California is underwriting its grand progressive experiment with money produced by the very private-sector dynamism its politicians so often scold. The cash is pouring out of an artificial-intelligence boom centered in Silicon Valley, and Sacramento appears tempted to treat the windfall as proof that its governing model works. It does not.
California still offers the nation’s most visible homelessness crisis, crumbling infrastructure, scarce and ruinously expensive housing, high taxes, and a regulatory maze that sends businesses and residents looking for the exits. I voted with my feet and moved to Nevada a decade ago. Yet California can govern badly and remain rich because AI may create enough private wealth to keep financing public failure.
That is the paradox: AI is not vindicating progressive governance. It is bailing it out.
I spent more than three decades in Silicon Valley investing in technology and life-sciences companies. When a transformative technology arrives, the wealth it creates can swamp the assumptions that came before it. AI looks like one of those moments, and the wealth is already piling up in California.
In 2025, California companies captured 63% of all U.S. startup funding, according to Crunchbase. New York, the runner-up, received 11%. Among AI companies, California’s share of U.S. seed-through-growth funding was about 80%.
The San Francisco Bay Area alone raised roughly $122 billion in AI funding in 2025, more than three-quarters of the U.S. total. Bay Area companies also captured 45% of all U.S. seed funding, up from 33% in 2024 and 28% in 2023. People and businesses may be leaving California, but the capital financing America’s next technological revolution is somehow still moving toward the state that keeps warning capitalism to behave.
The fiscal payoff is simple. AI companies create equity value. Founders, employees, and investors realize capital gains. Engineers and researchers receive large compensation packages. Successful companies hire workers and buy goods and services. California taxes nearly every step, then calls the proceeds foresight.
The tax code makes the dependency worse. Sacramento leans heavily on personal-income taxes, and a disproportionate share of that revenue comes from high earners whose income includes stock compensation and capital gains. When Silicon Valley booms, the treasury fills fast — allowing politicians to mistake a cyclical jackpot for moral affirmation.
California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has already pointed to AI enthusiasm, rising technology stocks, and higher tech-sector compensation as important sources of recent income-tax strength. In its May 2026 fiscal update, the office raised its forecast for the state’s three largest taxes by roughly $25 billion across the budget window. Almost all of that improvement came from stronger personal-income-tax expectations — not from a sudden outbreak of competence in Sacramento.
This cycle is still young. Many AI companies will fail, but venture capital does not need every investment to work. A handful of exceptional companies can pay for a long list of disappointments. California needs only enough winners to generate extraordinary taxable wealth — and enough political restraint not to spend it as if the laws of markets have been repealed.
Silicon Valley’s advantage is not easy to copy. Northern California has the technical talent, universities, venture capital, experienced founders, lawyers, executives, investment bankers, and institutional memory needed to build and finance technology companies. Those networks took decades to develop, not one legislative session and a press conference.
But a technology boom is not a governing philosophy. AI will not clear homeless encampments, build housing, repair roads, or make public agencies competent. It may simply generate enough revenue to let California avoid those choices while expanding the government that failed to solve them.
The money will not arrive in a straight line. I lived through several technology and investment cycles. Markets overshoot. Valuations collapse. Capital moves. The internet changed the world; it did not repeal gravity.
California’s tax system magnifies both sides of the cycle. When technology stocks rise and high earners realize gains, revenue surges. When markets fall, the money vanishes quickly. Sacramento would be reckless to turn an AI windfall into permanent spending obligations, though recklessness has rarely needed much of an invitation.
The state should treat this moment as a narrow opportunity to repair its foundations. AI-generated revenue should go toward basic infrastructure, housing reform, public safety, and homelessness programs with measurable outcomes. California should also remove the regulatory barriers that punish the entrepreneurs, companies, and capital producing the windfall in the first place — a radical notion in a state that often treats wealth creation as suspicious until the tax bill arrives.
More money is not better government. Capital creates options; it does not guarantee results. Leadership, strategy, execution, and accountability still matter. Government deserves the same scrutiny investors apply to a management team entrusted with scarce resources — especially when the management team has already misplaced the basics.
California may be rich enough to survive bad government. That is not an argument for the California model. It is a measure of how much private ingenuity the model can squander and still demand applause.
The private sector is creating the wealth. Sacramento’s test is whether it can stop confusing a boom with competence and turn a temporary windfall into durable public results. If it cannot, California’s AI miracle will become the strangest of monuments: private genius underwriting public fantasy while the state’s most basic failures remain in plain sight.
***
Guy Paul Nohra is co-founder of Alta Partners, a leading Venture Capital firm in life sciences, funding over 150 companies in the healthcare/life sciences sector since 1996 through eight Venture Capital funds.
.png)
.png)
