No for so many reasons. This is a good breakdown of the issues: Web Link

That's an interesting link, Dan. I decided to look into the details of that group. I found that the California Policy Center is a conservative think tank that advocates for limited government, free market policies, and reduced government spending. The organization promotes free market principles and is generally aligned with Republican and libertarian ideologies.

It receives significant funding from conservative donors and organizations. The organization's major donors include the Charles Koch Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Bradley Foundation. These donors are well known for their support of conservative and libertarian causes.

It's worth noting that the California Policy Center has been criticized by some for its lack of transparency regarding its funding sources and for its potential conflicts of interest with its major donors. Some critics have raised concerns about the organization's independence and its ability to offer objective analysis given its close ties to conservative funders.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the California Policy Center is a conservative think tank that advocates for limited government and free market policies. Its funding comes from a range of conservative donors and organizations, raising concerns about its independence and objectivity.

After having looked into the source, I thought it would be useful to dig into some of the article's content directly. While I haven't fully analyzed all if its arguments, this one stood out to me: "or the descendants of Japanese Americans living in California who had their assets confiscated and were relocated to internment camps during World War II?"

It's important to note that the US government has paid reparations to Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II as a way of acknowledging and addressing the injustice that was committed against them. In 1988, the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law, which provided financial compensation and an official apology to surviving Japanese American internees.

The reparations for Japanese Americans were not a one-time gesture, but a recognition of the systematic and intentional harm inflicted on them, which had long-lasting effects on their lives and the lives of their descendants. The reparations were a step towards acknowledging the injustice, addressing its ongoing impact, and working towards reconciliation.

If the article's author is unaware of this historical context when making their arguments, I do not put much weight behind what they say.

What if the people that disagree stop paying taxes?