emails and follow us on X.

In November 2022, a former public employee union leader filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) alleging that GFC violated state campaign finance laws. Earlier this week, the FPPC closed the matter…

Believe it or not, California’s top income tax rate is scheduled to decrease by three percentage points after 2030 upon the expiration of a temporary tax increase, which started as a seven-year increase passed by voters in 2012 via a ballot measure entitled “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education” and was extended to 2030 by a subsequent ballot measure.

Last year, Governor Newsom and the California Legislature took nearly $5 billion from the Rainy Day Fund to cover excessive spending.

Last week we pointed out that, contrary to his claims, Governor Newsom’s proposed budget is not balanced. Today we examine his claim on page 85 to “government efficiency and cost saving measures” that produce a savings of $618 million from eliminating vacant positions.

Governor Newsom’s proposed budget includes a paragraph entitled “GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND COST SAVING MEASURES” but the measures mentioned there are a tiny fraction of the inefficiencies and costs added under Newsom.