After spending the first 8 months of 2010 hoarding his money, and having survived Meg Whitman’s $100 million dollar ad barrage to remain tied in the polls, Jerry Brown has released his first real TV ad today, which you can view at right. The ad, narrated by Peter Coyote (who is a longtime friend of Brown), portrays Brown as a moderate who had a record of job creation, “world-class education,” clean energy, and balanced budgets while governor in the 1970s and early 1980s.
The ad closes with Brown pledging to restore control to local government, and pledging “no new taxes without voter approval” (more on that in a moment).
The Calbuzzers have an excellent take on this ad:
Brown is in effect saying – especially to crucial swing voters – “I’m a safe alternative to that woman who has been assaulting your senses all summer. California was working when I was governor and I’ll make it work again. I’m frugal, experienced and I know what I’m doing.”
Made by longtime Brown ally and media meister Joe Trippi, the ad seeks to convince voters that Brown was and remains a tightwad with the experience and integrity to govern California at a time of crisis. Brown’s campaign brain trust – after much polling and many focus groups – understands that the No. 1 concern about him among independents is whether he’ll raise taxes and spend like a drunken sailor.
This is a reflection that, due largely to her massive TV ad buy, the governor’s race has now become a referendum on Meg Whitman, and not on Jerry Brown. Brown sees his task as being as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible so that he can capitalize on growing voter dislike of Whitman.
Of course, as we see in the ad, Brown is doing this by positioning himself in the supposed center of California politics. He is distancing himself from, and perhaps running at the expense of, progressives with his high profile “no new taxes without voter approval” pledge, which Calbuzz rightly predicts will become a focal point of the race.
That pledge has already begun to receive strong criticism from progressives, who recognize that California badly needs higher taxes, especially on the wealthy, in order to generate economic growth and provide for equality and opportunity in our state. However, it’s worth noting that Brown is not taking a Meg Whitman perspective that all taxes are bad and should be opposed. In fact, he is providing progressives with an opportunity to generate the revenue we need to provide economic security to Californians.
California voters routinely approve tax increases, and numerous polls, including the May 2010 PPIC poll, show widespread support across the state for raising taxes to fund public services such as schools and health care. Brown is saying he won’t stop those taxes from happening if the voters want them – which is the proper thing to do, given that we do live in a democracy. That gives progressives an opportunity to organize and convince voters to follow through and approve new revenues to save these programs. Progressives will have to do that organizing no matter what, given the ongoing financial strength of the anti-tax right.
Further, given that the 2/3rds rule for Legislative approval of new taxes will be in place at least until 2012, and that no Republican legislator would dare vote for a tax increase proposed by a Democratic governor, Jerry Brown’s ability to implement any new taxes without a vote of the people even if he wanted to do so is so limited as to be practically non-existent. Brown’s position, then, acknowledges this reality while leaving progressives the option of organizing to achieve new revenues, whereas Whitman would fight us every step of the way.
I would much rather we had a straight up contest between a progressive candidate and a right-wing candidate. Instead we have a right-winger and a centrist. Progressives will have to decide which they prefer. In an election this close, progressive votes will swing the outcome.
The future of tax increases in California is to tie them
to particular ends–for example, an oil severance tax
that funds the University of California. I know this is
inefficient, idiotic, etc, but reads Krugman’s columns about
Gallop polls describing attitudes on increased government spending in 1938–even though that was what was needed,
a huge majority was opposed. One has to work with what
one has.
Note that Brown is not ruling out a majority-vote fee
swap, either (which, by definition, would not raise taxes).
Reclassifying the gas tax as a fee and then raising taxes
on the top 1% would raise vitally needed revenue and
be a swap.
pledge means that he would be putting targeted revenue measures on the ballot for Californians in conjunction with the legislature. The big problem with Arnold has been that he has refused to go along with the legislature to put those measures on the ballot, and without his assent the legislature would need a 2/3 vote.
Has always been a progressive. Always was.
I think you have miss characterized both of the candidates. Meg Whittman is not an arch conservative (I assume that’s what you meant by right winger) for a Republican she’s fairly moderate.
And Jerry Brown is a progressive. The idea to push for a majority vote to increase taxes would be an improvement in this state.
If politics is the art of the possible it seems like a really good idea to tie raising taxes to a majority vote. It appears to the voters that Jerry Brown is making a reasonable concession when in fact he pushing for a big improvement. It’s a great way to frame the debate, we’ll see how it goes I’m sure Whittman will call majority vote a defacto tax increase, but maybe the moods of the voters have changed because of what they’ve seen in the senate.
If Jerry Brown is successful in convincing California that Republicans are anti- majoritarian and obstructionist, when we need an active Sacramento, that would be a huge victory for progressives.
To spend other peoples money?
This state takes in Billions of dollars as is. This entitlement attitude that permeates among you that because 50% plus 1 of the voting public wants to spend on something that the other 50% negative 1 are just evil and greedy for disagreeing.
Yet when over 50% gets in a tizzy over gay marriage (something I support BTW) all of a sudden it’s about protecting minority rights.
The ethics around here are consistently inconsistent.
… but only if “voter approval” means 50%. We need to get rid of supermajority requirements for basic decisions. Supermajorities should only be needed for fundamental rule changes. I think that constitutional amendments should need a 2/3 vote; that way we never would have been saddled with Prop Hate. But bond measures and parcel taxes? No way.