California
Bernie Sanders rails against billionaire ‘greed’ amid California tax battle
Billionaires are “treading on very, very thin ice,” Bernie Sanders warned on Wednesday during a fiery speech in Los Angeles, imploring California voters to fight “grotesque” levels of economic inequality by approving a proposed tax on the state’s richest residents.
The Vermont senator railed against the “greed”, “arrogance” and “moral turpitude” of the nation’s “ruling class”, calling it “fairly disgusting” that some ultra-wealthy tech leaders have fled California – or are threatening to do so, if the proposed wealth tax becomes law.
“Never before have so few people had so much wealth and so much power,” Sanders thundered on stage at the Wiltern theater, where a raucous crowd of longtime supporters shouted “shame”.
Though the 84-year-old two-time presidential candidate has railed against the billionaire class for decades, his remarks on Wednesday were an exceptionally scathing – and at times personal – indictment of the top 1%. Comparing America’s highest earners to the oligarchs and monarchs of past centuries, he said the US billionaire elite “no longer sees itself as a part of American society”.
“These guys literally believe that they have the divine right to rule and are no longer subject to democratic governance,” Sanders told a rapt audience.
Sanders framed the wealth tax on billionaires in California, led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), as a referendum on American “oligarchy” itself.
“These billionaires are going to learn that we are still living in a democratic society where the people have some power,” Sanders said.
Under the proposal, which has rattled wealthy Californians and split Democrats, residents worth more than $1bn would have to pay a one-time 5% tax on their assets to offset looming federal cuts to health care and support public education and state food assistance programs. California is home to more billionaires than any other state, and analysts say the tax would apply to about 200 residents.
Taking the stage before Sanders, Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff at SEIU-UHW, said the proposal would ensure billionaires “pay their fair share”.
“If we don’t act, our friends and our family will have to drive twice as far – will have to wait twice as long – for the life-saving care that they’re going to need,” she said. “And for what? So that billionaires can own another yacht?”
Outside the event, organizers collected signatures to put the California Billionaire Tax Act on the ballot in November. The union must gather nearly 875,000 valid signatures to qualify. If they are successful, it would still need to win approval from a majority of California voters.
Even in deep-blue California, the politics are complicated. Opponents, including the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, argue the tax would erode the state’s long-term tax base and put California – which boasts the world’s fourth largest economy – at a competitive disadvantage against other US states.
The tax proposal is already facing deep-pocketed opposition from business leaders and tech titans. Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires are bankrolling a new political group that is backing a series of competing ballot initiatives that would nullify the union-backed proposal. Brin, one of the world’s wealthiest people, is among the recent Silicon Valley magnates to cut ties with the state where he made his fortune.
The proposal’s retroactive structure – taxing wealth accumulated in 2025 – is designed to deter billionaires from fleeing the state before it takes effect, its authors have said, while proponents and critics alike anticipate legal challenges if the tax is adopted.
A nonpartisan analysis from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the one-time billionaire tax would “probably” generate tens of billions of dollars for the state. But it cautioned that there was a significant degree of uncertainty if, for example, wealthy Californians departed the state, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars of losses in state income tax revenues annually. It also notes the complexity and cost of implementation, as valuing complex, non-cash assets such as art, private business, and intellectual property is tricky and time-consuming.
A January poll found that 48% of likely voters support the initiative, while 38% are opposed and 14% remain undecided, underscoring both its appeal and its political risk.
At the Wiltern on Wednesday evening, attendees posed in front of signs that read “Billionaire Tax Now” while the crowd chanted “Tax the billionaires”.
Among the crowd was Morgan, a 29-year-old progressive and longtime supporter of Sanders who declined to give her last name. She hopes his influence can counter the well-financed opposition to the wealth tax. “Their money can do a lot more and go a lot further than ours,” she said of the state’s richest residents.
Chelsea Gods, a content creator and political activist, drove two-and-a-half hours from San Diego to attend the event. “Americans are poor. We are strapped for cash. We are struggling and we are tired,” she said. “People First-policies are the only way to win a political future for people on the left.”
California is familiar terrain for Sanders, who won the state on Super Tuesday during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.
In his remarks, the populist senator said he didn’t know whether the uber-rich would follow through on their threats to leave California, noting that wealthy New Yorkers had also warned they would flee if democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, was elected mayor of the city. They do not appear to have done so.
Sanders also named names and listed assets, drawing boos and jeers as he listed Larry Ellison’s jets and Mark Zuckerberg’s yachts and his Palo Alto compound.
“For these people enough is never enough,” he said. “They are dedicated to accumulating more and more wealth and power and they do that no matter what harm they bring to working families.”
Sanders said Minnesotans opposed to Trump’s federal immigration crackdown showed Americans how to resist authoritarianism. Approving a wealth tax on billionaires, he said, would send a “clear and profound message” that “enough is enough”.
“The billionaire class cannot have it all. This nation belongs to all of us,” Sanders said, before concluding his remarks: “Now the ball is in California’s court.”
California
California’s Rainy Day Fund and Other Budget Reserves Overview
key takeaway
California’s state budget reserves, including the “rainy day fund” and other reserve accounts, serve as a financial safety net for services like education, health care, and child care during economic downturns. The rules for depositing and withdrawing funds are complex, and policymakers should consider reforms, such as excluding reserve deposits from the Gann Limit spending cap, to strengthen the state budget’s resilience during a recession.
Introduction
California has several state budget reserves. These reserves help to maintain essential public services — like education, health care, and child care — when revenues fall short, such as during recessions. Reserves aren’t for everyday spending, but rather a financial safety net for the state.
This report describes California’s state budget reserves, explains how funds can be accessed and used, and discusses proposals to reshape these reserves that have been floated in recent years. For more information about California’s reserve accounts, see the Budget Center’s companion resources, including this video — California’s State Budget Reserves Explained — and this fact sheet — 5 Key Questions About California’s State Budget Reserves.
state budget Reserves in a nutshell
- The Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or “rainy day fund,” holds revenues to support any program funded through the state budget.
- The Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA), or schools reserve, periodically holds revenues to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
- The Safety Net Reserve periodically holds revenues intended to support the CalWORKs and Medi-Cal programs.
- The Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU) holds revenues to cover unexpected state budget costs during a fiscal year.
- The Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account can be used to temporarily set aside some anticipated surplus revenues and avoid spending funds that may not materialize.
Budget Stabilization Account (BSA): California’s Largest Reserve
The BSA is California’s largest state budget reserve. Deposits into and withdrawals from this “rainy day fund” are based on complex rules that were added to the state Constitution by Proposition 2 of 2014. Key rules include the following:
An annual deposit is required. Prop. 2 requires that 1.5% of General Fund revenues be set aside every year. Until 2029-30 half of these revenues must be deposited into the BSA and the other half must be used to pay down certain state debts. Beginning in 2030-31, the entire amount must be deposited into the BSA, although state leaders will have the option of redirecting up to one-half of each year’s deposit to pay down debts.
In some years, the state must set aside additional General Fund revenues. This occurs in years when estimated General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains exceed 8% of total General Fund proceeds of taxes. The share of these “excess” capital gains revenues that is not owed to K-12 schools and community colleges under the state’s Prop. 98 funding guarantee must be used for BSA deposits and debt repayments, following the same requirements as the mandatory 1.5% deposit. Since Prop. 2 was enacted, capital gains tax revenues have exceeded the 8% threshold in most years, but could fall below the threshold in years when there are downturns in the stock market.
State leaders may also make discretionary deposits. In addition to the mandatory annual deposits required by Prop. 2, policymakers have the option of saving additional, discretionary revenue in the BSA.
The required annual deposit may be reduced or suspended in the event of a “budget emergency. If the governor declares a budget emergency, the state may reduce or suspend the required BSA deposit with a majority vote of each house of the Legislature. Prop. 2 defines a budget emergency as a situation where:
- Conditions of disaster or extreme peril are present; or
- The state has insufficient resources to maintain General Fund expenditures at the highest level of spending in the three most recent fiscal years, adjusted for state population growth and the change in the cost of living.
BSA funds may be withdrawn in the event of a budget emergency, but the entire balance cannot be removed at once. If the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house, funds may be taken out of the BSA. However, the entire balance cannot be removed immediately. Only the amount needed to address the budget emergency may be withdrawn, subject to the additional limitation that a withdrawal may not exceed 50% of the BSA balance in the first year of a budget emergency. In the second consecutive year of a budget emergency, all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be withdrawn.
Funds that are taken out of the BSA may go toward any purpose determined by the Legislature. For example, these dollars could be used for health care services, subsidized child care for working families, cash assistance for people with low incomes, K-12 schools, and any number of other public services and systems.
Funds in the BSA cannot exceed 10% of General Fund tax revenues. Prop. 2 caps the balance of the BSA. Once the balance — excluding any discretionary deposits — reaches 10% of General Fund tax revenues, any revenue that would otherwise have been required to go into the reserve must be instead spent on infrastructure, which includes housing. Prior to 2026, the BSA balance reached the cap twice — in 2022-23 and 2023-24 — but then dropped below the cap as state leaders withdrew funds in some years to address budget shortfalls.
Prop. 2 of 2014 also established the PSSSA, the state’s budget reserve for California’s K-12 schools and community colleges. Prop. 2 does not require an annual deposit into this reserve. Moreover, Prop. 2 restricts the circumstances under which transfers to the PSSSA can occur. For a PSSSA deposit to be required, all of the following conditions must be met:
- General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains are relatively strong;
- Growth in General Fund revenues leads to relatively strong growth in the state’s annual minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges; and
- The Legislature does not suspend the annual K-14 education minimum funding guarantee.
Even under these restricted circumstances, Prop. 2 limits the size of the deposit to the schools reserve when such a deposit is required.
Deposits to the PSSSA may be reduced or suspended in the event of a budget emergency under the same rules that govern reductions or suspensions of deposits to the BSA (see the prior section of this report). Similarly, funds may be withdrawn from the schools reserve if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house.
In contrast to the rules governing the withdrawal of funds from the BSA, all of the PSSSA funds may be withdrawn in one year. Moreover, funds withdrawn from the PSSSA must be used to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
Safety Net Reserve: Funds to Protect the Medi-Cal and CalWORKs Programs
The Safety Net Reserve was created in 2018 to set aside funds to help cover the costs of two programs that often see increases in enrollment during recessions: Medi-Cal and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs). Both of these programs serve Californians with low incomes — with Medi-Cal delivering health coverage, and CalWORKs providing modest cash assistance to families with children. During economic downturns, more people become unemployed and temporarily rely on these programs to cover their basic needs, increasing state costs.
The Safety Net Reserve is not a constitutional reserve, so there are no binding requirements governing deposits or withdrawals. This means that funds can be transferred into and withdrawn from the reserve at the discretion of the Legislature. In fact, state policymakers voluntarily deposited $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve before draining all of those funds in 2024 to help address a $55 billion state budget problem.
Moreover, while state law specifies that the funds are to be used only for Medi-Cal and CalWORKs costs during economic downturns, state policymakers could decide to modify this language and use the funds for other purposes. However, in establishing this reserve, policymakers clearly recognized the need to protect critical services for Californians with low incomes from budget cuts — cuts that would undermine Medi-Cal and CalWORKs at the very time that these programs are needed most.
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU): The Discretionary Reserve
The SFEU is the state’s discretionary General Fund budget reserve, meaning policymakers have a great deal of latitude in spending the funds in the reserve. The amount of money in the SFEU is equal to the difference between General Fund resources and General Fund spending in a given fiscal year.
The SFEU acts as a buffer against unanticipated revenue shortfalls or spending increases. Due to California’s constitutional balanced-budget requirement, which requires the state to enact a budget in which spending does not exceed available resources, the projected SFEU balance cannot be less than zero at the time the annual budget is adopted. However, if state revenues come in lower than projected and/or spending unexpectedly rises, the SFEU balance will decline, and may become negative as spending begins to exceed revenues.
The Legislature can appropriate funds from the SFEU at any time and for any purpose. Additionally, in the event of a disaster, the governor can allocate funds from the SFEU without the prior approval of the Legislature. Specifically, when the governor declares a state of emergency, the Department of Finance (DOF) can transfer funds from the SFEU into a subaccount called the Disaster Response-Emergency Operations Account (DREOA). These funds are allocated to state agencies for costs that are “immediate and necessary to deal with an ongoing or emerging crisis.”
Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account: A Place to Set Aside Anticipated Surplus Revenues
State leaders created the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account in 2024. This account gives policymakers a place to temporarily set aside anticipated surplus revenues, “ensuring that funds are only spent once they are realized.”
State leaders have broad authority to determine whether or how to use this holding account. The only requirement is that revenues that go into the account cannot remain there for longer than one year. If state revenues materialize as projected, the revenues in the account may be spent for any purpose or transferred back to the General Fund for future use.
This holding account is a “pilot budgeting project” that expires at the end of 2030, although state leaders could approve an extension as well as potentially modify the rules.
What’s Next for California’s State Budget Reserves?
The rules that govern California’s budget reserves can be amended by voters or state policymakers. Changing the reserve rules established by Prop. 2 (2014) would require voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Other reserve rules can be changed by state policymakers without the need for voter approval.
In recent years, state policymakers and others have advanced proposals to revise California’s reserve policies, although none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Common proposals for changing state reserve policies include the following:
Proposals to increase the share of state General Fund revenue deposited into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or rainy day fund.
Proposals to allow the balance of the BSA to grow beyond 10% of annual state General Fund revenue.
Proposals to exclude reserve deposits from California’s spending cap, or “Gann Limit.”
Changes to the rainy day fund or the Gann Limit would require amending the state Constitution. This means that voters would have the last word on the most significant proposals to modify California’s state budget reserves.
California
As e-bike popularity surges in Northern California, safety concerns grow
An e-bike boom is sweeping across Northern California, with more young riders taking to the streets than ever before.
Inside California Ebikes in Fair Oaks, owner Erica Frith says business has taken off.
What started as a small operation out of a local gym in 2020 quickly grew into a storefront by 2022, and demand hasn’t slowed.
“We’re getting about 100 out the door a month,” Frith said.
But for her, it’s not just about sales, it’s about the experience.
“There’s only a few things in life that create a childlike smile and happiness, and bike riding is one of them,” she said.
With more bikes on the road, service demand is also climbing. Shop service manager Jesse Cristo says keeping up means relying on years of hands-on experience.
“You have an e-bike industry that’s fledgling, but it’s a five billion dollar a year industry,” Cristo said.
At a recent safety panel in El Dorado Hills, residents and leaders came together to address concerns about young riders on the road.
“The safety around this area has been really scary,” said resident Liz Kmiec. “I have witnessed multiple scenes where these kids do not recognize the danger they’ve put themselves in.”
For law enforcement, the focus is on education, especially for parents.
“Education is huge,” said CHP Officer Andrew Brown. “We’ve been getting out to schools, community events, and sharing information to make sure parents know what they’re buying their kids.”
As the e-bike boom continues to grow, leaders say the challenge will be making sure safety keeps up.
California
6 California men plead guilty to violence against CHP officers during Los Angeles immigration protests
Six men have pleaded guilty in federal court for acts of violence against California Highway Patrol officers. They were accused of throwing rocks, fireworks and other debris during an anti-immigration enforcement protest last year.
Prosecutors said that on the evening of June 8, 2025, a group of protestors downtown Los Angeles at the Main Street overpass of the 101 Freeway targeted law enforcement officers, essentially trapping them under the freeway overpass while throwing burning objects at them.
Three men pleaded guilty on Wednesday, while three others entered their guilty pleas earlier in the week.
Adam Charles Palermo, 40, of Rampart Village; Ismael Vega, 41, of Westlake; and Yachua Mauricio Flores, 23, of Lincoln Heights were part of a group of protestors who lit cardboard and vegetation on fire, as well as fireworks, and dropped them from the freeway overpass, targeting a CHP vehicle, according to prosecutors. The vehicle caught fire. Flores also poured a liquid on the flames, igniting them further.
Palermo pleaded guilty to one felony count of assaulting, resisting, and impeding persons assisting federal officers and employees with a deadly or dangerous weapon. He faces a statutory maximum of 20 years in federal prison.
Vega and Flores each pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. Both face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Balton Montion, 25, LA County resident at the time, Ronald Alexis Coreas, 23, of Westlake and Junior Roldan, 27, of Hollywood, threw rocks at law enforcement officers who attempted to clear the freeway overpass.
Coreas and Roldan each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer. Each faces a statutory maximum of one year in federal prison.
Montion pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. He faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Palermo has been in federal custody since August 2025. The other defendants remain free on bond.
United States District Judge John F. Walter scheduled sentencing hearings in the coming months for these defendants
Another defendant, Jesus Gonzalez Hernandez, Jr., 22, of Las Vegas, is scheduled to plead guilty on May 4 to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer.
-
Movie Reviews19 seconds agoTouch Me – Movie Review | Dark Comedy Alien Body Horror | Heaven of Horror
-
World12 minutes agoLithuania Says It Broke Up Russian Sabotage and Murder Plots
-
News18 minutes agoSchumer and Platner Talk After Mills Suspends Her Campaign
-
Politics24 minutes agoTakeaways From Hegseth’s Second Day of Testimony on the Iran War
-
Business30 minutes agoBehind Powell’s High-Stakes Decision to Stay at the Fed
-
Science36 minutes agoChonkers the ‘Food-Motivated’ Sea Lion Plops Into San Francisco
-
Health42 minutes agoAre Electrolytes for Weight Loss Smart Hydration or an Overhyped Trend?
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoA Wedding That Included a Mister and ‘The Miz’