DiFi "I Don't Believe The Governor's Budget Helps"

I went out to see Sen. Feinstein speak to the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce this afternoon. The speech was billed as an address on the environment, and that was surely part of the speech (which I'll summarize below). But of more pressing concern to the Chamber was the growing unease with the economy in California and across the nation. Sales taxes and auto sales have flattened out here in Santa Monica, and that represents 22% of all municipal revenue. As this was the focus of a short panel before Sen. Feinstein's remarks, she felt compelled to address it. On the economy, she said that the coming year will be very difficult. She called for the need to address the mortgage crisis and a need to extend unemployment benefits as part of an economic stimulus package. But interestingly, she added this (paraphrasing from notes):

I hate to say it, but I don't believe the Governor's budget helps. The cuts are very deep, and you cannot fund debt through accounting tricks and through floating bonds. That's the most expensive kind of budget funding there is.

I'd love to know why she "hates to say" that she has a substantive policy difference with a Republican governor who is trying to run the state into a ditch for generations to come. It really shouldn't be that hard to say. The lack of forcefully connecting the Governor to the fiscal mess we're in accounts for the fact that he continues to maintain high approval ratings despite the state's wrong-track number approaching 60%.

The Senator dared not mention the "t" word, and stayed away from what an ultimate solution should look like. But there was applause when she decried the Governor's approach. Clearly, people are more than willing to hear this argument; it just needs to be coupled with a realistic look at a solution that ends the perpetual motion machine of budget crises in the state, and structurally fixes the revenue model.

On the environment, Sen. Feinstein touted the green credentials of Santa Monica ("as good a green city as we have in California") and legislation she introduced to expand the red subway line to the Pacific Ocean, which is 20-plus years in the making. But while offering a very stark, almost "Inconvenient Truth"-like assessment of the scientific proof of global warming and its potentially catastrophic effects (she cited the escalating ice loss in Antarctica and essentially concluded that coastal cities would be wiped out without meaningful action), Feinstein continued to champion flawed, incremental approaches that don't meet the targets we need. She touted the recent passage of the federal energy bill (which she authored), and weirdly said that "the House couldn't get their bill through," when in truth the House bill would have been much more impactful, but the Senate couldn't show the leadership and had to drop two key elements of the legislation, which would have set a renewable energy standard and removed the massive tax breaks for Big Oil (also, the bill includes massive expansion of biofuels, which many are starting to see as counterproductive). She cited hard statistics, that we need to reduce emissions by 65-75% below 1990 levels, then endorsed the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill, which only gets us 60% below 2005 levels. Lieberman-Warner, of course, is a half-measure that would set up a cap-and-trade system without auctioning off the credits, essentially giving away the right to pollute to the nation's biggest industries. But Feinstein said that while "it isn't perfect," the bill is "the best bet today for passing comprehensive global warming legislation." This is a push and pull that has been bubbling in the environmental community for some time. Reasonable people can disagree. But unsurprisingly, Feinstein went for the half-measure (and Barbara Boxer isn't covered in glory here; she reported the same bill out of the Environmental Committee).

On a final note, Sen. Feinstein said that "I hope the next President will give California the waiver (to implement its tailpipe emissions law) it needs." She very specifically explained how the EPA action was political and not environmental, and she announced that she has asked the Inspector General of the agency to open a full investigation.