The once and future governor Jerry Brown gave an interview to the SF Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci earlier this week in which he suggested that despite the passage of 30 years and proof that anti-tax policies have been a catastrophic failure for California, he will still fight against new taxes:

With the state in fiscal crisis, the job this time around could be a no-win situation, he said, but added: “I would not be advocating new taxes, I’ll tell you that.”…

The California governor’s job this time around could be a no-win situation, he acknowledged. It’s an era when just the state deficit is out of control and budget battles are bloody. There’s no one easy answer, “there’s just pain,” he said.

Still, “I would not be advocating new taxes, I’ll tell you that,” he said. Already, California is “one of the highest tax states around,” he said. “So we’ve got to be competitive. We can’t drive all the jobs out and tax the few people who stay.”

Um…wow. This is not very good stuff for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate to be saying – Brown is reinforcing some of the typical right-wing lies about our state. Keep in mind that in terms of overall taxes we actually rank #17.

Perhaps even worse is his repeating the notion that tax increases hurt competitiveness and business. It is a totally 1980s thing to say and divorced from the lived reality of most Californians, who are losing their jobs and their chance to get retrained or educated for new ones because of the collapse of government.

I have written favorably of Jerry Brown in the past and think he could be a good governor for our state. But for that to happen – and for him to win – he needs to stop defending the last 30 years. Instead he needs to articulate a new vision for California for the next 30 years – something that voters can embrace as a credible and hopeful path toward a more prosperous future.

Brown isn’t going to get there by pretending it’s still 1978. A hard anti-tax line is the last thing California needs, as there is no way whatsoever to balance the budget and preserve vital services without the right kind of new taxes.

Additionally, statements like these only benefit Republicans, who use them to reinforce the notion that Californians dislike taxes (which is not true) and to undermine Democrats.

As if on cue, enter Steve Poizner, who in an email to supporters makes the inevitable attack:

Are there any of the tax increases that Brown does support if he opposes the overall budget deal?

Is Brown going to oppose Proposition 1A, the spending cap placed on the May 19th special election ballot, which would keep the recently approved tax increases in place for an additional two years if the measure is approved by voters?

Brown has been playing the political version of “duck and cover” on most issues since he started plotting his campaign for a third term as California Governor.  He often refuses to take a position or offer anything more than vague and non-committal rhetoric. But Californians deserve to know where Jerry Brown stands on the key issues of the day, particularly given his latest political posturing.

So, Jerry, we’re waiting.

In 1978 Brown was able to get reelected by claiming to be a “born again tax cutter”. At the time it worked for Democrats to appease the right-wing anti-tax beast, even though it did massive damage to the state. Now we are also seeing that it does damage to Democrats as well.

Most of the voters who will help a Democrat win the governor’s office in 2010, including myself, weren’t even alive when Prop 13 passed (and unlike me, many weren’t even alive when he was governor). Brown needs to offer a political vision that speaks to their needs, instead of repeating something that hasn’t been fresh for 30 years.

Cross posted at Daily Kos

In a recent op-ed, Congressman Tom McClintock (R- Roseville) made the claim that Obama’s stimulus bill would cost over $200,000 per job, and that conservative free-market policies would ultimately prevail in the end over the “tax-borrow-and-spend policies” of the Democratic Administration.

And who did he blame for those policies???

The guy he just barely beat in the race for Congress, Charlie Brown.



 

In true form of “it’s NEVER my fault, but I’m sure as heck gonna preach responsibility in the hopes no one notices I’m being hypocritical,” Rep. McClintock went full-speed against his former opponent ,a 26-year military veteran, and insinuated the policies of President Obama are actually the brain-child of Lt.Col. Brown. McClintock wrote:

“Charlie Brown is betting otherwise. He is betting with our money that the prescription for prosperity is record-breaking increases in taxes, borrowing and spending,”

What’s ironic about this statement is that it’s Tom McClintock, not Charlie Brown, who is a member of the House of Representatives. In fact, it’s safe to say that Tom McClintock is betting (with our money) that the prescription for prosperity is to ignore warning signs, come up with no viable alternative ideas to help fix the economic crisis, and hope our government fails.



There are so many points that can be made about Congressman McClintock’s bizarre editorial, but I’d like to focus on just a choice few. The first, and perhaps most misleading, is the claim that President Obama’s stimulus plan will cost taxpayers over $200,000 for every job created. This simply is not true, and the argument is not based on faulty logic. The average price of creating a job under Obama’s plan? Less than half of what Rep. McClintock is threatening us with.

The Republicans are also taking the cost of a plan that will extend over several years, creating millions of jobs each year, and dividing it by the jobs created in just one of those years. In fact, the most respected and influential economists in our country say that the $200k+ figure is closer to $60,000 per job. This price is actually lower than the “acceptable” (where does this come from?) threshold of $100k per job created.



One of the other dangerously misleading claims by Rep. McClintock is in regards to the Congressional Budget Office warning that the new federal stimulus will be harmful to our economy. In fact, the CBO offers macro-economic evidence that the stimulus package will increase our chances to move out of our hard-hitting recession:

“CBO estimates that the Senate legislation would raise output by between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009; by between 1.2 percent and 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010; and by between 0.4 percent and 1.2 percent by the fourth quarter of 2011. CBO estimates that the legislation would raise employment by 0.9 million to 2.5 million at the end of 2009; 1.3 million to 3.9 million at the end of 2010; and 0.6 million to 1.9 million at the end of 2011.”

Congressman McClintock and his allies in the GOP are using the Congressional Budget Office’s estimations as weapons in the narrative against the Democrats without telling the public that more of the overall rise in spending and fall in revenues occurs in the first two years under the Senate legislation, which is what they are attributing to the legislation’s potential to fail. And any estimate past the immediate future is off-set by the fact that the markets will change and new legislation will undoubtedly alter the future course of our economy.

Unfortunately, instead of helping shape the President’s policies, Congressman McClintock used his new-found power as a member of the House of Representatives to introduce his first piece of legislation: a resolution honoring President Ronald Reagan on the 98th anniversary of his birth .



Instead of practicing true fiscal responsibility and limiting spending at every opportunity, Congressman McClintock is voting to spend over $1 million for a study to think about the upcoming 100th birthday of former President Ronald Reagan.



As our esteemed Congressman is spending his time reflecting on the past, Placer County (the most populous county in California’s 4th Congressional District) is seeing some of the worst unemployment rates it has seen in decades. County-wide unemployment is up to 10%, with the City of Lincoln suffering from 17.% unemployment of its workforce. Roseville, the most populous city in CA-04, is now suffering from a 9.7% unemployment rate.



It begs the question, Congressman: why are you fiddling while Placer County burns? Why aren’t you trying to work towards solutions instead of planning birthday parties? You were elected to lead and represent us, Congressman. Why aren’t you leading or representing?

This morning on CNN Rep. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47) endorsed Tom Ammiano’s call to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana in what Sanchez calls “an experiment” (hat tip to OC Progressive):

“Well, certainly, I have seen in my own state of California people over and over voting a big majority the whole issue of marijuana and possession of that,” Sanchez said this morning on CNN. “So maybe it would be a good pilot program to see how that regulation of marijuana might happen in California since the populous, the majority of Californians believe maybe that’s should happen.”

Taking a page from a number of those who favor the reform of pot laws, Sanchez likened the issue to the prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th century.

“Well, certainly there is one drug – it’s called alcohol – that we prohibited in the United States and had such a problem with as far as underground economy and cartels of that sort that we ended up actually regulating it and taxing it,” she said. “And so there has always been this thought that maybe if we do that with drugs, it would lower the profits in it and make some of this go away.”

All of this is eminently sensible public policy, and it’s good to have someone widely viewed as a moderate selling this to the public. She is absolutely right to compare marijuana to alcohol (even though alcohol tends to be the more dangerous drug) and remind us what we did when the Prohibition policy failed by creating widespread evasion as well as massive crime – we repealed the 18th Amendment and legalized alcohol.

The Hill article notes that Sanchez’s subcommittee, Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism, has jurisdiction over the American side of the drug war that has brought parts of northern Mexico into chaos. Drug policy reform advocates have been pointing out for decades that the best way to encourage more stability in Latin America, and to cut down the power of the cartels, is to end America’s prohibition policies.

Let’s hope this sparks a broader level of political support for marijuana legalization in California. It’s been the right move for a long time. It’s also now a necessary move if we’re to have any hope of starting to fix our budget mess.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is giving a speech right now at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, the kickoff of his campaign for the state budget items in the May 19 special election.  In some remarks released earlier, it’s clear Arnold is highlighting – and is most concerned about – the spending cap.

“Our state capital is a town that feeds on dysfunction. The special interests, left and right, need the process to be dysfunctional. That is how they control Sacramento. That is how they prevent change.”

[snip]

“But now we have an agreement, passed by two-thirds of the legislature, that puts on the ballot serious budget reform, including a spending limit and a rainy day fund.

“And the very interests, the far left and the far right, that prefer dysfunction over change have already launched a campaign to confuse people and defeat the reform. But this time they are not going to succeed.”

Arnold probably sees this as a selling point, that if Democrats are against his plan, and Republicans are against his plan, then it must be just right.  But this Goldilocks centrism masks the extremism of the spending cap plan, which would ratchet down revenues and cut vital services permanently.  It also represents a serious miscalculation on the part of the Governor, who apparently still thinks his post-partisan message actually works in this state.  That’s the same political genius that has Schwarzenegger polling worse than Carly Fiorina in potential 2010 Senate matchups against Barbara Boxer.  And even Schwarzenegger’s own strategists seem to know that he cannot be the public face of the special election, lest he doom it to failure.

Opponents of the measures say their private polling has shown linking the initiatives to the governor drives down support of the measures. That has been echoed by some supporters of the ballot measures, who have also started testing potential campaign messages.

But (campaign strategist) Adam Mendelsohn said Schwarzenegger’s star power and his ability to get news coverage is still a great asset for the campaign.

“There is no elected official in this state capable of dominating coverage like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The chattering class loves to look at his approval numbers and then cast dispersions, but communicating in a campaign is a lot more complex than just looking at approval numbers.”

Uh, yeah, Mr. Mendelsohn, that’s the PROBLEM.  He’s extremely unpopular with everyone but the Dan Weintraubs of the world.  And there aren’t 17 million Dan Weintraubs living here.

The spending cap, with something for everyone to hate, is particularly vulnerable in the special election.  Republicans have been calling for a hard cap for years, if not decades, but they’ve become so blinded by the Heads on a Stick faction of their party that they cannot look past the short-term of two years of tax increases and realize what they would be getting.  But the Yacht Party infantry clearly doesn’t care: heck, they’re trying to recall Roy Ashburn, who’s termed out in 2010 anyway.  So their entire side, or at least everyone who wants to be elected in a primary, is lining up against 1A.  Meg Whitman has come out against it.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has already announced her opposition to Proposition 1A, and Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak did not rule out the possibility that Whitman would spend money against the measure.

“She’s been very outspoken in her opposition to 1A,” Zak said. “We’ve not made a decision how that opposition manifests at this point. We’re keeping our options open.”

The Flash Report is claiming that Steve Poizner will oppose the measure as well, and he is hinting at contributing funding.

They will be joined by at least some segment of Assembly Democrats.

After a long, closed-door meeting Tuesday, Assembly Democrats remain divided over the budget-balancing ballot measure at the heart of the May 19 special election, Proposition 1A, which would impose a cap and raise taxes.

“Our caucus had a very long discussion on this,” Assembly Speaker Karen Bass told Capitol Weekly. “There are a number of members who are supportive of 1A, there are several members who are opposed to 1A, and there are many others who are trying to decide. We are working through this and we will have another caucus next week,” she said Tuesday evening.

Looks like Bass will have a lot more colleagues to boot out of committee assignments.  You’ll remember that she punished the three Democrats who actually voted against the spending cap on the floor back in February.  Now a good bit of the caucus is revolting.

The caucus did vote to support 1B through 1F, and that’s probably because they know that there’s going to be more cuts coming down the road, and voters opposing the revenue-enhancing items on the ballot will make their job harder.

But, she added, “I’m hearing that we are going to have a $4 billion dollar (revenue) hole, so if the ballot measures don’t pass, then it becomes  $9 billion or $10 billion hole.”

As I said, the crisis continues.

So I’m seeing the anti-tax groups, progressive advocates, the big money in the GOP, half the Assembly Democratic caucus, all against 1A.  On the pro side, Arnold, George Skelton, and Steve Westly, who says 1A will “instill much needed fiscal discipline”.  Yeah, poor people and the blind, get some fiscal discipline, you scumbags!

The wildcard remains the unions, who with even a little bit of financial backing could tip the scales on 1A.  SEIU and AFSCME have delayed formal positions until later this month.  But the Administration is trying to intimidate them into going along with it.

Here’s why it matters to state workers: Last week, the Association of California State Supervisors asked administration officials if the governor would still lay off employees, or if he would abandon the plan since lawmakers have passed a budget.

(Remember, state workers’ twice-monthly furlough is just part of how the governor wants to cut costs. Layoff warnings went to 20,000 of the state’s least senior employees last month. Half could lose their jobs, officials have said.)

The administration’s answer, from notes taken by an association representative: “We hope the five budget-related propositions pass … . If the propositions do not pass, we will be in a worse situation, with more furloughs and layoffs.”

This is despite the fact that 1A would have NO IMPACT whatsoever on the immediate bottom line; in fact, passing it would hurt the budget for state workers more than defeating it.  “Vote like your job depends on it… because it does.”  That must be the working motto.

The question is, will the intimidation work?  Obviously, the fact that the tax increase extensions in 1A are practically hidden on the ballot is going to arouse anger amongst the Heads on a Stick crowd.  And progressive advocates are sticking to principle that an artificial spending cap has failed wherever it’s been tried and is wrong for the state.  In the mythical middle you have the vain Mr. Schwarzenegger, desperately trying to stay relevant.  Ultimately, this is a referendum on him.

UPDATE: And here we go.  The League of Women Voters just announced they’re opposing 1A, along with 1C, 1D, and 1E (selling the lottery and moving money from voter-approved funds for children’s programs and mental health).  This is big if it’s a harbinger of how other groups will line up.

The following was posted by Dan Walters at the SacBee’s Capitol Alert.

The League of Women Voters, which was part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s coalition to pass redistricting reform last year, parted company with the governor today, declaring opposition to four of the six budget-related ballot measures he wants approved at the May 19 special election.

“We oppose these measures because they are not the solution to our long-term financial crisis, with the continuing structural deficit in the state budget and flawed budget process,” said Janis R. Hirohama, LWV president.

“We make this decision with regret. We would support real reform to make the state budget process more accountable and give the Legislature and governor effective tools to advance state priorities. However, these hurriedly drafted propositions, produced at the end of a flawed process that kept both the public and most legislators in the dark, will only make our fiscal situation worse.”

The league’s announcement came just as Schwarzenegger was touting the package before the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco.

I would add that the League of Women Voters is one of the most influential endorsements in the state.

It turns out that Rep. Ken Calvert is at it again.

First, he voted against the Stimulus Bill.  In his world of bizarre partisan purity, Calvert said that the Stimulus Bill spends too much. This argument would be more compelling if it were not coming from someone who voted to bailout banks and corporate CEOs to the tune of $700+ billion with no oversight just a few months ago, and who repeatedly voted to spend a budget-busting trillion dollars in Iraq.

After that last vote, he came back to the district for a series of town hall meetings where he spoke about the Stimulus Bill and the 9800 new jobs that would be created in the 44th and told the local paper, he’d do what he could to direct as much money as possible to the Inland Empire.

He followed that up by voting against the spending bill, complaining about the earmarks that had been added to it.  But in today’s Press Enterprise, it was reported that Mr. Calvert included 34 of his own earmarks totaling more than $42 million to it.  When the Press Enterprise asked about adding those earmarks to the bill Representative Calvert said, “That doesn’t obligate me to vote for the spending.”

I think a more accurate statement to the press would be “In spite of all my efforts to prevent it from happening, there will be 10,000 new jobs and $42 million coming to this Congressional District.”