Authored by Jonathan Miltimore via Civitas Institute,
In 1942, after fighting in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1937), a disillusioned writer returned to London to write about his experience. It wasn’t just that the fascists in Spain had won and his side—a small, anti-Stalinist Marxist group—had lost. What frightened him was the ease with which truth itself had been erased and replaced by propaganda.
“I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories ... and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.”
The writer was George Orwell, and the quote appears in his book “Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War.”
The disconnect between reality and narrative clearly made an impression on Orwell, who worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.” The theme of falsified history and the destruction of truth would resurface in his fictional masterpiece “Nineteen Eighty‑Four,” where “memory holes” swallowed inconvenient facts and the past was rewritten to suit the Party’s needs.
Orwell’s book would go on to sell 25 million copies worldwide, and he is today remembered as a prophet for foreseeing a future in which the state’s deliberate power could extinguish truth itself.
Yet few today remember that five years before the publication of “Nineteen Eighty‑Four,” an Austrian economist, in his own magnum opus, explored how the state destroys truth.
Management of MindsUnlike George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) is not a household name, but his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom” made him one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers—despite the book’s inauspicious beginning.
Originally a memo penned at the London School of Economics, “The Road to Serfdom” was rejected by three publishers before finding a home with Routledge. The first run—2,000 copies—sold out in 10 days. Hayek’s book went on to sell more than two million copies and be translated into over twenty languages. Its core argument was straightforward: central planning, however well-intentioned, erodes individual freedom and sets society on a path toward serfdom.
What is often overlooked is Hayek’s deeper insight. Economic control does not remain confined to the economy. Once the state directs production and prices, it inevitably reaches into thought, expression, and belief. For Hayek, the danger of socialism was not only material impoverishment—as seen in the USSR—but the steady expansion of intellectual control.
“... It is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends,” Hayek wrote. “It is essential that people should come to regard them as their own ends.”
Hayek was warning that once the state begins to manage prices and production, it will soon find it necessary to manage minds. When a government takes control over economic life, it must “justify its decisions to the people” and “make people believe that they are the right decisions.”
In doing so, it inevitably begins to decide which opinions and values align with its plan—rewarding and amplifying voices that comply while punishing, suppressing, and silencing those that do not.
‘The End of Truth’The quotes above appear in Chapter 11 of “Serfdom,” aptly titled “The End of Truth.”
When I first read the book twenty years ago, the chapter didn’t stand out to me. Today it does. After all, we recently lived through a period in which the phenomenon Hayek described played out before our eyes.
The COVID-19 pandemic was a vast economic experiment. The federal government issued a wide array of public health “recommendations” that soon became dogmas. To question the efficacy of masks or social distancing—a policy we learned in 2024 had no basis in science—was to risk being censored or accused of spreading “misinformation.” Scientific debate gave way to official decree, and many who questioned “the plan” or resisted it lost their jobs or were booted from platforms.
None of this would have surprised Hayek, who warned that the plans constructed by central planners must be “sacrosanct and exempt from criticism.”
“If the people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones,” he wrote. “Public criticism or even expressions of doubts must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”
Hayek’s chapter is not primarily about censorship. Instead, he argues that the rise of state power will systematically undermine the concept of truth itself and the human pursuit of it.
As governments assert control over economic and social life, facts and evidence are subordinated to political goals—an idea Orwell illustrated vividly when the Party refused to accept Winston Smith’s claim that two plus two equals four.
‘Sometimes, Winston...’The phenomenon Orwell described was not moral relativism but factual relativism. It was a theme Hayek also addressed. The Austrian economist noted that in totalitarian systems, even basic facts—including mathematics—become subservient to state dogma. He reminded readers that in the USSR and Nazi Germany, ideology had consumed even the sciences. There was “German Physics” and a “Marxist-Leninist theory in surgery.”
“It is entirely in keeping with the whole spirit of totalitarianism that it condemns any human activity done for its own sake and without ulterior purpose,” he wrote. “Science for science’s sake, art for art’s sake, are equally abhorrent to the Nazis, our socialist intellectuals, and the communists.”
Hayek observed that as the state’s power grows, the sciences become corrupted. Instead of advancing truth, they become tools in the hands of planners.
“Once science has to serve, not truth, but the interest of a class, a community, or a state,” he wrote, “the sole task of argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed.”
Hayek said the phenomenon he described was most pronounced in dictatorships, but he added that it was not “peculiar to totalitarianism.” Even in free societies, he warned, “the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape [the] influence” of state propaganda. His point was unsettling: susceptibility to propaganda is not limited to the gullible or uninformed—propaganda ensnares the thoughtful and educated as well.
The erosion of truth becomes apparent through a decay in language. Words like “freedom,” “right,” “equality,” and “justice” lose their meaning. Eventually, the word “truth” itself “ceases to have its old meaning.”
“It describes no longer something to be found,” Hayek wrote, “it becomes something to be laid down by authority—something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.” (emphasis added)
All of this sounds familiar to readers of “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” who see Winston Smith struggling to hold onto objective truth in a world where truth is dictated by power. Surely two plus two equals four, he pleads.
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five,” he is told in the Ministry of Love. “Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.”
‘The Tragedy of Collectivist Thought’Orwell was a master, and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is a masterpiece. But Hayek was describing Orwellianism several years before Orwell gave it fictional form. (It’s also worth noting that G.K. Chesterton used the “two plus two equals four” blasphemy metaphor nearly a half-century before Orwell.)
This doesn’t diminish Orwell’s work. On the contrary, it shows how powerfully he dramatized ideas that Hayek had already diagnosed in theory. (Orwell, it should be noted, read “The Road to Serfdom” and enjoyed it, with caveats.)
Still, Hayek deserves credit for superbly articulating—in one chapter!—the phenomenon that Orwell would translate into a terrifying warning, one that millions of junior high and high school students would receive in English courses.
The economist Daniel Klein recently called “The End of Truth” the most important chapter in Hayek’s most important work. I couldn’t agree more. The chapter serves as a reminder that the human mind is not something to be controlled but something to be unleashed. If we forget this simple lesson, we risk surrendering the very capacity for independent thought that sustains civilization.
“The tragedy of collectivist thought,” he noted, “is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends.”
Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:50For leading AI companies, the biggest expense is not talent. It is compute.
This chart from Visual Capitalist’s AI Week, sponsored by Terzo, uses Epoch AI data to compare spending at Anthropic, Minimax, and Z.ai across R&D compute, inference compute, and staff plus other costs.
In every case, compute accounts for the majority of total spending, underscoring how capital-intensive it has become to build and serve frontier AI models.
How AI Company Costs Break DownDespite differences in scale, all three companies allocate the largest share of their budgets to a single category: compute.
The data below compares spending composition across Anthropic, Minimax, and Z.ai. Anthropic’s figures are for 2025, while Minimax’s are from Q1 to Q3 of 2025 and Z.ai’s are for H1 2025.
Across all three AI companies, compute is the main cost center. Epoch AI estimates that R&D compute and inference compute together account for 57% to 70% of total spending, making infrastructure more expensive than staff and other costs in every case.
Among the three, Z.ai has the most R&D-heavy profile, with 58% of spending tied to compute powering model development and training.
Anthropic stands out for sheer scale. Epoch AI estimates the company spent $9.7 billion in 2025, including $6.8 billion on compute alone across training and inference.
Its costs are significantly higher than Minimax’s and Z.ai’s, even if the two Chinese AI companies’ figures were annualized to match Anthropic’s full-year period.
Both Chinese companies release many of their models as open source, meaning the model weights are freely available for anyone to download, modify, and run. This strategy helps them compete with better-funded U.S. labs by building developer adoption at a fraction of the cost.
AI Talent Costs Less Than Chips and ComputeOne of the clearest takeaways is that talent costs less than compute in this comparison. Even though top AI labs pay some of the highest salaries in tech, staff and other costs still account for less than half of total spending at each of the three firms.
While the chart focuses on costs, Epoch AI estimates these labs are currently spending around 2–3x more than they generate in revenue, even as some expect economics to improve over time.
How These Estimates Were BuiltThis dataset comes with a few important caveats. Anthropic’s figures are based on reporting from The Information and are more speculative, while Minimax and Z.ai figures come from IPO filings released in January 2026.
The time periods also differ: Anthropic data is for the full year of 2025, Minimax covers 2025 Q1–Q3, and Z.ai covers 2025 H1. Epoch AI says its expense totals include operating expenses, cost of goods and services, and non-cash items such as stock-based compensation.
If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Soaring Revenues of AI Companies on Voronoi.
Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:25Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics.com,
For years, Democratic politicians and their allies in the legacy media have spread the damnable Charlottesville Hoax: the propaganda myth that President Trump praised bigots who rioted in 2017 in the Virginia town.
Of course, the opposite is true, as Trump actually said: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
Now, we learn that the entire hoax of Trump and Charlottesville is, itself, built upon another grand lie. The media and people like Joe Biden have continually pushed the narrative that some big, organic gathering of hateful Americans descended upon Charlottesville and represented some larger threat to the republic itself. But it now turns out that the “Unite the Right” rally was organized and financed by the highly partisan, left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.
In a sweeping 11-count indictment, the Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche charge the advocacy group with criminal defrauding of donors and “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”
The charges contained in this indictment are akin to the fire department becoming an aggressive criminal arson enterprise, setting fires all across a town, and then demanding more budget and authority to fight the very infernos it set ablaze.
So…the end result is that America endured years of propaganda that convinced a large segment of the population – in contravention of the facts – that their president supported violent hate merchants. Even worse, masses of unskeptical Americans, who consume only legacy media content, believed that the entire America First populist movement was based on bigotry, rather than patriotism.
Now, nearly a decade later, the truth is revealed about the deception that lay beneath that grand lie. There was a layer of duplicity here that is almost difficult to fathom. Only true Marxists could excuse this level of propaganda. The SPLC created hate groups and activities like the Charlottesville rally, and the complicit media then weaponized these concocted offenses by spreading outright lies about Trump’s reaction to the staged events.
I myself played a role in this saga regarding Charlottesville, best explained by a timeline:
March 2019 – After more than a year serving as a contributor on CNN, I grew tired of the near-nightly lies told about Charlottesville during the primetime hits when I was on-air. I tried my best to debunk the myth, but was routinely shouted down, and even “benched” for short periods for daring to tell the truth. So…I wrote a column at RealClearPolitics with the exact Trump transcript and precise citations.
April 2019 – Joe Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign based entirely upon the Charlottesville lie, claiming that the “bulging veins” of the racists convinced him to run for the White House.
August 2019 – Dennis Prager had read my RealClearPolitics article and had me on his radio show repeatedly to discuss what we branded as the “Charlottesville Hoax.” He also asked me to narrate a five-minute video for his online platform, PragerU, debunking the hoax, which went mega-viral, with well over 10 million total views.
September 2019 – CNN removed me from the air. Rebecca Kutler, now the head of MSNOW and then the director of talent at CNN, expressly told me that the permanent “benching” was because of the Charlottesville video, even though I was clearly allowed to make such online videos, per the terms of my contract. I asked to be released so that I could do TV elsewhere, and she refused. In other words, they paid me to be silent, to stay on the sidelines.
December 2019 – I was released from CNN.
June 2024 – Supposedly objective “fact-checking” site Snopes finally admits the clear reality of the full transcripts and video evidence that Trump never praised bigots at Charlottesville.
April 2026 – The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted for millions of dollars in secret payments to racists to foment and organize racial unrest and events, including the Charlottesville event itself.
This entire sad saga matters.
First, it unveils the systemic duplicity of the left in America. Because their demand for “hate” far exceeds the actual supply, they had to pay to manufacture bigotry, so that they then could oppose it.
Second, the record reveals that lies build upon lies, while the truth remains, inherently, emancipating.
Whatever any citizen thinks of Donald Trump, the entire madness of Charlottesville represents a preventable and despicable tragedy. The actions of the SPLC were criminal and mafia-like. A young woman, Heather Heyer, lost her life because of this mayhem. More broadly, millions of Americans bought into an insidious lie and believed it for years, doing grave damage to the cohesion of our society.
Only a full accounting, now, can begin the process of healing and truth-telling.
Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:00Update (10:30pm): Just when it seemed that the market may have its first red Monday in a while - and the semiconductor bubble may actually have a down day after a ridiculous 18 day streak higher - the Trump-Axios plunge protection team struck again, and courtesy of Axios' in-house market levitator, Barak Ravid, whose specialty is creating cheerful market narratives to preserve faith that the Strait of Hormuz will open any second now, coupled with a few strategically timed flashing red headlines from Bloomberg, futures surged to a new record high, and oil pared after Axios reported that Iran offered the US a new proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
🚨President Trump is expected to hold on Monday a situation room meeting on Iran with his top national security and foreign policy team
🚨The meeting is expected to discuss the current stalemate in the negotiations with Iran and potential options for the next steps in the war https://t.co/nevd1SjWhd
According to the report, which is a rerun of news which hit about 12 hours earlier on Sunday, Axios ran earlier in the day but which no algos noticed, Iran - through Pakistani mediators - gave the Trump admin a new proposal for reaching a deal on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the ending of the war, however with nuclear negotiations postponed for a later stage, something which Trump has repeatedly said is a non-started.
According to Ravid, the new proposal is aimed at overcoming the current stalemate in the talks and bypass the internal disagreements in the Iranian leadership about the scope of nuclear concessions it is willing to give in order to get a deal with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the report is meant to eliminate the bitter taste in the market's mouth from yet another weekend where there was zero progress on either peace, of extending the ceasefire, or certainly on unblocking Hormuz. So it was time to sprinkle an anonymous US official and two anonymous "sources with knowledge" to kickstart the market meltup. As for the actual "proposal" even Axios admits it is unlikely to make any impact:
But reaching a deal on the Strait of Hormuz first and lifting the U.S. blockade would leave President Trump with no real leverage in order to get Tehran to give up on its stockpile of enriched uranium and commit to a suspension of uranium enrichment for at least a decade.
Addressing those two nuclear concerns through military action or diplomacy are a key objective for Trump in the war against Iran.
Which is precisely why nothing will happen, but at least stocks will now levitate higher instead of drifting lower.
Sure enough, Asian shares rose 1.3% while MSCI’s emerging markets index hit a record high, as easing oil prices help curb inflation and support economic growth. As sentiment improved, US equity-index futures erased earlier losses to rise 0.1%. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index erased earlier gains and fell 0.1% after the report.
“The news aligns with market expectations that Iran and the United States would eventually reach an agreement,” said Yugo Tsuboi, chief strategist at Daiwa Securities Co. “The headline came at a good time as we head into peak earnings season.” Of course, the Trump admin is well aware of that.
Separately, Axios reported, citing the usual group of "anonymous sources", that Trump is expected to hold on Monday a situation room meeting on Iran with his top national security and foreign policy team. The meeting is expected to discuss the current stalemate in the negotiations with Iran and potential options for the next steps in the war.
Trump signaled in an interview with Fox News on Sunday that he wants to continue the naval blockade, hoping that it will get Iran to cave in the next few weeks when its oil facilities could be under risk of collapsing due to the inability to export oil.
"When you have vast amounts of oil pouring through your system ... if for any reason this line is closed because you can't put it into containers or ships ... what happens is that line explodes from within ... they say they only have about three days before that happens," Trump said.
"And when it explodes you can never rebuild it the way it was...it would only be 50% of what it is right now. So I think they are under pressure."
We previously discussed the risk to Iran's infrastructure as a result of shut ins in "Tehran Timeline: Iran Has 15 Days Until Its Oil Industry Begins Full Shut-Ins."
* * *
Earlier:
Stocks futures fell and oil and the dollar jumped in early trading, as risk sentiment was dented after Trump scrapped his envoys' trip to Pakistan for Iran talks, breaking down momentum toward a second round of peace talks between the US and Iran, even as the Strait of Hormuz remains indefinitely blocked.
Futures contracts for the S&P 500 Index dropped 0.3% after the underlying index closed at a record on Friday, although with two-thirds of S&P constituents closing red: this was the second worst negative breadth all-time high for the S&P following the bizarre October record high when the S&P printed an ATH with 80% of stocks lower.
The last 2 all-time highs have been on negative breadth: Friday's record saw 324 SPX companies close lower; this was the 2nd worst negative breadth record only after Oct 28, 2025 when the S&P closed at a record with 80% of S&P companies red. pic.twitter.com/J5TBJZvvLS
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 25, 2026The dollar rose against most major peers, with risk sensitive currencies such as the South African rand among the biggest laggards. Brent crude oil rose more than 2% above $107, the highest in 20 days. US Treasury futures edged lower in early trading.
The soft start to a very busy week - the bulk of the S&P is set to report in the next few days including most Mag 7s (MSFT, AMZN, META, GOOGL, AAPL) - comes after efforts to resume US-Iran peace talks collapsed over the weekend when Trump abruptly canceled a planned trip by his top envoys and Tehran said it won’t negotiate under threat. The setback adds to concerns for global equities at or near record highs (hedge funds just sold the most tech stocks in two years) with Brent crude oil rising to a 20 day high elevated bond yields from Sydney to London driving up borrowing costs.
Investors are still encouraged by strong corporate earnings and the AI boom “while keeping the US-Iran situation on their side mirrors,” said Indosuez Wealth strategist Francis Tan. But “the market is driving at 120km/h now and may have less reaction time when it is really time to change lanes.”
There have been some signs that investor enthusiasm for the biggest beneficiaries of the month-long rally may be waning. According to Goldman and BofA’s trading desks, investors should hedge across rate sensitive areas of the market such as small caps, regional banks and gold, adding that underperformance might still shake out those holding gold as high beta risk asset.
Separately, markets will remain on edge as major central banks including the Fed and Bank of Japan deliver policy decisions beginning Tuesday (no surprises expected). While investors expect them to all leave rates unchanged, traders will be alert to signs officials are worried about the inflation threat posed by the biggest disruption to oil supply in history from the Iran war.
A fresh round of speculation that policy tightening may come in coming months would be negative for government debt, which has already underperformed other assets in recent weeks as stocks and credit markets rallied with traders looking past the war. The Bloomberg GlobalAgg Index, a measure of global investment grade debt, has slid 1.7% since the Iran war broke out against the 1.5% gain in global stocks.
While the aggressive policy tightening cycle that was penciled in during the first part of the Middle East war has been partially unwound, “markets have been forced to recognize that the inflation threat is not over,” Marc Chandler, chief market strategist at Bannockburn Capital Markets wrote. April inflation reports are unlikely to offer relief from firm March readings and the spill over in to core prices is becoming more visible.
But the big variable for markets this week will not be geopolitics but earnings, with tens of trillions in market cap, some 42% of the S&P, set to report: Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon.com and Meta are set to report Wednesday, followed by Apple a day later. The companies are worth nearly $16 trillion combined, representing a quarter of the S&P 500 Index’s market capitalization.
“It’s going to be a critical week,” said Keith Lerner, chief investment officer and chief market strategist at Truist Advisory Services. Results need “to validate this recent move,” he added.
Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 22:50California’s latest effort to tax its richest residents into leaving is barreling toward the ballot - only this time, it's got a built-in 'slippery slope' lever once voters hand them the keys.
Backers of the proposed “billionaire tax” say they have already cleared the first hurdle, gathering more than enough signatures (at least 1.5 million) to qualify a measure that would impose a one-time 5% levy on residents with net worths above $1 billion, the Wall Street Journal reports. On its face, the proposal is straightforward: a targeted strike at roughly 200 ultrawealthy individuals meant to plug a looming multibillion-dollar hole in California’s healthcare funding. But buried in the fine print-and now surfacing in a growing political backlash-is a provision that could allow lawmakers to revisit, revise, and potentially expand the tax later with a two-thirds vote. That clause is fast becoming the real story.
The initiative’s language allows the California Legislature to amend the law so long as changes are “consistent with” and “further the purposes” of the act (aka the slippery slope). In Sacramento, that phrasing is doing a lot of work. Critics argue it effectively hands lawmakers a tool that could evolve well beyond a one-time billionaire levy. With a two-thirds majority, the Legislature could lower thresholds, extend timelines, or reinterpret what qualifies as taxable wealth. In a state where Democrats already hold supermajorities in both chambers, that is less a hypothetical than a political reality.
This is significant
I get it — taxing Billionaires is popular
But the proposed tax in CA is something vastly more expansive
It would give the CA legislature a new power:
The ability to lower the threshold or repeatedly pass the tax
Simply with votes from the CA legislature https://t.co/YcBUy7gTJN
California, meanwhile, has done this kind of thing before where they kick the door open with a seemingly innocuous bill. For example, in 2012 voters approved Proposition 30 as “temporary taxes to fund education,” promising a sunset once the recession eased. Four years later, with the economy recovered, the same coalition returned with Proposition 55 and extended the high-income tax hikes for another 12 years—without extending the sales tax or returning to voters for full approval. Nearly identical “consistent with and furthers the purposes” amendment clauses appear in Proposition 64 (marijuana legalization) and Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services Act), and have been used repeatedly to expand taxes, regulations, and spending far beyond the original ballot language. The billionaire tax measure contains this exact same permissive language. Once voters bless a flexible wealth-tax framework, Sacramento has shown it will use that door when fiscal pressure returns - which, in California, it always does.
The proposal has already triggered a high-profile reaction among the very group it targets. One of the most prominent examples is Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
Sergey BrinPhotographer: Will Oliver/EPA/BloombergIn a late-evening confrontation at a Christmas party hosted by crypto titan Chris Larsen in a treehouse nestled in redwoods north of San Francisco, Brin and his wellness-influencer girlfriend Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto told Gov. Gavin Newsom they were leaving the state over the proposed billionaire tax, which could hit Brin’s massive stake in Alphabet and his fortune.
Newsom, who opposes the wealth tax, was still telling people about the lengthy exchange at the party months later, complaining of a lingering cold the pair had given him, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations with the governor. -Bloomberg
Brin followed through: he relocated to Nevada ahead of the tax’s residency cutoff, purchasing a $42 million lakeside mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. He has since poured more than $58 million into political efforts over the past four months, becoming the largest donor to the group Building a Better California, which is dedicated to fighting the wealth tax and pushing pro-business policies. His move and massive spending have become a symbol - if not entirely representative - of a broader anxiety rippling through California’s economic base. The concern isn’t just that billionaires might leave. It’s what happens if they do.
Also his wellness-influencer girlfriend (Gilbert-Soto) is pretty hot.
California’s tax structure is unusually dependent on its wealthiest residents. Even a small number of departures can create outsized revenue swings. Analysts have warned the proposed tax could generate “tens of billions” in the short term-but also risk long-term losses if it accelerates outmigration. Gov. Gavin Newsom has echoed that warning, opposing the measure on the grounds that it could destabilize the state’s already volatile revenue system.
That leaves California facing a paradox increasingly common in blue-state fiscal policy: a push to extract more from the ultrawealthy, paired with a growing dependence on keeping them in place. Supporters argue the stakes justify the risk. The tax is designed to offset federal healthcare cuts projected to cost the state more than $28 billion annually and leave millions without coverage.
“This did not start as a political statement about rising inequality,” said union leaders backing the measure. “We are simply trying to solve a huge and immediate problem.”
But opponents say the mechanism matters as much as the goal. Their central warning is that once the state normalizes wealth-based taxation through a flexible statutory framework, the definition of “wealthy” can shift. Today that threshold is $1 billion. Tomorrow, critics argue, it could be far lower-especially in a legislature empowered to act without returning to voters.
What a mess...
Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 22:35