One of, if not THE dominant theme of this election is a battle over the future of California’s economy. On one side sits those with existing wealth – CEOs Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina – who believe that the economy should be dominated by policies channeling wealth to the already-rich at the expense of jobs and security for everyone else. They’re joined by the Texas oil companies, who share this overall philosophy and want to protect their dominant position, even at the expense of our environment and our jobs, by sponsoring Prop 23.
On the other side stand those who understand that economic recovery comes not with giving more money and power to those who already have plenty of both – but by supporting the creation of new, good jobs here in California at smaller companies that are innovating sustainable technologies designed to help us not only provide economic recovery, but doing so in a way that helps address the climate crisis as well.
That includes not only the growing coalition fighting against Prop 23, but also Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer. Together they offer a very different economic plan than the “give everything to the elite” plans promoted by the Whitman/Fiorina/oil companies axis.
First, let’s take a look at the coalition opposed to Prop 23. Van Jones and Jorge Madrid write today at Climate Progress that green jobs are the future of economic growth – and that Prop 23 would destroy the “certainty” that businesses need to start creating those jobs:
Defenders of dirty energy like to pretend that having smarter climate policies (and more support for clean energy) would cost Americans jobs. Not only are they wrong, but – according to prominent business leaders this week (and a new study ) – their “deny and delay” tactics are now turning out to be the true job killers….
Proposition 23 would destroy half a million jobs in California (many in construction and high-tech manufacturing) by 2020 while costing the state $80 billion in gross domestic product. This number does not even include the $20 billion in GDP growth and 100,000 new clean energy jobs California can create in the next 10 years if its environmental and clean energy policies are upheld (and Proposition 23 is voted down).
Jones and Madrid make a strong case against Prop 23, a proposal designed to enrich the Texas oil companies by destroying California’s clean energy economy (and thus eliminating the competition). Jobs are already being created by the green industry, and California could become a global leader in that industry. But because doing so threatens the existing wealth of some powerful Texas oil companies and CEOs, they believe that industry should be destroyed just as it’s starting to take off.
Jerry Brown understands this quite well. Earlier this year he called the authors of Prop 23 “Neanderthals…who want to turn the clock backward.” Brown, who played a central role in developing California’s existing solar and wind industry during his first stint as governor (the wind farms you see at the Altamont, Pacheco, Tehachapi and San Gorgonio passes were the result of Brown’s policies), has not only attacked Prop 23 as bad policy – he’s also made green jobs the centerpiece of his own jobs plan.
Brown also understands the flaws of Whitman’s “more money and power to the elite” plans. On KGO radio yesterday morning he slammed Whitman’s economic proposals in very strong, progressive terms:
“Her so-called jobs plan, which is as phony as a three-dollar bill, is to give tax breaks to herself in one of grossest conflicts of interest I’ve ever seen in a campaign,” Brown said during his weekly interview on KGO radio in San Francisco.
Whitman has said previously that several other states do not tax capital gains and that such a move would spur investment and spending.
Brown on Thursday countered that the proposal would rip a $5-billion hole in the state’s already troubled finances and that, instead of providing tax relief for ordinary Californians, it would only benefit the wealthiest who have investment income.
“It’s a gigantic ripoff,” Brown said.
Brown is absolutely right that it’s a “gigantic ripoff.” The capital gains tax elimination would indeed bust the state’s budget and be pocketed by the rich – by people like Carly Fiorina, who would benefit from investments in creating jobs overseas. A capital gains tax cut would do nothing to actually create jobs here in California, since it would favor investors who make their money in a global economy, and might indeed fuel the kind of widespread outsourcing that made Carly Fiorina notorious when she was running HP.
Barbara Boxer also takes the view that green, sustainable jobs are vital to our future. While in the Senate she has supported investment in mass transit, being one of the first leaders to sign onto Antonio Villaraigosa’s innovative 30/10 plan, which would use federal loans to build 30 years’ worth of passenger rail by 2020. Boxer has been traveling around the state to highlight the beneficial role of the federal stimulus in creating green jobs in particular, and pledges to continue that work.
Fiorina, like Whitman, instead believes government spending is somehow bad, and that instead money should be channeled to CEOs like herself so they can layoff more workers. Fiorina also supports Prop 23, presumably because it fits her overall values of protecting the rich and powerful against new innovation – although Fiorina’s own denial of global warming, dismissing it as “worrying about the weather,” surely plays a role.
Californians have a very clear choice this November. Those who want an economy dominated by the rich and powerful, who use that dominance to keep unemployment high and stifle innovation, should support Whitman, Fiorina, and Prop 23. Those who want an economy where new jobs are created for working people, where innovation is welcomed and supported instead of fought, would do well to support Brown, Boxer, and the fight against Prop 23.