We didn’t intend today to be Jerry Brown Day here at Calitics, but we could not pass up reporting on some rather stunning statements Brown made at a recent appearance at UC Irvine. As reported by the OC Register (with a h/t to Calitics alum David Dayen):
But Brown did address Proposition 13 – the property-tax limit – and taxes in general.
“I don’t think taking on Prop. 13 is viable,” said Brown, who was on hand as part of a speaker’s series at the school. “I don’t think it (change) is needed.
“As a candidate, if you even peep about a tax, you’re dead,” he said. “We’ve got to downsize government to the maximum degree. We’ve got to make it efficient and bring it to the community.”
Brown said he opposed reducing the two-thirds majority vote required for tax hikes, but said he was open to reducing the two-thirds majority vote needed to approve the budget. He voiced support for the state’s three-strikes law, remained uncommitted on a public option for health care, and said he supported a path toward legalizing those now in the country illegally.
Anyone who still thinks Brown is a progressive, please raise your hands. Thought so.
If Brown is not even willing to embrace the public option, which is widely popular here in California, if he won’t commit to majority rule, and if he believes in “downsizing government to the maximum degree” then we’re looking at someone who is clearly planning to run a centrist, even DLC-like campaign here in California.
Brown likely has concluded that 2010 will be like 1994, and that if he is to avoid his sister’s fate he must appease Republicans and independents who supposedly are skeptical of government.
The problem with that thinking is it almost certainly guarantees the same outcome as in 1994. Sure, Jerry will improve on the 40% Kathleen got in that race, but if he is going to refuse to embrace the public option, there’s just no way at all he will be able to motivate California progressives, and even many California Democrats will not be enthused to do more than cast their vote for him on Election Day.
As I’ve argued before, 2010 will be a turnout election. If Brown can’t motivate the Democratic base, he’ll be facing a Republican candidate with a strongly motivated right-wing base, and his victory will become anything but certain. Brown may think those statements played well in Orange County (even though Irvine voters cast a majority of their votes for Obama). They’re definitely NOT going to play well with the people he needs to help him win.
…you make some good points but it is sort of early to be throwing the most likely winner under the bus but…
…never stopped the rest of the ‘progressive ‘sphere…’ from doing it to anyone or everyone who doesn’t meet the litmus test of ‘progressivism…’ as defined by young, white bloggers….
Which may be why there are no progressive elected solons at this point.
I’ll be checking in over at Jerry’s site to see what’s up.
Feel free to ban me for my lack of agreement with your position. And hey1
Maybe Gavin will change his mind, eh?
Jerry Brown was there on Oct 29th — when the version that the House passed wasn’t even discussed yet, mainly because the House passed a weaken version.
That said, the Attorney General wasn’t in DC following every twist and turn of the healthcare debate like most congresspeople.
He applied caution to a question whose meaning changed every single day.
Not even President Obama and his team made the Public Option a litmus test for the bill he would sign.
Regarding prop 13 — note that CTA has submitted two ballot intiatives aimed at “split roll” of homeowner and commercial properties.
Jerry Brown doesn’t need to be the motivating factor for us Dems to vote Yes on split, WE need to be the motivating factor.
Or didn’t we learn that lesson in 2008.
If Brown thinks the budget problem can be solved short of changing the 2/3 rules, I think he’s wrong — and I think he’s overlearned the lessons of the late-70s tax revolt, and become too fearful of right-wing backlash. Nevertheless, the quotes you provide don’t prove he is a conservative.
“We’ve got to downsize government to the maximum degree” is consistent with the principle that we should have as much government as we need, but no more. Right-sizing the government (or if it’s already right-sized, keeping it that way) is, or should be, a progressive goal. What’s the alternative? Kneejerk support for constant expansion of the government?
I don’t get it…can someone give me one defintion of the public option?
Because every different democrats in congress seems to be supporting a different version.
Also will everyone here on Calitics be supporting the version that lands on the President’s desk?
I mean just because one dem says what the President is signing does that mean the good folks on this blog will accept that legislation as a pure robust public option?
That said, with the twist and turns this legislation is taking i don’t know that I a progressive can support a bill that radically changes hte options for women.
And i expect there will be progressives that will support the bill still, even if the Stupak language stays in.
So Robert — if there are progressives on each side of the fence, which side is the progressive side?
My argument would be simply, both sides are right.
As for Jerry Brown — he can wait til he sees what lands on the President’s desk before he make a defining statement on the merits of the bill and the congress’s definition to “public option”.
I think Brown is too tired to take a leadership role on anything. He is prepared to govern by doing what the polls tell him to do, but he is not prepared to lead the public in a better direction on anything.
Isn’t that what we have with Schwarzenegger? Wasn’t that the essential Davis? And Wilson?
What about Mervin Field. Is he still available to become Governor?
… so we can continue to play shuffleboard on the deck of the Titanic.
Nice.
Fail.