This is at least the seventh or eighth cover story (and I’m not even counting the muscle mags) on the supposed “moderate centrism” of Arnold Schwarzenegger, which is apparently something to be deified.  Now it’s of course true that this “centrism” is broadly defined as implementing the wishes of Democrats and the overwhelming majority of Americans without the help of Republican votes at all, while still calling yourself a Republican, setting you apart from those dirty fucking hippie Democrats.  I can give you a wide range of Democrats at the state level implementing the same kinds of policies (Eliot Spitzer, Brian Schweitzer, Martin O’Malley, Bill Richardson, John Lynch), but they’re mean Democrats and not very serious Republicans so they don’t count and get magazine covers.  But there’s something more here.

What exactly has Arnold Schwarzenegger done in 2007 to deserve this hero worship?  Sure, the vagaries of the California Legislature ensures that he won’t have many bills to sign until September.  But here’s the 2007 record:

In the past several months, the governor has:

• added 53,000 beds to our prisons, to the extent that the state government is paying more to incarcerate people than it does on higher education…

• refused to do anything about sentencing guidelines which have put us into such a mess that we have these overstuffed prisons in the first place and the nation’s highest recidivism rate (he’s also refused to fund a voter-approved drug treatment program that would alleviate this)…

• eliminated $1.3 billion in public transit funds so he won’t have to raise taxes to balance the budget, preferring to continue to put bond issues on the state credit card to keep the budget artificially solvent until he gets to leave and it all crashes down for the next governor…

• tried to cut funding for the poor and the elderly in his mean-spirited budget proposal, and is deliberately fudging the numbers to make the state budget look better than it is…

• vowed to privatize the lottery to get a short-term cash infusion, again risking long-term loss of revenue…

• formulated a health care plan that’s so completely ridiculous and unworkable that nobody, Democrat or Republican, will carry it into the Legislature…

• appointed every lackey he knows to state oversight boards, including his personal dentist and personal chiropractor, even though they have no experience in the boards on which they now sit…

This is conveniently ignored by all of these magazine cover stories, which focus on those “big issues” that the Schwarzenegger team pushes with all the might of his PR machine.  But unlike the environment and stem cell research, economic issues are never uttered by those praising Arnold’s “centrism.”  That’s because he’s far to the right on all of those issues.

“I was sent to Sacramento to protect businesses, and that’s why the first thing I did when I came into office was, we reformed workers’ compensation,” Schwarzenegger said in Chico the other day, adding, “We went in there and we reformed the system, but a radical reform. And now, as I have said, we are putting $14 billion back into the economy because we reduced the workers’ comp costs by 50 percent, and like I said, another 16 percent is coming.”

Before the governor spoke, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner recommended another 14 percent cut in premiums charged by workers’ comp insurers — substantially more than the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau had recommended. As Schwarzenegger said, employers’ overhead for workers’ comp has been reduced by at least $14 billion a year, even as their insurers’ profits have soared […]

The coalition seeking a rollback has distributed what it calls “horror stories” about disabled workers to bolster its case, but so far has been unable to generate much public or media interest — or even much traction for legislative change.

Had Democrat Phil Angelides ousted Schwarzenegger in last year’s election, one of his first acts would have been to roll back the much-disputed regulations. But with Schwarzenegger re-elected in a landslide, the coalition’s hopes now rest on administration studies being conducted on the effects of the reforms. So far, they have confirmed critics’ complaints about sharp reductions in disability ratings and compensation levels. But whether they will lead to change is problematic.

When he vetoed a workers’ comp benefit increase last year, Schwarzenegger said he is “committed to making any changes necessary to ensure that injured workers unfairly impacted by workers’ comp reform receive appropriate medical treatment and indemnity benefits.” But every time he makes a speech crowing about the multibillion-dollar savings to employers, he becomes more wedded to the status quo.

“I was sent to Sacramento to protect business,” first of all, should be on the lips of every Democratic legislator in the state.  This is what Schwarzenegger is all about.  This is his core constituency.  And he will protect it against those unfortunates who get injured on the job and are seeing their protections diminished severely and unjustly.  That’s because we have a national media that’s more concerned about painting images of “the moderate action hero compromiser” instead of telling the truth about the cruelty of his economic positions.

I’m not surprised that the national media can be so easily bamboozled by Schwarzenegger’s purported centrism; heck, even national bloggers have been fooled.  What does surprise me, and sadden me, is that the Democratic leadership in this state has decided not to push back against this now-ingrained narrative.  There’s an opening so wide you can drive one of Arnold’s Hummers through it.  The Governor seems to understand that progressive ideas are popular, and has no problem cherry-picking some of them.  But his economic ideas are wildly unpopular, and we need some good old-fashioned populism to put the lie to this government-by-magazine-cover nonsense.

It is always interesting to watch how a scandal can so easily jump to a parallel perp. In this case, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo has a wife who seemed to serve as a role model for driving with a suspended license.

This news, dug up by my colleague Patrick McGreevy, was of note because Delgadillo was squawking about the release of Paris Hilton from jail, where she was doing time for driving with a suspended license.

Then, on Tuesday, we learned that Delgadillo’s city-owned GMC Yukon was banged up in 2004.

No big deal there, except that McGreevy’s sources leave the impression that Delgadillo might not have been behind the wheel.

It gets better…

So the L.A. Times has been all over this, putting together a list of all the questions they want answered. And in showing true Lou Correa courage Delgadillo is going to come clean on the 10th day:

Nobody, it seems, can answer my questions.

I mentioned my frustration to Delgadillo spokesman Nick Velasquez, who finally got back to me Friday afternoon to say that Delgadillo will gladly meet with me and another Times reporter Monday.

Monday?

It’s a simple question, really. Who was driving the car?

Doesn’t seem to me that the answer could change over the weekend, but come to think of it, Monday is perfect. Monday is beautiful. I like a nice round number, and Monday is Day 10 of the Rocky Horror Show. Be sure to stay tuned.

OK, I’ll stay tuned…

And like many of the recent scandals, there are bonus points…

Instead, Delgadillo spent the whole week ducking, but it seemed there was nowhere to hide. The Los Angeles Ethics Commission nailed Delgadillo with $11,450 in fines for violating campaign finance laws in an unconnected matter, and L.A. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley accused Delgadillo of going soft on crime, charging criminals with misdemeanors instead of felonies to keep the prosecutions under his jurisdiction.

You know you’re on a really bad streak when $11,450 in campaign finance fines is the best part of your week.

Any predictions on the font size for tomorrow’s headline?

The LA Times writes a story about a possible challenge in CA-24, one of the few Congressional districts in the state which is somewhat purple (registration is 44-34 Republican, but with a lot of DTS votes), by a big-name Democratic opponent.

For months now, Democratic activists have been urging Ventura lawyer Richard Francis to run next year for the seat held by Elton Gallegly, Ventura County’s longtime Republican congressman.

Gallegly’s backing of the Iraq war and his record on environmental issues could make the 11-term representative vulnerable with crossover voters who want the war to end and are worried about the effects of global warming, they argue.

Francis, the author of Ventura County’s popular slow-growth laws, Save Open Space and Agricultural Resources, would be the most credible challenger to face Gallegly since 2000. In that year, Ventura lawyer Michael Case finished 13 percentage points behind Gallegly.

“He has name recognition because of SOAR. He’s working on a traffic issue in Oxnard right now. And he’s a former mayor of Ventura,” county Democratic Chairman Bill Gallaher said of Francis. “He’s out there with popular issues that seem to be supported in the area.”

Francis would likely not be the only challenger.  Jill Martinez, the 2006 candidate, may run again.  So might Mary Pallant, an ex-Republican-turned-progressive who was elected on the same delegate slate as mine in the 41st Assembly District.

Gallegly is always a threat to retire.  He pretty much did last year before changing his mind after it became clear he annonced too late for any Republican to run in his place. 

In a recent interview, the 63-year-old legislator said he was in excellent health but hinted that he still was thinking about retirement after two decades in office. For now, all he will publicly say is that he is keeping his options open for the June 2008 primary.

“The dynamics have changed dramatically in the last year or so. Now [the Republicans] are in the minority,” Gallegly said, referring to the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in November. “Leadership has put a full-court press on some of the more seasoned people. It’s an honor to have people trying to convince you to stay.”

Gallegly said he’d make a final decision in January or early February.

Francis has made a name for himself in the the district with his drafting of a policy that enables voters to control the fate of any growth and development decisions in most of Ventura county.  These wildly popular initiatives have been vital to preservation and environmental protection in the region.  This could be a model for the nation if Francis is called to Washington to serve.

Obviously, the major issue in any race is going to be Iraq, and Gallegly continues to be a Bush rubber stamp, ignoring the will of the electorate in his district and throughout the nation.

But Gallegly, who has voted to support President Bush every step of the way, said he stands by his votes.

“I don’t know anyone who likes war. I don’t like war,” Gallegly said. “But I don’t like people who posture to do us great harm.”

He isn’t worried either that his environmental record will hurt him. According to the League of National Conservation Voters, Gallegly has voted 8% of the time in favor of legislation it supported over the last eight years.

I do think that this seat is ripe for a major challenge, whether by Francis or somebody else.  The demographics are changing as more Democrats priced out of Santa Barbara move in.  Ventura County Democratic groups have worked hard on voter registration and outreach.  If they unite behind a candidate who can raise enough money, I think they can make a play at Gallegly.

Yesterday, I saw this in The Register. And as soon as I saw this, I was stopped in my tracks.

Roughly 2.5 million low-income adults in California can’t afford to adequately feed their families, resulting in health problems and household stress, according to a UCLA report released this week.

The report measures food insecurity, which can range from reduced quality or variety of diet to skipping meals because of costs. In 2005, 30 percent of low-income adults statewide reported choosing between food and other basic needs, according to data from the California Health Interview Study. Among them, 9 percent experienced a disruption in eating habits or skipped meals. The study did not include the homeless.

In Orange County, the UCLA report says an estimated 190,000 low-income adults struggle to buy food, and about 36,000 people sometimes go hungry. The numbers don’t include children.

Oh my goodness! 2.5 million people in California can’t afford to feed their families? And 190,000 of them are in “wealthy” Orange County? 145,000 of them in San Bernardino County? 740,000 of them in LA County? What’s happening to these people who can’t afford to eat? Why is this happening? And what can we do to solve this problem?

Follow me after the flip for more…

So why exactly is this happening? The UCLA report offers a harrowing answer:

“Food expenditures are the most flexible item in household budgets and are frequently squeezed when income dips or unemployment strikes.”

So these people are having to give up food as they try to scrape up the cash to pay for the mortgage or the rent, as well as the electric bill, and the heating bill, and the water bill, and all those other expenses. They’re having to forgo one of the most basic human needs in order to provide for other basic human needs. Doesn’t this seem disturbing? This shouldn’t be happening. No one should be going hungry. Not in this nation, not in this state, not in any of our communities.

After all, this creates huge societal problems. Hunger does not only cause a growling tummy. So what can happen when people can’t eat? Oh, the children just can’t get educated while the adults don’t get proper health care.

Back to The Register:

According to the research, children living in households without a sufficient food supply miss more school and experience more emotional problems. Adults are more likely to feel anxious or depressed. Additionally, families are more likely to forgo medical care and filling prescriptions, which affects their overall health.

While it may seem counterintuitive, adults living in households with a shortage of quality food were more likely to be overweight, according to the brief. As a solution, the report recommends helping households receive federally funded help, such as food stamps and child nutrition programs.

We all know the value of education. We know the value of good, preventive health care. We all know the value of good mental and emotional health. This is why we can’t all these poor folks go hungry. Their hunger only contributes to greater problems for them, and for others.

So what can be done about this? What can we do to help these people afford something to eat? Well, maybe can support something like the NOURISH Act. The report suggested that the federal government step up its aid for these poor people who can’t help themselves in providing food for the family table. Well, Rep. Joe Baca (D-San Bernardino) has come up with a solution here.

Now I may not always see eye to eye with Joe Baca, but this time he’s totally right on:

“We have a moral obligation to feed the hungry. The NOURISH Act includes many provisions to expand assistance to families and improve access for eligible underserved populations. I also propose increasing funding for food banks which provide important help when government programs are not sufficient to meet the rising demands of American families facing hunger.”

We really need to do something about this hidden crisis. The US is supposed to be the richest nation on earth, and California is supposed to be one of the richest states in this nation. And yet, some 2.5 million people struggle to afford feeding their families. This just shouldn’t be happening.

The NOURISH Act sounds like a good start toward solving this problem. Perhaps we should thank Joe Baca for this good legislation. And maybe, we should write our representatives, and urge them to support Baca’s legislation. We just can’t let any more people needlessly go hungry.