Walking Backwards In Indian Wells

In 2006, the Schwarzenegger campaign uncorked an ad almost immediately after the primaries showing Phil Angelides walking backwards, the assumption being that he would take the state backwards as well. One of the ads liberally quoted Angelides' rival for the Democratic nomination, Steve Westly, using the bruising primary against the winner. “What if Steve Westly was right?” the announcer says, after citing Westly's rhetoric in claiming that Angelides favored $10 billion in new taxes. Steve Westly wrote most of Arnold Schwarzenegger's early strategy and even his campaign spots, as Angelides was defined by his opponent swiftly.

Steve Poizner basically bestowed the same gift on eMeg Whitman over the weekend. The ads about Whitman's failure to register to vote for 28 years write themselves, but Poizner took the liberty of making the ad. If Republicans know how to do one thing well, it's go hard negative, and this ad will probably be very effective to the GOP primary audience. It will also be effective as a "here's what Republicans say about Meg Whitman" ad next year, should see prevail in the primary. Poizner actually reiterated his call for Whitman to drop out of the race "for the good of the party" over the weekend at the Republican convention in Indian Wells. The issue received major pickup throughout the media.



And Whitman did herself no favors at all with some of the worst damage control you'll see in politics, as she repeated like a mantra this line about how "there is no excuse for my voting record," completely avoiding any specifics about why. If she manages to win the primary, expect to hear this audio right through to next November. It's cringe-worthy.

I'm guessing the Republican Governor's Association just tried to pull back their invitation to Meg Whitman to come to any of their gala events.

This is terrible crisis management, of course. And it suggests that the general election would be no kinder on eMeg. But it's not like the split in the US Senate race, with serial non-voter Carlyfornia going up against wingnut conservative Chuck DeVore (The LA Times gets this wrong by trying to impose a blanket comparison). The Yacht Party grassroots has figured out that they have no candidate in the Republican primary, and regardless of who wins they probably won't be all that excited to work for the top of the ticket.

For activists such as Mike Spence, past president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, such centrist talk inspires unease following what they said was Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's betrayal of the Republican base.

Spence called the Republican governor a failure and blasted him for breaking his promises to conservatives by, among other things, approving the biggest tax increase in state history earlier this year. Schwarzenegger has also championed traditionally liberal causes such as Assembly Bill 32, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by about 25 percent by 2020.

"After the governor, people are cautious about who they support," Spence said.

Of course, this could be true of the Democratic grassroots as well, depending on circumstances. I think the only certainty in next year's elections will be the low turnout, as a slice of both sides stay home for their own reasons. But the Yacht Party's cast of characters look particularly uninspiring.

Oh, This Is Going To Be Fun

Last week, Meg Whitman raised some eyebrows when she vowed to suspend implementation of AB 32, California's landmark global-warming law. This drew criticisms from the usual suspects, and also happens to be broadly unpopular in a state which supports action on climate change. It was also a thumb in the eye of the current Governor and practically the only policy on which he can claim a legacy. So Schwarzenegger came out today and said Whitman's making an idle threat that she doesn't mean.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today dismissed a vow by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to suspend California's landmark greenhouse gas law if she's elected to succeed him next year as "just rhetoric that is going on among the candidates."

"You will hear all kinds of stories," Schwarzenegger told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "What will happen in reality and what they will do when they go into office is probably a whole different ballgame, and I think she will probably reconsider what she said.

"I'm sure she does not want to be counted as one of those Republicans that will want to move us back to the Stone Age or something like that," the Republican governor said. "So I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric."

Of course, relics from the Stone Age are the target demographic for a Republican primary, so Whitman has to say what she said. And she's not being accused of political pandering by, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Which should make for a fun weekend when the two appear together at the GOP convention in Indian Wells starting tomorrow.

Whitman's more pressing problem is that she has virtually no voting record as a private citizen, apparently having not even registered to vote prior to 2002. In an amusing moment of brazenness, Steve Poizner called on her to end her campaign as a result.

Poizner's camp issued a statement in response to the story this morning, attacking the Whitman campaign for "refusing to answer simple questions and deliberately lying to cover up the facts" and calling for the candidate to "step aside" and drop out of the race.

"It's understandable that Meg Whitman is ashamed of this record. But it's unacceptable that she continues to run from the record and deceive voters. Though there is no shred of evidence she ever registered as a Republican before 2007, she insists she did, yet she refuses to provide any evidence. Her arrogant answer: 'Go find it,' " Communications Director Jarrod Agen said in a statement. "In the history of America, no one has been elected governor of a state with Meg Whitman's 25 year history of no-show voting. She is unelectable and has tried to cover her lack of honesty with millions of dollars."

Hysterical. By the way, if you think eMeg's voting record is back, take a look at iCarly's. Quite a team they'll make on the GOP ticket next year...

Prop. 1A: Stakeholders Line Up

I'm thoroughly unsurprised that Steve Poizner has joined Meg Whitman in an effort to out-anti-tax one another through opposition to Prop. 1A.

Specifically, the politicians don’t want you to know all the facts when it comes to Proposition 1A. This is the ballot measure that would impose a state constitutional spending limit - a concept that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Californians.

However, if the measure passes, it will also extend the huge tax increases recently approved by the legislature. Passage of Proposition 1A means that the near-doubling of the car tax, the 1 cent statewide sales tax increase, the income tax hike and the reduction in the dependent tax credit would continue for an additional two years. That adds up to an estimated $16 billion in higher taxes. It’s no surprise these taxes are not supported by the majority of Californians.

That’s why our state legislators want to keep the truth from you about Proposition 1A and they’ve stacked the deck in their favor. So when you read the official ballot description of the measure – what should be an objective description on what is being voted on - you will see no mention of the taxes. The legislative leadership wrote the ballot description themselves and intentionally omitted any reference to the tax increase extension. They made sure what you read is biased.

The Yacht Party has been so consumed with tax ideology, as if the only role of government is to decide what not to tax, that they fail to see the spending cap forest through the trees. Which is fine with me, because as Anthony Wright notes, this cap would painfully ratchet down services and make any economic revival in California extremely difficult.

The revenue forecast amount established by Proposition 1A, which limits spending from the state’s existing tax base, would be significantly below the Governor’s “baseline” spending forecast, a forecast that assumes that the cuts proposed by the Governor in his New Year’s Eve budget release continue. For example, in 2010-11, the first year when the Director of Finance would be required to calculate whether the state has received “unanticipated revenues,” the revenue cap would be an estimated $16 billion lower than the Governor’s “baseline” spending estimate for the same year. The gap would widen in 2011-12 and 2012-13 to $17 billion and $21 billion, respectively.

By basing the new cap on a level of revenues that is insufficient to pay for the current level of programs and services, Proposition 1A would limit the state’s ability to restore reductions made during the current downturn out of existing revenues [...]

Proposition 1A limits the amount that can be used from the reserve in “bad budget” years to the difference between anticipated revenues and prior year’s spending adjusted for population growth and the CPI. It does not allow the reserve to be used to support a “current services” or “baseline” budget, even if sufficient funds would be available in the reserve to do so. The discrepancy arises from the fact that the CPI – the inflation measure used by Proposition 1A – is designed to measure changes in the cost of goods purchased by households, not governments.

Thus, the CPI does not accurately measure the year-to-year increase in the cost of delivering the same level of public services. Specifically, the CPI does not take into account the fact that government spends a larger share of its budget on items – such as health care – for which costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation. Between 1990 and 2007, for example, national per capita health care expenditures more than doubled, rising by 164 percent, while the CPI for California, which measures inflation in households’ purchases, rose by just 61 percent.

The particular concern for health care is noteworthy. If the formulas in Prop 1A don't take into account medical inflation, an aging population, or other impacts--like the erosion of employer-based health coverage--then existing health programs are threatened.

Read the whole thing. These are the guts of this awful deal, what you won't hear when you call your legislator and they use buzzwords like "rainy day fund." At a time when the health care system in California frays at the edges, this spending cap would ultimately stop any progressive reform on anything that costs money, bottom line. The executive under 1A gets all kinds of new powers to make cuts, and absolutely none to raise revenues. It's Prop. 13 on steroids. That's why the Governor likes it so much.

But 1A has been structured to sidestep vigorous opposition through a series of bribes, particularly to the teacher's union. Prop. 1B, which would repay $9.3 billion dollars to schools starting in 2011-2012 can only pass if Prop. 1A passes. This has led the CTA to support all six budget measures on the May ballot, severing the united front that labor used to beat Arnold's special election measures in 2005. Interestingly, the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) will only support Prop. 1B, and in a pique of schizophrenia, denounced 1A as a "power grab" by the Governor.

Of course, the CFT is substantially smaller than CTA. And while the California Nurses Association's opposition to the whole special election ballot is noble and appreciated, ultimately some of the stakeholders with money will need to enter the arena. We leave a shameful legacy to the children of this state if the spending cap passes.

CA-Gov: Way-Too-Early-Field-Isn't-Even-Set Poll Coverage!

Two polls were actually released today on the 2010 California Governor's race. The Field Poll did an extensive poll of the race, including favorability ratings, and Lake Research, a Democratic firm, did their own poll which included some head-to-head matchups.

Field's poll included Dianne Feinstein and I don't think the results were all that great for her. In the primary she polls well under 50%, compared to earlier polls which had her closer to that number.

Dianne Feinstein: 38%
Jerry Brown: 16%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 16%
Gavin Newsom: 10%
John Garamendi: 4%
Steve Westly: 2%
Bill Lockyer: 1%
Jack O’Connell: 1%
Undecided: 12%

Considering she's the most well-known figure in California politics, and that there won't be that many competitors in the final field, that's not a runaway at all. Plus, her net favorables with the electorate (+23) are less than Jerry Brown's (+25), despite her being more well-known (Among just Democrats, her unfavs are slightly higher than Brown's but so are her faves). If anything, this shows that she would have a tough race, maybe too tough for her to want to try it rather than luxuriate in her position whitewashing Bush's war crimes on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Without DiFi in the race, it's a packed field. Here's Field's poll:

Jerry Brown: 26%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 22%
Gavin Newsom: 16%
John Garamendi: 8%
Steve Westly: 2%
Bill Lockyer: 2%
Jack O’Connell: 2%
Undecided: 22%

DiFi's votes are, then, basically evenly distributed. Lake's primary poll (they didn't poll with DiFi) was similar:

Jerry Brown: 27%
Antonio Villaraigosa: 20%
Gavin Newsom: 14%
John Garamendi: 8%
Steve Westly: 3%
Jack O’Connell: 1%
Undecided: 27%

Big undecideds there, and obviously Villaraigosa is benefiting from being the only SoCal candidate in the field, although given his re-election performance he may have some work to do with his southern base. As for everyone else, there's time, but they're all pretty far back.

The Republican primary? Nobody's heard of any of the candidates, and the undecideds are off the charts, but it's early.

Meg Whitman: 21%
Tom Campbell: 18%
Steve Poizner: 7%
Undecided: 54%

Surprised to see Campbell that close, but it's probably just name ID; he's run statewide before. At least 63% of all voters, and at least 67% of Republicans, have no impression whatsoever of any of these candidates. Their favorables are miniscule. Given that, Poizner and Whitman will have to spend a lot of their millions just to introduce themselves to the public.

Finally, Lake Research did some (selected) head-to-heads.

Brown: 41%
Poizner: 30%
Undecided: 29%

Brown: 43%
Whitman: 27%
Undecided: 30%

Newsom: 38%
Poizner: 29%
Undecided: 33%

Newsom: 40%
Whitman: 25%
Undecided: 35%

Long story short, DiFi wouldn't have a cakewalk, Villaraigosa appears to have strength based on geographic isolation, Brown looks well-positioned, nobody knows the Republicans, and any Democrat can win.

Elected Bloviators Out In Force To Bloviate

John Garamendi has become the first gubernatorial candidate on the Democratic side to speak out publicly about the crime perpetrated on the citizens of California by a dysfunctional process.

Lt. Gov Garamendi: I've been listening to what you had to say about Republicans in the Senate and Congress, we have an infection here and it's a Republican infection that's really spreading across this nation. Just what do they propose to do? Shut everything down? They did that with Newt Gingrich. They seem to want to do that in California and we're saying no way. no how. We're gonna build, we're going to go with Obama.

We do have a two thirds vote....And then when you have Republicans that have taken a no new tax pledge and seem to just want to throw this state and really the nation into chaos and further decline in the economy, then we have the gridlock that we see. We need to change our constitution.

We need to hold these Republicans accountable...

The problem is that, as a solution, Garamendi called for a 55% bar for the budget. That's a completely arbitrary number, and it undercuts the principle of majority rule for an imagined gain of support in the Central Valley in a way that makes no sense. But at least he brought up changing the Constitution.

By contrast, Steve Poizner thinks the whole deal should be dumped because not enough rich people like him are getting taxed, because, like him, they're too powerful.

"They don't have the guts to raise taxes on rich people because rich people have lobbyists and rich people are mobile and rich people will leave."

I would like to see the fantasy budget Republican Steve Poizner would submit calling for massive increases in the top marginal tax rates. He should present that at the California Republican Party's spring meeting in Sacramento this week. I'd like to see that. Oh wait, his budget plan is to do everything but the tax increases as a six-month fix. What a surprise, he doesn't have the guts either!

(By the way, there's no evidence that progressive taxation has caused any flight of bodies from California whatsoever in history. Thought I'd mention that to pre-empt the trolls.)

Finally, the Governor found his way to Sacramento and made a beeline for the nearest camera, not knowing how to negotiate. This line will make the 6:00 news statewide:

"Anyone that runs around, I think, and says that this can be done without raising taxes, I think has not really looked at it carefully to understand this budget or has a math problem and has to get back, as I said, and take Math 101," Schwarzenegger said.

Of course, this was the guy who said he'd "terminate" taxes and lied about Phil Angelides' tax plans. So he has no credibility and less relevance, no matter the truth of his statement.

Auctioning Off The Governorship

Because having a governor with no political experience whatsoever is working out so well, the Republicans, who have no bench to speak of, may be tapping another unconventional candidate to be their standard-bearer in 2010.

As she prepares to depart from EBay after a decade at the helm, Chief Executive Meg Whitman appears to be investigating a new career -- in politics.

Whitman has talked with top Republicans about the possibility of a run for California governor in 2010, according to three operatives who have had discussions with her. Whitman is said to be asking detailed questions about the logistics of a run and the effect she could have as governor, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal the conversations.

Whitman did not make herself available for comment. A source close to her said she had been talking with Republicans around the state and had become "fascinated" by politics in her work as a fundraiser for GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts and a former colleague of Whitman at the consulting firm Bain & Co.

As tempting as anyone close to Mitt "Who let the dogs out" Romney is to me as a chief executive, I'm thinking no.

But what's interesting here is that Whitman is not driving the discussion as much as Republican party leaders, who see nobody on the horizon that would put up much of a fight. There are a couple gazillionaires and Tom McClintock, who is more likely than any of them to win a primary. Has McClintock ever even voted for a budget? Have the others run a government bureaucracy?

I think Alan Keyes and Ted Nugent will be the next names up for speculation.

The California Report

Let me clear out my Inbox and set you on your weekend way:

• The Megan's Law website apparently is being used as a hit list and may have led to at least one death. This is the downside of a "what about the children?" über alles mentality.

• I'm not entirely certain about this claim that state lawmakers could have solved the mortgage crisis back in 2001 by cracking down on predatory lending practices. It's a boilerplate story, a typical "they bought off the politicians" frame. But the problem, as Paul Krugman notes today, is that home prices lowered, leading to negative equity for homeowners. Not sure what the lawmakers could have done about that. This is a national crisis that required federal action. And what action could be taken on the state level is in the purview of the Attorney General. Jerry Brown is investigating home loans from Countrywide Financial for improprieties, particularly forcing buyers with good credit into subprime mortgages.

• For all the talk about Steve Poizner, he is doing his job in suing Blue Shield for their loathsome practice of dropping patients retroactively after they seek coverage. Blue Shield's response?

The state's interpretation of laws governing policy cancellations "is simply wrong."

Stupid state, not knowing their own laws as well as a private entity!

• Nancy Pelosi is under fire for saying that Republicans like this war. Juan Cole is right to slam her for assuming that Republicans would act in good faith and help to end the war after the 2006 elections. What Republican Party was she talking about?

• Anthony Wright has the new amendments released to the public on the new health care reform. I should have a lot more on this over the weekend.

• I know that I didn't execute a House roundup in November, but honestly there wasn't a whole lot going on in the races. So I postponed it and will have a December roundup in the next few days.

• And finally, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the California Democratic Party buying three grand in French wine from Fabian Nuñez, who's now a wine salesman, I guess. I have to acknowledge Kevin Spillane (two Republicans in one day, I know) from the No on 93 campaign for the funny move of sending a bottle of Two Buck Chuck to Nuñez' office. It is an award winner.

How's That Cruz Bustamante Pick Look Right About Now?

The greatest concern in the post-wildfire landscape of California is the insurance situation. Obviously there are going to be thousands of claims, and how the insurance companies handle them will deserve great scrutiny. John Garamendi, the former Insurance Commissioner and current Lieutenant Governor who has been all over the media this week (building a profile for an attempted 2010 Governor's run - hint hint), has talked a lot about the insurance industry's desire to limit payouts to their customers after the 2003 Cedar Fire.

LT. GOV. GARAMENDI: The first commandment of the insurance industry is, "Thou shalt pay as little, as late, as possible." And then you get the reward. You go to financial heaven if you can carry out that commandment.

BRANCACCIO: California lieutenant governor John Garamendi, a democrat, served twice as the state's insurance commissioner. A total of eight years battling with the industry over the many ways he says it tries to avoid high payouts where there's been a total loss.

LT. GOV. GARAMENDI: I'm telling you, the insurance industry, prior to the fire and probably even to this day, is purposely misleading their customers.

Garamendi was actually pretty relentless in forcing insurers to honor their commitments. Now we have a Republican in the Insurance Commissioner's position. While Sara Nichols wants Steve Poizner to honor his supposed environmental credentials, I'm worried that he will let too many insurers off the hook. Plus, with fires wrecking the landscape around homes and making them more vulnerable to mudslides, the ability of those homeowners to get insurance for those potential disasters is a major concern.

All of this is mad possible by the revolving-door manner in which top Democrats have shuffled statewide positions in recent years, leaving us with maybe the worst Democratic candidate possible for Insurance Commissioner in 2006, Cruz Bustamante. He was crushed, not only because Poizner outspent him, but because he was a horrible, ethically compromised candidate. But Insurance Commissioner was available to him, so that's were he went. This musical chairs in these top seats ends up having a major impact in times like this.