Scott argues that California's proposed billionaire tax is actually an extortion scheme by SEIU, which has a history of proposing destructive ballot initiatives and withdrawing them in exchange for concessions. Longer summary

Scott argues that California's 2026 Billionaire Tax Act is not a genuine progressive wealth tax proposal, but rather an extortion scheme by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). He explains the tax's various problems (including taxing unrealized gains and being retroactive), then reveals SEIU's history of proposing deliberately destructive ballot initiatives targeting healthcare industries, only to withdraw them in exchange for money and union expansion rights. The union has done this repeatedly with hospitals and dialysis clinics, spending millions on initiatives they never intended to pass. Scott suggests the billionaire tax follows the same pattern: SEIU is leveraging Governor Newsom's presidential ambitions and desire to keep tech billionaires happy, hoping he'll offer concessions to make the initiative disappear. Shorter summary

Scott examines San Francisco's apparent improvement in homelessness, finding the main effect was decreased tent encampments due to court rulings allowing easier clearing, not actual reduction in homeless population, revealing a basic tradeoff between visibility and homeless welfare. Longer summary

Scott investigates why San Francisco's homelessness crisis appears to have improved, finding that the main effect was a dramatic decrease in tent encampments (not overall homelessness) due to court rulings making it easier to clear them. He analyzes four potential explanations: encampment clearing after legal changes starting in 2023, a possible small decrease in actual homelessness due to falling rents and enforcement driving people to hide, Mayor Lurie's policies (which he finds mostly ineffective), and claims about cities shipping homeless people elsewhere (which he finds largely unsupported). Scott concludes this is a 'maximally boring story' about a basic tradeoff where cities made homelessness less visible at the cost of making homeless people's lives harder, challenging both his previous belief that nothing could improve the problem without mass incarceration and the opposing view that 'getting tough' would be compassionate. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes how the term 'fascist' combines factual meaning with implied violence-justifying connotations, making its casual use potentially dangerous in current political discourse. Longer summary

Scott examines the logical inconsistency between three commonly held beliefs: that many Americans are fascists, that fascists are legitimate targets for violence, and that political violence in America is currently unacceptable. Using the recent Twitter dispute between Gavin Newsom and Stephen Miller as a starting point, he explores how the term 'fascist' has both denotative meaning (far-right nationalist) and violent connotations. The post discusses the challenges of determining when political violence becomes justified, and concludes that while the term 'fascist' shouldn't be banned, it's better to avoid using it when possible to prevent contributing to dangerous rhetoric. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the political battle over California's AI safety bill SB 1047, its veto by Governor Newsom, and the implications for future AI regulation efforts. Longer summary

This post recounts the story behind SB 1047, a California bill aimed at regulating AI safety that was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Governor Newsom. Scott discusses the bill's supporters and opponents, the political maneuvering involved, and the aftermath of the veto. He analyzes the reasons for the veto, suggesting it was influenced by Silicon Valley donors and interests. The post also explores potential future strategies for AI regulation advocates, including possible alliances with left-wing groups. Scott concludes with reasons for optimism despite the setback, noting growing public support for AI regulation. Shorter summary