By John Q. Hosedrinker 
California Governor Gavin Newsom, considered a potential Democratic presidential candidate, expressed his desire for a “big tent” party but opposes a wealth tax, despite its popularity among Democrats. This opposition comes in response to a proposed “emergency billionaires tax” in California, aimed at restoring Medicaid funding, and is championed by unions and healthcare groups. Newsom’s stance puts him at odds with the majority of Americans and Democrats who support such measures, as evidenced by various national polls. Critics are puzzled by his approach, arguing that his opposition to the wealth tax doesn’t align with the values of the party.
Read the original article here
Gavin Newsom’s stated desire for a “big tent party” is clashing with his opposition to a wealth tax, a policy supported by a significant majority of Americans. This apparent contradiction raises questions about the true nature of his political ambitions and the direction he wants to steer the Democratic party. It highlights a common critique: that the “big tent” often caters to the interests of the wealthy donors who underpin the party, potentially at the expense of addressing the economic concerns of everyday voters. This situation creates a perception of tone deafness, particularly when dealing with issues of wealth disparity.
The argument against Newsom is not necessarily that he is against any form of wealth redistribution, but rather that he has dismissed a one-time wealth tax as a simplistic solution that doesn’t effectively address the root causes of wealth inequality. This perspective suggests that such a tax is more of a symbolic gesture than a substantive fix, particularly when considering the tax avoidance strategies employed by billionaires. Critics of a one-time wealth tax suggest it could potentially be counterproductive, leading to an environment of financial uncertainty and the potential for repeated tax proposals. Instead, the focus should be on fixing tax loopholes like “buy, borrow, die”, establishing sustainable corporate and personal tax rates, and applying the Social Security tax to all income. This, in turn, may result in ensuring the wealthiest pay reasonable rates.
The core of the issue for many voters is the perception of a broken system, exacerbated by what is described as billionaire corruption, affordability crises, and runaway wealth inequality. This is where Newsom’s stance becomes problematic, as he appears hesitant to confront the root causes of these problems. Critics suggest that simply being “good at the media game” isn’t enough; addressing the underlying issues of wealth inequality and the actions of the ultra-rich is crucial. The current economic situation – with rising healthcare costs, housing speculation, and increasing prices – is impacting people’s lives in very real ways. This is where many believe that the focus should be on higher taxes on the ultra-rich and the closing of the existing loopholes.
The narrative also critiques the Democratic Party’s tendency to embrace a “big tent” philosophy that lacks a clear, unifying ideology. This perceived lack of direction leaves the party vulnerable to attacks and branding from opposing political forces. For Newsom, the argument is that his vision of a “big tent” seems to prioritize attracting centrists without offering significant policy changes to satisfy the left-leaning voters. The sentiment is that they want the left to vote for them without offering any significant policy changes that appeal to the left. The problem isn’t with the wealth tax itself, but rather the failure to address the core problems in a meaningful way.
Newsom’s rejection of a wealth tax is seen as a sign that he may not fully understand the priorities of the modern Democratic voter base. He’s viewed as part of the establishment, and corporate funded, and serving the neoliberal elite. The focus should shift toward more progressive policies. This includes addressing issues such as stock options being used as untaxed income, the use of company jets, and stocks being used as collateral. The debate also encompasses the need for a higher tax rate on the upper income brackets while at the same time closing the loopholes. His potential candidacy for 2028 is now being questioned.
The crux of the matter revolves around the idea that Newsom might not be the right person to lead the party in the future. The voters are looking for someone who is willing to fight for them, who will act decisively to take back the wealth that has been hoarded. The fear is that Newsom’s approach, which is perceived to be more moderate, will not bring real change or lead to success in the next election. If Newsom won’t be that candidate, then perhaps another who is more left-leaning may step up to run. The criticism implies that his focus on appealing to centrist voters, without making substantial changes, is a losing strategy. The argument is that this approach is the same as the past, and it’s what has led to the current problems.