BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) California voters will face a high-profile “billionaire tax” measure on the November ballot, a proposal supporters say would raise new revenue, but critics warn could push some of the state’s wealthiest residents to leave.

If passed, the measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

Tal Eslick, owner of Vista Consulting, said, “I think there is this effort, especially on the part of progressive state leaders, to somehow, you know, go after billionaires or maybe even the trillionaires that may exist in the future.”

Political analysts say a proposal like this could encourage some of California’s wealthiest residents to relocate, potentially taking investment and business activity with them.

Eslick said, “And for that matter, they can come back occasionally to visit and do a little bit of business, but live in a state that is a little more accommodating for them from a tax standpoint.”

Questions have also been raised about what the impact could be for Kern County if billionaires leave the state.

Sherod Waite, CEO of Moneywise Guys, said, “It’s questionable how much revenue would actually be generated from the tax and how much revenue would be lost from those people exiting the state. It’s questionable. It’s a gamble.”

Waite said billionaires leaving could reduce state revenue that could be used in Kern County.

Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)

“Think of all the support services that the state offers to the entire state, including us here in Kern County, that are paid for by tax dollars,” he said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has been outspokenly against a state wealth tax and is instead proposing a national tax policy that would tax anyone with a net worth of $100 million.

Newsom said, “It’s time for a national billionaire’s tax and a new social contract. Just think of this, just ten percent of people own 2/3’s of the nation’s wealth.”

Eslick said Newsom’s position can be difficult to square.

“It’s a naturally confusing sort of position to be opposed to the tax in California but be supportive of it at a national level. But I think that’s him walking a treacherous political road,” he said.

Billionaire tax measure heads to California’s November ballot, with Kern County watching (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

In a statement regarding the measure, Assemblyman Stan Ellis said in part, “This would hurt Kern’s energy, Agriculture, manufacturing, and working families through lost investment, fewer jobs and unstable state funding.”

WASHINGTON (TNND) — Residents in a neighborhood in Southern California said that their homeowners association has threatened to fine them if they don’t take down the American flags displayed outside their homes.

Amy and Chris Cooke and their neighbor Terri Collins live in San Marcos, which is located in San Diego County.

They said that they could potentially face a $100 fine if they keep the flags displayed outside their homes, according to the Daily Wire.

“I’m not taking my flag down,” Collins said. “They can fine me, $100, $200, $1,000, I’m not paying it.”

Collins said that the neighborhood is very patriotic because it is located close to the former Miramar Navy Air Station.

She said that “all the Top Gun pilots lived here.”

The neighbors said that ever since President Donald Trump won the 2024 election, the HOA has enforced the rule about flags.

“Once the members allow use of a common property by an owner to express what is essentially a political or affiliative view in a flag, other owners will want to do the same and the common area will degrade,” a letter from the HOA reads.

Homeowners were told that flags displayed in “exclusive use” areas like backyards.

An HOA attorney told the Daily Wire HOAs “count on the fact that homeowners don’t know better and might be scared.”

“I would tell these people to stand firm and under no circumstances should they remove that flag,” he told the outlet.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed his final state budget as governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that seeks to uplift the poorest Californians through a tax system reliant on the stock market gains of the wealthy.

In a video message, Newsom extolled free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, 130,000 subsidized childcare slots and other accomplishments in his tenure at the state Capitol, a period in state history marked by a dramatic expansion of state government and over $100 billion in increased spending.

“Over the past eight years, we built great things for the people of California — some of the boldest actions any government in this country has taken in a generation,” Newsom said. “And we did this without breaking the bank. We did this by design.”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Economists have warned that the revenue bump is potentially temporary and analysts say the growth in state spending could leave California in a challenging position if the economy declines.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) agreed with Democrats that the budget is “compassionate.”

“My fear is that it’s not too much of a competent budget, and the budget continues a pattern that Californians know all too well: Spend now, justify it later, and hope somebody else pays the bill,” he said during a floor debate Monday.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1.

Who decides the state budget?

The simplest answer is: Democrats. California voters have elected Democrats to represent 30 of the 40 seats in the Senate and 60 seats of the 80 seats in the Assembly. The budget was passed through a majority vote in each house of the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat.

A more complex answer is that the budget is a product of dozens of legislative hearings, millions of dollars spent on lobbying by outside interests, talks among lawmakers and the governor and ultimately subject to the same political dynamics that rule the Democratic party.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), in consultation with the chairs of the budget committees, represent their Democratic caucuses and reach a final agreement on the details of the spending plan with Newsom. In reality, staff members for the three parties handle most, if not all, of the back of forth negotiations to get there.

Union leaders seeking better pay, working conditions, benefits for workers and opportunities to expand their ranks are often brought in to consult or hammer out thorny deals as business groups try to fight off more regulations, taxes and costs, and support policies that increase their financial performance.

Democrats are spending more than ever before. How is that possible?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, recently examined the increase in state spending since 2019-20, Newsom’s first full year in office.

Between the budget approved that year and the spending proposal Newsom unveiled in January, spending from the state’s main operating fund had grown by over $100 billion, or 70%. That was largely by a 60% increase in revenue during that time. California typically operates with a spending deficit because Democrats spend more money than the state brings in.

The LAO found that the increase in spending stemmed from the growing cost of sustaining programs and services that were already in place when Newsom took office. About 30% of the remaining spending growth was categorized as new, either by newly created programs or the expansion of existing services.

Among the report’s conclusions: California could not afford the programs that predated Newsom and the ones he and the Legislature adopted.

To balance the budget over the last few years, Newsom and lawmakers have dipped into the state’s reserves at a time when California is experiencing strong revenue growth, which the LAO has cautioned against. Democrats have also increased taxes on businesses, paid for programs out of other funds and suspended reserve deposits among other solutions.

This year, the state budget places $6.4 billion in higher than expected revenue into a temporary holding account to knock down a deficit and balance the budget through 2027-28.

Democrats are pursuing a change to the state constitution on the November ballot that would allow them to set aside more money in years of good revenue growth to prevent cuts in future downturns.

Where is the money going?

Education and Medi-Cal are the two largest costs for the state.

Medi-Cal is the state’s version of subsidized health insurance for low-income Californians and provides medical, dental and vision care for an estimated 14.5 million people, or about one-third of the state population.

The federal government pays for more than half of the cost of the program. California is expected to spend about $50 billion from the general fund next year out of a total estimated at more than $220 billion in costs shared between the state and federal government, according to the LAO. State taxes and fees on providers also help fund Medi-Cal.

Overall, Medi-Cal costs more than any other state program and takes up about 40% of total spending, including federal funds the state receives, according to the LAO.

Spending on Medi-Cal has more than doubled over the last 10 years, which the LAO attributes to an increase in costs per enrollee, more enrollees and a greater share of seniors seeking care, among other factors.

Under Newsom, California has expanded Medi-Cal, including offering coverage to include all immigrants regardless of their immigration status, which the governor said has dropped the state’s uninsured rate down to 5.9%

The cost of Medi-Cal has grown beyond what Democrats expected and resulted in Newsom suggesting spending cuts.

The final budget agreement rejects a call by Newsom to lower the asset limit to $2,000 now and instead lowers it to $21,000 in 2027-28 to be eligible for Medi-Cal. The Legislature also delayed the governor’s proposal to reduce dental coverage and shift asylum seekers and other immigrants to restricted scope Medi-Cal, according to Jason Sisney, the lead budget advisor for the Assembly who posts about the budget on Substack.

The budget includes Newsom’s proposal to shift enrollees with unsatisfactory immigration status, a term that includes undocumented immigrants and others, from managed care to fee-for-service to save costs.

Under Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, California has a minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges and dedicates roughly 40% of general fund revenue to education.

Sisney said the budget increases the Local Control Funding Formula by $2.2 billion and provides historic general fund per pupil spending of $21,148. Support for special education also grew by $1.8 billion.

The California Community Schools Partnership Program received a $1-billion boost and Democrats directed $2.8 million in additional funding to the program that provides free meals for school children.

The budget also establishes 22,770 new slots for free or reduced childcare, which Newsom had proposed decreasing.