The battle of whether to run the High Speed Rail Line through the Altamont Pass or the Pacheco Pass was pretty much a lose-lose for the Commission headed by former Legislator Quentin Kopp. If they chose the Altamont Pass they gave cities in the East Bay good access to the train, but kept the train far from Gilroy and Santa Cruz. And of course, by choosing Pacheco, the Board has angered the East Bay folks.  Thanks to the Chronicle for this handy-dandy map –>

But, while there was little debate by the board at this meeting, it was not without fireworks. San Jose Mayor (and sometimes Democrat) Chuck Reed and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom showed up at the meeting in Sacramento yesterday. However, while this meeting featured the big names arguing for the Pacheco pass route, some members of Congress and other various politicians have threatened federal funding for the rail system if it didn’t go through the Altamont Pass. Ahh…fun.

Either way, it looks like next year just might be the year we see the $10B in bonds for high speed rail. That alone won’t be enough to get this done, but it would certainly provide plenty of motivation to get the process really moving. The Governator has indicated that he might just let this get on to the ballot. From the Chronicle:

Whether Arnold comes out in favor of the plan is still up in the air, but if he does give his blessing, perhaps the stars will align for a successful 2008 campaign for HSR.

Flip it for the fun HSR video.

I think this may end up being less of a problem in the Feb. 5 primary than people may think.  Low-information Democrats probably think this sounds like a decent idea.

ABC’s Sunlen Miller Reports: Barack Obama has often said he’d consider putting Repbulicans in his cabinet and even bandied about names like Sens. Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel. He’s a added a new name to the list of possible Republicans cabinet members – Arnold Schwarzenegger […]

“What (he’s) doing on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don’t agree with him on, but he’s taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven’t seen that kind of leadership in Washington,” Obama said of the California governor.

Honestly, until I see a full transcript, I wouldn’t say definitively that Obama actually suggested Arnold for his cabinet.  It sounds like, from the story, that he said he’d likely have Republicans in his cabinet (remember, even George Bush had a Democratic Secretary of Transportation, California’s own Norman Mineta), and here are a few Republicans he respects.

Of course, Obama doesn’t live here, and doesn’t see, for example, Schwarzenegger’s attempts to slow-walk the global warming law to favor business.  Or his irresponsible borrow and spend policies and refusal to address the structural budget problem.  Or his desire to bust unions.  Or his cuts to care for mentally ill homeless people.  Or… well, I could go on.

[UPDATE] by Julia  According to the transcript sent to me by the Obama campaign via email, so no link, cant verify, Obama did not directly suggest Arnold as a potential member of his administration, but rather gave his name as a person going good things on the environment.  It’s on the flip.

Questioner: When you were mentioning the list of great Democrats in the past, Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy, by the way I hope in the future you mention Truman as well.

BO: Truman was a good one.

Questioner: Yes, but when you were mentioning those two, they were famous for having Republicans in their administration to help bring the country together. Are there any Republicans that you could tell us about tonight that you would like to be part of the Obama administration?

BO: You know its premature for me to start announcing my cabinet. I mean I’m pretty confident, but not that confident. We’ve still got a long way to go. I can tell you Republicans I respect though.  Dick Lugar who I worked with on issues of arms control., wonderful guy we traveled together to Russia we toured nuclear facilities there. Talked to Russian generals about how countries could cooperate in reducing nuclear threats. He is somebody who embodies a tradition of bipartisan foreign policy that is sensible that is not ideological that is based on the idea that we have to have to have some humility and restraint in terms of our ability to project power around the world and we have to use diplomacy as a tool. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam veteran similar approach. Somebody whom I respect in a similar fashion. You know I don’t agree with him on much, but what Schwarzenegger is doing I think on climate change in California is very important and significant. There are things I don’t agree with him on, but he’s taken leadership on a very difficult issue and we haven’t seen that same kind of leadership in Washington, but climate change should not be a partisan issue we’re all living on the same planet and there are ways of structuring an approach to climate change like a cap and trade system I’ve suggested. That can be market driven and generate investment and job opportunities that can grow the economy and that would be a very pro growth agenda over the long term.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown went right to work Tuesday, preparing to sue the federal government “at the earliest possible moment” for the EPA’s denial of a waiver to let California implement Fran Pavley’s AB1493, the law regulating auto tailpipe emissions that was to begin with model year 2009.  The regulations, which sought to control greenhouse gases and not just boost auto efficiency standards, would have had the effect of an increase in MPG to roughly 43, far above the 35MPG by 2020 just mandated in the federal energy bill.  Indeed, the EPA in its decision noted the passage of the energy bill as a reason to deny California’s request, claiming that there should be one standard and that the new bill pre-empted California’s authority.  So much for state’s rights conservatives.

The lawsuit is about as close as you can get to a slam dunk.  The case law is already enormously in favor of California.  They have been granted every waiver they’ve ever requested from the EPA since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, and the “compelling and extraordinary conditions” of the state’s topography, climate, and number of cars on the road has always been specifically cited.  That hasn’t changed.  In addition, federal lawsuits in California and Vermont have upheld the standards set out in AB1493 as fully legal.  And just this year, the Roberts Supreme Court has ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that the federal government can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writng that:

“Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Sadly, it’s true that the Bush Administration probably has the ability to put up enough of a fight in the courts to make implementation virtually impossible so long as he remains in office.  And so this is likely to come down to a decision for the next President to make.  So you would think that the media, knowing this, knowing the potential of global warming to impact all of our lives, would bother to ask a question about it.  But so far in 2007, out of 2275 questions asked of the Presidential candidates on the Sunday chat shows, 3 mentioned global warming.  Here’s a news peg, Russert, Stephanopoulos, Blitzer, Wallace and Schieffer.  Have at it!

The New York Times has more on this.

(elected’s diaries always go to the front. plus this one is very pertinent to our ongoing discussion of the health care deal. – promoted by Julia Rosen)

The Governor and Assembly Speaker have emerged from negotiations with a healthcare plan that needs to be sent back for major reconstructive surgery.

The plan has some very good elements – such as preventing insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, a long-overdue expansion of children’s healthcare coverage and, potentially, the creation of the largest purchasing pool in the health insurance market outside of the federal government.

But the proposal has major flaws that must be fixed before it has a chance of final approval by California voters.

The first problem: there is not nearly enough cost control. Under the proposal, almost all Californians would have to buy health insurance – but there are not sufficient guarantees that the insurance polices are going to be affordable. There will be direct subsidies for families making up to 2.5 times the federal poverty level, or $51,625 for a family of four. There will be tax breaks and a buying pool for families making between 2.5 times the poverty level and four times the poverty level, which is $82,600 for a family of four. But here in San Francisco, and in most California cities, a family of four making $83,000 is hardly wealthy. To require these families to buy a product without sufficient guarantees that this product is affordable is not sound policy.

Another unacceptable risk: not enough protections against “dumping.” This plan needs real barriers to prevent big companies that hire low-wage workers (like WalMart) from merely pushing the healthcare burden onto taxpayers.

Yet another flaw: the plan is unclear about how it will provide sufficient coverage to undocumented workers. How can we even be talking about a “universal” plan that could leave out millions of people? The plan needs to create a way to cover everyone working in California regardless of immigration status – perhaps with more support for the county health systems that are now the healthcare providers of last resort.

It is certainly true that expanding the pool of people with health insurance will create savings. And making sure most Californians have preventative care is both a giant step forward and a significant cost control. But even these two important improvements are still not enough. We are still going to be burdened with a system that wastes billions of dollars on unnecessary overhead and bureaucracy.

And that’s the important and unanswered question with this proposal – does this plan get us closer to a sensible Single Payer system or does it take us farther away?

We are now implementing a universal healthcare system in San Francisco that achieves affordable and quality care largely by expanding our network of public hospitals and clinics. This care is affordable because the city itself acts in most cases as the “Single Payer.” We don’t waste up to 33% in insurance company overhead because there is no insurance company. And profits that would go to insurance companies can be invested in better care.

This kind of direct access to care and a Single Payer system is a model that will work in California and ultimately the rest of the nation.

I, for one, am not opposed to interim steps on our way to Single Payer. We all need to understand that building a workable Single Payer system will take time. But I want us to keep moving in the right direction. There is a compelling argument that the purchasing pool created under this proposal will be a first step toward Single Payer.

If correct, that’s a strong argument in favor of the plan. But I’m not convinced that this plan, as currently drafted, is moving us toward our ultimate goal of affordable and quality care for everyone.