This fall, California voters will vote on Proposition 23, officially termed a "suspension" of California's global warming law (AB32) "until unemployment reaches 5.5%" and named by its supporters a "jobs initiative."
The battle should play out exactly as similar battles over federal climate policies: conservatives claim it'll destroy jobs, raise taxes, and increase family energy costs; environmentalists valiantly-yet-unsuccessfully try to set the record straight, only to be ignored by middle class voters worried about pocketbook issues.
But a funny thing is happening.
The narrative is shaping up to be quite different. The shadowy interests behind Prop 23 are being exposed to the light. And Prop 23 is being opposed by clean technology investors who see a stark choice: build the future or burn the planet.
* The CA Republican party has had problems raising cash. That didn't stop them from paying some pretty nifty salaries to the muckety-mucks though who, umm, also happen to work for legislators. Seems sketchy.
* Speaking of the CRP, they enied the CA Republican Assemblythe fringe conservative group, access to their facilities at the state convention going on San Diego this weekend. Apparently the CRP noticed that backing Prop 187's anti-Latino measures isn't the way to go these days.
The state unemployment numbers for July were just released, and it is a pretty mixed bag. Overall, the rate is stagnant at 12.3%, but there are small rays of hope.
The state's unemployment rate remained constant at 12.3%. ... Many of the jobs cuts were in the government sector as temporary census jobs ended, according to a release from the state Employment Development Department. Private sector employers added 13,700 jobs to payrolls. Still, the state lost jobs in the manufacturing, leisure and professional and business services sector. (LA Times)
The census cuts were expected, and the fact that the census was done cheaper and faster than ever before is a credit to the Commerce Department, and the folks who worked themselves out of a job. The billion dollars that the census was under budget will now go to other programs in the federal government.
But the other thing to notice is that the regional economies in the state are quite different. The Bay Area remains the strongest, with Marin County having the lowest unemployment rate followed closely by several other Bay Area Counties. Los Angeles is a worrisome 13.4%, but Santa Barbara and a few other coastal counties are doing better, but you check out the full list by county here (h/t to SF Weekly).
Meanwhile, the crisis seems to show no signs of letting up in other parts of the state. Imperial County's 30%+ unemployment is simply shocking, followed by upper teens in several other Central Valley counties.
This is where it becomes appropriate to mention just how critical it is to defeat Prop 23. The promise of green jobs shines most brightly in communities where land is cheaper with abundant helpings of wind and sun. Imperial County would be a particularly devastated by the loss of green jobs with the failure to implement AB 32.
What is also clear is that now is not the time to further exacerbate the problem by laying off 40,000 valuable state workers. While we are always forced to make tough decisions in a rough economy, austerity measures will harm the economy far more than many of the revenue measures that have been proposed. We can't simply go down the path of cut, cut, cut without expecting such negative reactions. We cannot sacrifice our public sector without damaging the long-term stability of our economy.
And while the title sentence could work for a million questions in Sacramento, it works perfectly for Chang's question. No. Whitman's spending cannot move Californians.
Of course, that statement alone doesn't end debate, so let's look at the situation. Most importantly, Meg Whitman has been spending $2 million per week on her incessant ads, basically since the Winter Olympics back in February. They were annoying back then, but by now people just want them to stop. This is born out by anecdotal and hard data. As Robert pointed out recently, Jerry Brown's team has data showing that her ads are moving people in the wrong direction from what she intended:
A survey we completed three days ago found most people who have seen a Whitman ad don't believe her claims are true. When we asked whether these ads have improved or worsened their opinions of the candidates for Governor, the results were as follows:
Attorney General Jerry Brown: 6% improved; 4% worsened; 58% unchanged
Meg Whitman: 8% improved; 27% worsened; 31% unchanged
But there is another issue at play here, it is more than just the point counter point ads. For whatever money labor is spending to support Jerry (and I assure you that it is nowhere near the funding level that Whitman is looking at), the real issue is that it isn't just Meg alone, or her ads, that are turning off voters. It is her failed ideas.
For nearly seven years now, we have dealt with a Governor who has espoused the notion that our government is a failed experiment and we just cannot afford it. The facts don't bear that out, and Whitman's ideas to slash and burn through the state government are simply a step too far, even when compared to the Governator.
There aren't 40,000 jobs to cut in the state. There aren't billions to be saved through IT innovation. A few hundred million, perhaps, if it is done correctly. But the huge savings she is predicting simply by improving and "innovating" just will not be there. They are simply a new way of the old conservative propaganda tune of "Waste, Fraud, & abuse." Sure, there is a bit of waste, but overall productivity rates at our government institutions are quite high.
We have to stop looking for new panaceas and get back to the simple drudgery of providing quality services. The way we do that is to provide stable and good-paying jobs for well-trained state employees while providing enough oversight to ensure that our money is well-spent. Not by going on staff cutting binges that produce no savings, but a lot of confusion and failure.
* Happy Birthday to Capitol Weekly. The new version preceded us by a few days back in 2005. It is kind of scary to look back at some of those old diary posts I (Brian) wrote back in the day.
* Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman have been squabbling over pay and pensions for a while. You'd think that, given her incessant television and private plane appearances, that she might want to cut back on that line of attack.
* Workers Comp insurance premiums went up sharply, mostly because Schwarzenegger has refused to let any increases for inflation.
* Robert is heading out of town for a well-deserved vacation, but he'll be back on Calitics' 5th anniversary of September 1. Let's hope California hasn't fully melted down by then.
(Welcome to Sterling Clifford, Spokesman for Jerry Brown's Campaign for Governor. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Joel Fox essentially takes the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in explaining why he will not disclose the donors to his TV 'issue' ad fusillade against Jerry Brown. Under the auspices of the "Small" Business Action Committee (SBAC), Fox, his right wing partner James Lacy, and their secret financial backers, are using $1.6 million worth of false ads to pummel a foe Fox brands a job killer, taxer, spender, debtor, and all around bad guy.
Let's start with some basic facts:
When Jerry Brown was Governor, California created 1.9 million new jobs. When compared to national job growth, California did better under Jerry than any Governor since.
It is a fact that when Jerry was Governor, government spending as a percentage of personal income declined. Spending grew under Gov. Reagan, and it went up under Gov. Deukmejian. The state debt under the Brown Administration was a fraction of what it is today, under a Republican Governor who Fox has long supported.
And it's a fact that credible California news outlets and factcheck.org declared "misleading" the claim that Jerry turned a surplus into a deficit. You'll notice that Fox ignores the multi-billion dollar backfill assistance to local government supported by then-Governor Brown in order to protect local schools, police, and fire services. Plus Brown and the Legislature provided billions more in tax relief that Fox would presumably have supported if he had been around at the time.
Fox wants you to believe that it's mere coincidence that these same false attacks - which have been roundly and rightly criticized by California's political press corps - have shown up in Whitman ads. But it stops looking like a coincidence when you see the check for $10,000 that Whitman wrote to the Small Business Action Committee. Fox assures us that he endorsed Whitman before she paid him. Oh, well then. But how can we trust the assurances of a man who refuses to comeclean with the press and the voters about the secret backers of his cynical advertising blitz.
Perhaps Fox won't say who funded his ad because he knows the donor list will be full of other "coincidences." Like oil companies trying to repeal AB32? Just a coincidence. Right-wing groups trying to sue over the President's birth certificate? Just a coincidence. Wall Street bankers who got rich off a falsely propped up economy? Just a coincidence.
The truth is, Jerry Brown has supporters in many industries from all across California. Fox is probably worried that if he names his donors - if the voters are allowed to see who is attacking Jerry, they will see the ad for what it is - special interests with a motivation to lie.
Finally, Fox makes the bizarre claim that these narrow interest behemoths funding this smear campaign are acting in the great tradition of Americans dressing up like those of Boston Tea Party fame. Fox has been around the political block so long he has gotten lost in his own political rhetoric.
Joel Fox and the "Small" BAC should be willing to own up to the names on the checks paying for this ad. He diminishes his name and his cause with his crass gamesmanship and hollow explanations. He can hide behind the Fifth Amendment, but transparency is an American value that he would expect from us and we should expect from him.
Yesterday, a Schwarzenegger spokesman used the name-calling du jour to compare the Legislature to the City Council of Bell.
"What happened in Bell is not unlike what Democrats in the Capitol are trying to do: increase taxes to pay for public employee pensions," said Matt Connelly, a spokesman for the governor. (LAT)
Except, no, it's really nothing like Bell whatsoever. The Legislature is not working to protect their own salaries or to abscond with money into their own checkbook. Rather, the Legislature is fighting to save the priorities that Californians have traditionally demanded. It is just that now the Republicans are putting up smoke screens to say that we cannot afford these priorities.
This couldn't be further from the truth. To put it another way: there is no radical out of control spending problem. We are not spending any more than we have in the past. It is just now that Republicans decided to let the free market run amok, and to tell Americans that they shouldn't have to pay for government.
As wschafer pointed out, spending simply hasn't risen over the past forty years. Once adjusted for population growth and inflation, the state is spending a smaller proportion of Californian's take home pay than in the past.
For each $100 Californians earn, the state spends $7.44. That spending number has been this low only four times in the past three decades. The cost of general fund programs (e.g., public schools, health, social services) hasn't been as low as now ($5.19 for each $100 Californians earn) since 1973.
The difference is the Two Santa Theory of government. The Right has discovered that they can undercut the populist left's message by offering tax cuts and waiting for the people to demand cuts. And that is where we are doing. As David Dayen said last year:
In the intervening 35 years, we have had no progressive leader in California, no Democratic leader, challenge that ridiculous theory in any meaningful way. Instead, over and over again, Democrats must lead the charge killing off the two Santa Clauses, filling budget deficits by raising taxes or cutting spending, frequently the latter. And while other factors have contributed to Democratic dominance in recent years, the ideological theories of Santa Claus conservatism remain. And Democrats and Republicans alike have ingrained them into their lizard brains, either by believing in them, or believing that everyone else believes in them and there's no way to change that.
For an example, see none other than Gray Davis. He was convinced to slash the vehicle license fee (VLF) during the "good times" (aka the Internet Bubble). Then when forced to acknowledge that the good times were over and raise the tax back, Arnold beat him over the head with it on his way to the victory in the recall election.
If anything, Arnold is the Mayor of Bell. He wastes money by failing to capture all of the federal dollars that we are entitled to, and he has failed to provide a government that works for the people.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a fundamental failure, with but a few moments of passing rationality (think AB 32). Whitman would be a third term of Arnold...save the fleeting moments. Where Arnold at least attempts to deal with real world facts, Whitman has completely rejected them. She is a threat to the long-term stability of the state; her short term austerity plans to fire 40,000 workers would cast the state into a deeper recession and threaten our economic future.
There's a reason why a newspaper should not be making public policy on its own: their interest is in getting eyeballs and readers, not in providing policy tools that are actually useful.
At right is a short but very effective and informative video from Daniel Willingham, an education policy expert, explaining how the method used by the LA Times to evaluate teachers - known as "value-added measures" - is deeply flawed as a basis of comparing teacher effectiveness. The LA Times acknowledged these shortcomings in their Sunday article, but blew right past those concerns and used the flawed method of analysis anyway:
No one suggests using value-added analysis as the sole measure of a teacher. Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher's overall evaluation....
Nevertheless, value-added analysis offers the closest thing available to an objective assessment of teachers. And it might help in resolving the greater mystery of what makes for effective teaching, and whether such skills can be taught.
In response to this, Willingham explained further why the LA Times was wrong to use "value-added measures" and offered his own thoughts as to why the Times did it despite the widespread concerns from education policy experts about the usefulness of such data:
I think their reasoning might be revealed in the story's subheadline: "A Times analysis, using data largely ignored by the LAUSD, looks at which educators help students learn, and which hold them back." LAUSD is the Los Angeles Unified School District.
I'm guessing that the editors at the Times are frustrated by the inaction of the LAUSD on teacher evaluation, (or on school quality in general) and they are trying to goad them into doing something.
This seems likely to me as well, though I don't think the Times was merely interested in getting UTLA and other teachers' unions to accept some sort of ranking system. They seem interested in promoting the idea of merit pay itself, as their Tuesday editorial on the issue made clear:
When one teacher's students improve dramatically while those of another teacher down the hallway fall back, and those results are consistent over years, schools are irresponsibly failing their students by placing them with ineffective teachers, and continuing to pay those teachers as though they contributed equally.[emphasis mine]
Predictably, President Obama's right-wing Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised the LA Times, and his shock doctrine-style "Race to the Top" program forces states to adopt these kind of unproven measures to be eligible to win federal education grants. Arnold Schwarzenegger's own Education Secretary added in the same article that this suited their ideological agenda of "creating a more market-driven approach to results."
This has the odor about it of naming and shaming. It's going to create dissension on school staffs. It's going to have parents say, "I want my kid in the class of those who are in the top 10 percent," and I don't know how you squeeze 100 percent of the kids into the classes of 10 percent of the teachers.
Of course, that's the entire point of the whole merit pay and charter schools discussion - to introduce "market forces" that cause parents to demand exactly that - try to squeeze 100% of the kinds into the classes of 10% of the teachers. As with any "market force," you can then blame student failure on either themselves, their parents, or their teachers, for failing to win in the marketplace.
In the market, if you fail it's your own fault, and nobody should be expected to help you. When applied to public policy, this means governments can be let off the hook for needing to ensure every child gets a good education - and it also means private companies can start gaming the "education market" to make money off of those students and teachers who succeed, while ignoring the growing numbers of those who don't.
What is needed by the parents of underachieving students mired in failing public is a financial assist from their state government in the form of a school voucher that can be used for tuition at non-public schools.
It is the best way to the level the educational playing field between California's haves - parents who send their kids to the state's best schools - ands have nots - those whose kids are least proficient on the state's standardized tests.
So it's back to vouchers again. And merit pay. And other right-wing policies designed not to help all children learn, but to destroy the public school system in order to impose their right-wing ideological agenda on California's children. It suggests this McSweeney's satire of parents demanding other kids follow Ayn Rand's sociopathic philosophy isn't far from the mark.
Willingham agrees that these policies are flawed. But he also believes that the teachers' unions cannot simply resist this, and should instead get out in front by offering their own solutions:
I have said before that if teachers didn't take on the job of evaluating teachers themselves, someone else would do the job for them. The fact that the method is they are using is inadequate is important, and should be pointed out, but it's not enough.
No one knows better than teachers how to evaluate teachers. This is the time to do more than cry foul. This is the time for the teacher's unions to make teacher evaluation their top priority. If they don't, others will.
He's probably right about the politics here. Still, I think teachers are better off making a stronger attack against the right-wing policy outcomes that these metrics are designed to produce. If they can turn the public against test-based pay, against vouchers, and against privatization, then they'll have a better chance of producing some sort of teacher evaluation process that is more holistic, less focused on the short-term, and less damaging to the quality of education in this state.
The California Supreme Court handed down a stay of the Alameda County court's order blocking the furloughs. Here's the text of the order:
The petition for review is GRANTED. Because the issue whether the Governor has the authority to direct the unpaid furlough of state employees is pending before this court and is scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, in the related case of Professional Engineers in California Government et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et. al., S183411, and without expressing any view on the merits of that issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant review in this matter and defer further action pending our resolution of the currently pending proceeding. Pending further order of this court, further proceedings in the Alameda County Superior Court in case number RG10494800 (and in consolidated cases numbered RG10507922, RG10507081, RGI0503805, RGI0501997, RGI0516259, RGI0514694, and RG10528855), as well as the temporary restraining order of the Alameda County Superior Court issued on August 9, 2010, are stayed. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
What this means for the time being is that the upcoming furloughs, as defined by the Governor will go ahead until further notice. The Supreme Court will directly review the decision (bypassing the court of appeal) and render a decision, which you would assume would come in a fairly speedy manner.
Stay tuned for more on this, but this is a big win for Arnold's furloughs and will probably control through much of the budget fightin' season.
Jerry Brown's campaign manager, Steve Glazer, took to the campaign's blog today to offer his thoughts on the state of the race. In that post, Glazer offered this fascinating nugget of information:
A survey we completed three days ago found most people who have seen a Whitman ad don't believe her claims are true. When we asked whether these ads have improved or worsened their opinions of the candidates for Governor, the results were as follows:
Attorney General Jerry Brown: 6% improved; 4% worsened; 58% unchanged
Meg Whitman: 8% improved; 27% worsened; 31% unchanged
In more than 30 years of working on campaigns, I have never seen a candidate's ads have such a negative effect on that same candidate.
I have to agree with Glazer here - these results are simply stunning. Whitman has been on TV almost nonstop since the Winter Olympics back in February. Everyone in California now knows who she is - and they don't like what they see.
For Whitman's ads to not move the dial against Brown, but to instead boomerang back on her and cause voters to dislike her more, is a damning indictment of Whitman herself and her overall campaign strategy. The Brown campaign's numbers bolster the July PPIC poll numbers that showed 50% of voters viewed Whitman unfavorably.
Whitman's campaign plan has been to define the terms of debate with her TV ads, undermine Brown and his record with those same ads, and position herself as a candidate of change. She eschews public engagement and hides from the media so that her carefully crafted strategy won't be undermined by her going off-message, as she tends to do.
And yet the best she's been able to do with this huge $100 million ad barrage is buy herself a 50% unfavorable rating and a tie in the polls with a candidate who has spent hardly a dime on his own ads.
Of course, that still means Whitman could be our next governor. A tie is a tie, after all, and it only takes a little bit of movement for her to win in November. Brown will need to make sure that when he finally does get his own campaign messaging and ads under way, likely after Labor Day and that they're solid ads that people respond favorably to. He'll need a ground game that can turn out his supporters, and of course, a clear vision of how he'll solve California's problems that he can use to inspire voters.
Jim Fitzgerald 5606 5.8%
Mark Hinkle 1874 2.0%
John Laird 39857 41.5%
Sam Blakeslee 48617 50.7%
UPDATE by Robert: Returns are slowly being updated by the five counties. Here's the latest, as of 10:16 pm:
Jim Fitzgerald 7277 5.6%
Mark Hinkle 2811 2.1%
John Laird 56653 43.2%
Sam Blakeslee 64352 49.1%
UPDATE by Brian: As of 12:07 AM, with 100% of precincts reporting:
Jim Fitzgerald 8014 5.1%
Mark Hinkle 3162 2.0%
John Laird 69649 44.1%
Sam Blakeslee 77107 48.8%
Sam Blakeslee will be the next Senator in SD-15. Arnold's gamesmanship worked like a charm. By moving this election away from a real election date, he got what he wanted. From the look of these numbers, I think we have a great shot of winning this election if it was held concurrently with the general in November. I hope he's going to pay the extra money that it took to win this seat for Blakeslee out of his own pocket.
We're waiting for results on the Laird race, but in the mean time, Links:
* For two candidates running for statewide office, you would think Steve Cooley and Carly Fiorina would take a stand on Proposition 23, but no. The effort to repeal AB 32's historic greenhouse gas pollution regulations apparently don't rise to the level of importance to take a stand.
* Speaking of Steve Cooley, California Watch exposed some punitive measures against his deputy DA's union. A recent lawsuit alleges that he punitively transfered deputy DAs who dared to organize, and even harassed an external media outfit working with the union. (Note: Brian does some work for Kamala Harris.)
* Republican SoS candidate Damon Dunn got a profile on the Sean Hannity show. And according to the Hannity folks, he was endorsed by Willie Brown. Except, Willie himself called that idea "crazy."
"Hell no..are you crazy?'' he said. "I do training of folks with my Institute, and I have absolutely talked to him. But I would never be for Damon Dunn against Debra Bowen, who is one of my chief operatives. One of the things I recommended to Damon Dunn is that he not run against Debra Bowen.''(SacBee)
Where does Meg Whitman stand on immigration? Well, that all depends on when she's being asked, where she's being asked, and who is doing the asking.
* Last year, in an attempt to cater to her Republican base as she prepared for a heated primary, Whitman told reporters she believes the state should "prosecute illegal aliens and criminal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California."
* When Whitman's primary opponent, Steve Poizner, began gaining traction by veering far to the right on immigration, Whitman's campaign advisor, former Governor Pete Wilson, produced an anti-immigrant radio ad, touting Whitman's opposition to "amnesty" and her plan to block immigrant families the having access to education, driver's licenses and other vital services. He said she'd be "tough as nails" on immigration. Gov. Wilson is the notorious architect of Proposition 187, the initiative that sought to deny immigrant families these same basic rights.
* Whitman's hypocrisy became even more evident when she told a reporter, "You haven't seen an ad from me with the border fence," while at the same time airing TV ads across the state that prominently feature the border fence.
* Just one week after winning the primary, Whitman again changed direction, and began airing Spanish-language ads during the World Cup, indicating she was against the Arizona immigration law.
