Last month the Los Angeles Times decided to publish their own “ranking” of teacher “effectiveness” in the LA Unified School District, based entirely on test scores. The move was extremely controversial, and the Times was slammed by education experts for their flawed methodology.

Today, however, comes a story that proves just how flawed and misleading the LA Times teacher ratings really were. It’s a story of a recently retired LAUSD teacher who was ranked as “the worst” by the LA Times – a ranking that came as a huge surprise to her former students:

Faye Ireland knows that she was a good teacher. She doesn’t depend on test scores to tell her that. She has stacks of letters from former students, enduring relationships with their parents and a reputation for managing the most challenging kids on campus.

But it bothered Ireland plenty when she was publicly branded “least effective” last month in The Times’ ratings of elementary school teachers. The ranking, in an online database with the “Grading the Teachers” project relies on students’ progress on standardized exams to measure teacher effectiveness.

What happened? Is Ireland just making herself sound good to cover up a flawed teaching style?

Nope. What happened is that by actually giving her students – particularly her ESL students – the help and instruction they needed, instead of wasting time on a test, she made a huge and positive impact in the lives and in the educational futures of her students, but at the expense of her “ranking” in some bullshit test-driven metric:

Ireland knew that if they landed in ESL programs in middle school, they would have few chances to take challenging academic classes. “Their parents worked with me like crazy, and we got them through all the things they had to do.”

By the end of each year, “every one of my students was fluent in English,” she recalled. “That’s what I set out to do.”

Other teachers warned her that her test scores would take a hit…

But she was looking beyond the test, beyond the classroom, even. “I wanted to transition those kids into English. I wanted them to know they could accomplish this, that nothing was off limits to them.”

In other words, she could have done what the state and the LA Times wanted – teach to the test – or she could have actually paid attention to her students, understood their actual educational needs, and made sure those needs were met so that they can thrive in their later years of schooling.

She did the latter, and that’s what makes a truly great teacher. By any standard her work would be seen as a huge success, and she would be held up as a model educator.

That is, under any standard except the one the LA Times used to brand her as the “least effective” in the entire LAUSD.

Now it’s possible that Ireland succeeded in some areas, was weaker in others (such as test scores). Only a full and comprehensive evaluation of teachers that includes an assessment of all their skills and accomplishments can truly tell whether a teacher is “good” or not.

That is precisely what the teachers’ unions are calling for. And that is precisely what the LA Times rejected in their reckless and flawed ratings, based only on test scores – which as most teachers, parents, and students understand, should not be the only thing education is about.

Ireland’s story shows what will happen if the attack on public schools, led by people such as US Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the LA Times, succeeds. Schools will become full of students who are taught to do well on a test, instead of having their other educational needs met.

If that’s what the education privatizers want, then that’s their choice. But for those of us who actually want good schools with good teachers in them, we would do well to continue to push back against the flawed LA Times teacher evaluations, and ensure that whatever LAUSD and California come up with next to assess teachers, that it is holistic and not focused on tests to the exclusion of actual educational needs.

In the summer of 2001, after a very high-profile public search, Boeing announced it was moving its headquarters from Seattle, where it had been for nearly 100 years, to Chicago. This cause a lot of hemming and hawing among Washington State political leaders, but 10 years later most actual Boeing production work still takes place in the Puget Sound region. The ups and downs of the economy and the airline industry have had a far greater impact on Boeing employment numbers than the fact that a few senior executives moved to Chicago.

Recently, Northrup Grumman executives made a similar move, relocating their HQ to Virginia. Meg Whitman has been using this on the campaign trail as an example of how California’s taxes and regulations are driving away businesses. Except, as KQED’s John Myers points out, Northrup Grumman is moving to help create more jobs in California:

But while Northrop Grumman’s top executives are moving, the company’s not actually leaving the state of California. In a series of emails this week, company spokesman Dan McClain confirmed that some 30,000 employees — one quarter of the company’s worldwide staff — are still here. That means that only slightly more than 1% of the total workforce was relocated.

Whitman also told her audience last month that the CEO of Northrop Grumman told her that no one from state government tried to stop them. Spokesman McClain says the company doesn’t comment on whether conversations with folks like the GOP candidate take place. But contrary to Whitman’s comment, McClain says state officials did talk to Northrop Grumman when the HQ relocation was announced. And he says that the company told those state officials that there could be a silver lining to the decision.

“We explained to them that the move was intended to bring us closer to our U.S. government customers,” wrote spokesman McClain in an email, “and that one of our objectives in moving is to be able to better serve our customers’ needs and hopefully win more business for our California operations.”

Contrary to Whitman’s claims, California remains an excellent place to do business. Just ask Meg Whitman, who had 10 years to move eBay out of California – but never did. California is still successful at attracting businesses, including manufacturing: for example, Tesla is using part of the NUMMI plant to make its electric cars.

Another success story is Siemens, which has a factory in Sacramento that makes light rail vehicles for ALL their Western Hemisphere customers. In a conversation with a Siemens official I had back in April, the company indicated that not only are they happy in California, but that they look forward to expanding their operations to build bullet trains. Similarly, Alstom has opened a factory on Mare Island to make trainsets.

Jed Kolko at the Public Policy Institute of California has examined the question of businesses leaving California, and in a study published in June 2010, debunked the claim that California’s tax and regulatory policies are causing an exodus of jobs:

Rhetoric aside, California loses very few jobs to other states. Businesses rarely move either out of or into California and, on balance, the state loses only 11,000 jobs annually as a result of relocation-that’s just 0.06 percent of California’s 18 million jobs. Far more jobs are created and destroyed as a result of business expansion, contraction, formation, and closure than because of relocation. Business relocations, although highly visible, are a misleading guide to the overall performance of the California economy. The employment growth rate, which takes into account job creation and destruction for all reasons-not just relocation-is a much better measure of the state’s economy.

Whitman’s misleading claims on job relocation is just one part of the much deeper flaws in her economic plans. Instead of using government to help restore the middle class, Whitman proposes to destroy government and the middle class in order to help the rich get richer. Her economic plans are almost entirely directed toward channeling wealth upward, and offer nothing to the mass of working people or unemployed who are struggling through this recession.

Today’s LA Times makes the point clear, in an article titled “Whitman’s economic plan will do little to bring jobs to California, experts say”. The article interviews Kolko and Steven Levy of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, among others, who conclude that California’s recession isn’t due to the way business is treated, but to other factors:

But many policy experts say such plans will do little in the short term to create the 2 million new jobs Whitman promises: The state’s bleak economy is primarily the result of its deep investment in the real estate boom. The resulting mortgage crisis and credit crunch led to hundreds of thousands of construction-related workers being laid off in an industry that is unlikely to rebound anytime soon.

The number one problem facing California’s economy is a lack of good jobs and good wages, exacerbated by a rising cost of living – particularly energy and health care costs – that throttle business growth. Whitman’s plans, however, would not only address none of those problems, they would make many of them worse.

By eliminating the state’s capital gains tax (which is likely the primary reason why Whitman is running for governor; that tax cut would more than offset the money she’s spending on the election), Whitman would encourage CEOs of California businesses to follow Carly Fiorina’s lead and offshore their workforce in order to increase their profit margins, which would suddenly be bigger thanks to the elimination of the capital gains tax.

Whitman would go further – by massively cutting public spending, on everything from infrastructure to health care and schools, she would make it even more difficult for the middle class to make ends meet. That in turn would destroy small businesses, who would see their customers stay home and their own costs rise (especially transportation and health care). On the other hand, large corporations would benefit, even though hardly anyone else would.

Finally, Whitman’s promise to increase the state’s unemployment rate through mass layoffs of public employees will have a further damaging ripple effect on an already fragile and slow-moving economic recovery.

True economic recovery will come only when the middle- and working-classes are provided economic security and stability. That cannot happen without government. For example, one of the biggest blocks to people founding a new business – and new businesses are a major source of job creation – is the lack of universal health care. Because of the enormous cost of health care, workers tend to stay at their existing job instead of leaving to take their new idea and use that innovation to create value, to create new jobs. And as any small business knows, the cost of providing health care puts them in a difficult position – either they provide it at a high cost, or they don’t provide it and their workers become less effective due to illness or high turnover when workers find another job with benefits.

Another problem that California faces – the costly dependence on fossil fules – would be made worse by Whitman’s policies. Our current recession was caused by the culmination of 30 years of policies intended to support the sprawlconomy. But when gas prices broke $3 per gallon in 2006, that all came crashing down, creating a credit crunch that is impairing recovery and causing mass layoffs in the construction sector.

Clearly, part of economic recovery has to be energy independence and more sensible urban planning that emphasizes density, in order to provide stable costs for working Californians. Yet Whitman proposes to undermine this too, saying we should suspend the high speed rail project as well as AB 32, and likely would continue Arnold’s attack on public transportation. Here again we see favoritism toward existing wealth, this time in the form of oil companies, who prefer to keep sucking prosperity and economic security away from Californians so they can get even richer than they are now by destroying their sustainable competition.

Overall, Whitman’s economic policy is a kind of plutocratic Bolshevism, in which she, Carly Fiorina, the Koch Brothers, the oil companies, and other wealthy elites act as a kind of revolutionary vanguard determined to seize power in Sacramento and in Washington DC in order to give all power to the plutocracy.

Whitman’s vision of a 21st century California economy is one of impoverished workers who lack health care, basic services, and any semblance of economic security in order for a small group of people to enjoy even greater wealth than they already possess.

As I explained on Friday, it’s class warfare, and the upper class is winning. The November 2010 election is therefore a major turning point in California history, determining whether the plutocrats will take over our state and succeed in their efforts to impoverish us, or whether we will fight back and start building a sustainable, secure 21st century California Dream.

Queen Meg is not amused. After the San Francisco Chronicle recorded video of the Yelpers slamming Whitman and her campaign of smears and lies, Whitman is now the first statewide candidate in memory to snub the Chron:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has declined an invitation from the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, making her the first statewide candidate in memory to turn down the election year tradition.

Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz, who invited Whitman to visit with Chronicle reporters and editors months ago, received word Friday that the Republican former eBay CEO will not accept the invitation of the flagship Hearst-owned newspaper.

Diaz, who has headed the editorial page of Northern California’s largest newspaper for more than 15 years, said Whitman’s decision to decline makes her the first statewide candidate in memory to turn down the session with Chronicle editors and reporters.

Carla Marinucci explains that the SF Chronicle, like many other editorial boards around the country, record the meetings and post the video on the web. It was just such a meeting that brought us the video of Carly Fiorina claiming “class warfare” because Boxer merely fought back against Fiorina’s own war on the middle-class.

Whitman instead prefers to once again hide behind her massive barrage of TV ads, totally unwilling to come out and engage the public or the media in an open conversation. Of course, every time Whitman does engage the public she flops, because she cannot hide behind her scripted lies and misstatements.

Jerry Brown, on the other hand, will take on all comers, even the ridiculous Good Day LA show on Fox 11. He’s got nothing to hide and nothing to fear, understanding that the public wants their politicians to be engaging and open, not hidden and secretive.

But that’s Meg Whitman for you: a wealthy corporate hack who believes that she exists to command her subjects to do her bidding. Whitman’s snubbing of the SF Chronicle won’t cost her the election in itself, but it does provide further evidence that Whitman is an elitist who does not take her electorate seriously. At all.

Barbara Boxer’s newest ad is a damning attack on Carly Fiorina’s record of destroying jobs in order to make herself richer – including enjoying her million-dollar yacht.

The ad is devastating because it shows that instead of being someone concerned about creating jobs for Californians, Fiorina is just out to make herself richer at everyone else’s expense. The 30,000+ workers who lost their jobs during Fiorina’s failed tenure as HP’s CEO are testament to this, including those who saw their jobs sent overseas.

In short, Boxer is pointing out to Californians that Fiorina has been conducting class warfare against us for years – leading the charge of the wealthy against the jobs and basic economic security the rest of us are barely clinging to.

So how does Fiorina react? By claiming Boxer is engaged in “class warfare”:

The Republican candidate, speaking to The Chronicle’s editorial board, added: “Given that (Boxer) is choosing to play class warfare, I think it is wholly relevant that she is, in fact, a millionaire, and that she chooses to scapegoat.”

In other words, it’s perfectly normal and acceptable to destroy the middle class by laying them off and sending their jobs overseas so you can buy a yacht and run for the US Senate, but when someone like Boxer stands up for working people and fights to create good jobs here in California, well suddenly it’s class warfare.

This is the typical reaction of the wealthy whenever anyone points out that their policies are little more than piracy, raiding our prosperity and economic security for their benefit: they react by saying we’re engaging in “class warfare” merely by pointing out what is going on. It’s instructive of the vision held by members the CEO elite like Fiorina and Meg Whitman, that workers exist merely to make them rich and should welcome being tossed aside whenever it’s convenient for the rich.

In a measure of how defensive Fiorina is feeling about this potent attack from Boxer, she lashed out at the San Jose Mercury News for asking a question about Fiorina’s right-wing positions. Fiorina also tried to defend herself on the yacht, but merely showed how out of touch she was with California:

Asked about her purchase of a $1 million yacht, highlighted in Boxer’s latest TV ad, Fiorina called the ad a great example of Boxer’s desire to change the subject.

“My husband and I have been boating together for our 30 years together. We started out in a 16-foot boat,” she said. “It’s not germane. What’s germane is we have to create the conditions for people to work and for people to succeed.”

In other words, she wants people to work at low wages – or even sacrifice their jobs – so she and her husband can enjoy their yacht. At a time when many Californians are losing their homes, struggling to pay their bills, and having difficulty putting food on the table, it’s incredulous that Fiorina thinks anyone is going to see her “mass layoffs so I can get a bigger boat” policy as being something they want to vote for.

California has been engaged in class warfare for the last 30 years – and the upper class is winning. It’s time to fight back hard, and deny these wealthy CEOs the political power they are seeking only in order to further enrich themselves at our expense.

The SF Chronicle reports that PG&E planned to fix part of the pipeline that exploded in San Bruno – but last year delayed the fix to spend the money elsewhere. The big question is, did that delay happen so PG&E could spend $46 million to try and undermine local democracy in their attempt to pass Prop 16?

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. asked state regulators three years ago for permission to spend $4.87 million to replace a portion of the same natural gas pipeline that ruptured last week and set a San Bruno neighborhood on fire….

Neither project has come to fruition. The South San Francisco project was moved down the priority list and the money spent elsewhere, and the southern project is still pending approval from state regulators. And now some observers wonder if the utility missed a chance to spot flaws in the pipeline that could have contributed to the Sept. 9 explosion, which killed four people, left three missing and destroyed 37 homes.

As the article explains, PG&E’s deferred maintenance policies are nothing new:

In one infamous case, a 1998 report from the California Public Utilities Commission found that the utility had taken $77.6 million that was supposed to be spent trimming trees near power lines – a vital step in wildfire prevention – and used it to boost corporate profits instead.

So what might have PG&E wanted to do with its money instead of repairing a pipeline that was known to be among the most dangerous in the country, desperately in need of repair?

Well, it was in late 2009 when PG&E leadership decided to spend millions of dollars to pass Prop 16, which would limit local democracy in order to preserve PG&E’s monopoly. PG&E executives warned shareholders to expect a loss in 2010 because of spending on Prop 16, which would indicate that it may well have been a factor in PG&E’s decision to defer maintenance on the pipeline that later exploded.

Once again, as I explained recently, this shows why we should not leave important infrastructure like this in the hands of private corporations. It needs to be publicly owned and operated to be effective and safe, because corporations will always have the incentive to spend to protect their profits and their market position instead of provide safe services to the public.

Meg Whitman likes to lay claim to the mantle of Silicon Valley – even though she didn’t create eBay and was merely brought in as a hired corporate gun once the company had become successful. As far as Whitman is concerned, Silicon Valley and the high-tech economy is merely a prop for her extreme right-wing claims that California is somehow inhospitable to business and that we should just give all money and power to the wealthy – even though this same high-tech economy somehow thrived amidst the tyrannical regulations and oppressive taxation she whines about.

Yesterday Whitman thought she’d use Yelp, the successful online reviewing site, as a prop to argue that the state needed to follow her reckless and damaging plan of destroying state government and further enriching the wealthy. But the Yelpers had other plans. They weren’t about to be used as props, and instead showed that Californians aren’t going to be fooled by Whitman’s campaign lies.

One Yelper, Susan McKay, asked a damning question of Whitman during the Q&A:

Why are you refusing to remove an ad that has been proven to be false and therefore misleading? Why would you knowingly and purposely run a campaign that is based on lies?

Why have you made smear tactics and an overall negative focus such hallmarks of your campaign? It doesn’t seem to me that defaming your opponent will help California in any way?

This is in reference, of course, to the Whitman ad attacking Jerry Brown as being a tax raiser – an outright lie (I wish it were true!) as acknowledged by the CNN reporter in the clip, who now heads Factcheck.org and who said he got it wrong in 1992 and that Brown had been right all along. Yet Whitman’s ad is still running, and the Yelpers called BS on Whitman’s approach. See the video at right, from Joe Garofoli at the SF Chronicle.

Whitman’s response was to claim that she was just “setting the record straight” on her opponent and that she had to get her message out to the voters. But in a later interview with McKay, Garofoli found that she didn’t believe Whitman had even directly answered her question.

Whitman got hit hard by the Yelpers on a range of other issues, including Whitman’s opposition to marriage equality and what one Yelper called Whitman’s “cynical and disingenuous” decision to hide behind scripted ads and her unwillingness to have more debates with Brown.

Overall, it showed just how deeply out of touch Whitman is from Californians and their beliefs. Whitman is trying to lead a right-wing corporate takeover of government, yet voters want something else – progressive policies that will create jobs while providing for true democracy and ensuring full equality.

My guess is that Whitman will retreat back into her turtle shell and not hold very many more of these public Q&A sessions, choosing to hide behind misleading ads full of lies. Every time she comes out and deals with the public directly, her flaws are exposed, and it becomes clear that Whitman is deeply out of touch with the people of the state she hopes to lead.

Calitics alumni David Dayen has a truly excellent article in the latest issue of Democracy magazine, titled Advise and Dissent. It’s a response to Michael Tomasky’s article in the same magazine a few months back that called for progressives to stop criticizing Obama and accept the limits to what he can accomplish.

This isn’t a new discussion, obviously, but Dayen brings not only a very compelling argument about how progressive dissent actually produces more progressive organizing – but he also backs it up with important evidence from progressive history. Dayen tells the story of Francis Townsend, a Long Beach doctor whose plan for old age pensions not only grew into Social Security – but how Townsend’s bitter criticism of FDR’s watering down of the original plan led him to continue fighting to successfully strengthen and expand Social Security benefits in the following years:

In short, Townsend’s reaction mirrored that of the “professional disgruntleists” cited in Tomasky’s piece. Rather than justifying the Social Security Act of 1935 as the product of the art of the possible, he loudly proclaimed Roosevelt a sellout and apostate, and did whatever he could to bring him down, even joining in a coalition with those who mostly shared a vendetta against the President instead of a similar ideology….

It’s difficult to conclude that Townsend’s persistent, forceful critique resulted in negative consequences for the policy-in fact, the result was completely salutary. And Townsend wasn’t alone – pension organizations like Ham and Eggs in California, Upton Sinclair’s EPIC movement, the Share Our Wealth Society, and many others pressured Roosevelt in those years, often quite critically, and in the end Social Security became the successful, expansive program we have today.

It’s worth noting that the EPIC movement, which in 1934 led to the nomination of former Socialist Upton Sinclair as the Democratic nominee for California governor, played the central role in turning California blue in the 20th century. Sinclair faced an unprecedented negative attack ad campaign that year, with Hollywood movie studios running vicious smears between newsreels and the feature film at theaters across California in support of right-wing Republican Frank Merriam. Sinclair also had to deal with moderate Democrats running a spoiler candidate in the form of Raymond Haight to block Sinclair.

Sinclair still got 37% of the vote to Merriam’s 48%. But more importantly, Sinclair consolidated a new progressive bloc in California politics, rooted in the urban working classes and allied to farmworkers who both saw in Sinclair and EPIC the only effort to address their problems in California during the depths of the Depression. In 1938 a left-wing atheist named Culbert Olson won not only the Democratic gubernatorial nomination but the governor’s race outright. He was beaten in 1942 by Earl Warren, who ran as a moderate Republican with progressive tendencies, but the broader trend was clear: California was becoming a majority Democratic state, and much of the Sinclair agenda of using government to provide for prosperity was eventually realized in 1958 when Pat Brown was elected governor (though Brown’s platform was well short of the state socialism called for in EPIC).

Dayen also pointed out that the Civil Rights Movement refused to accept “that’s all we can do right now” as an excuse for Democratic failures to end segregation, and the main reason LBJ pushed through the transformative legislation that he did in 1964 and 1965 was because he knew the Civil Rights Movement and its liberal allies would crucify him if he didn’t. (They crucified him anyway over the Vietnam War, and rightly so.) California had a similar history as well, with progressive advocates of equality persistently refusing to accept “it can’t be done right now” for an answer and eventually producing a body of law that is among the most equality-friendly in the country. The ongoing fight for LGBT equality is further proof of this, as Dayen rightly argues.

Peter Daou also praised Dayen’s article, calling it “THE definitive take on the progressive critique of Obama”:

Critics of this White House should acknowledge some impressive legislative accomplishments. But at heart, the fundamental demand progressives are making is that elected officials adhere to core principles. Without that, we are completely adrift.

Agitating for change doesn’t stop based on the party in power, it is motivated by real world problems. Ignoring those problems out of a misguided sense of loyalty is a path to despair. We’re seeing it play out now.

That last point is what Dayen nails in his article. Ongoing progressive organizing is motivated by a refusal to accept that our values cannot find expression in our politics and our laws. We’re not blind to the present realities, but neither are we blind to the all-important fact that political reality can be changed. After all, that’s what political power is – the ability to overcome obstacles and implement your agenda even when others don’t want you to do it.

Here in California this fall, progressive organizing has to be focused on the November elections, the task which is immediately in front of us. No matter how that election turns out, we will then pivot to continuing progressive organizing in Sacramento and around the state. And we’ll do so whether it’s in support or in dissent, because ultimately, what matters is that we find effective ways to pursue and implement the policies that support our vision for a prosperous and equitable 21st century California.

What does the SD-16 race and Meg Whitman have in common?

The answer begins in Hanford, where the Kings County Farm Bureau has endorsed its first Democrat ever – Michael Rubio, running to replace the termed-out Dean Florez. The Republican, Tim Thiesen, isn’t very happy about this, but few believe has has a shot at winning the race.

One reason is that the State Senate Republican caucus is almost broke, having spent heavily to beat John Laird in the summer SD-15 special election, as Jason Kinney reports:

Senate Republicans, on the other hand, after spending the lion’s share of this cycle’s warchest on holding SD-15 (Blakeslee), came up way short in candidate-recruitment roulette when their ball landed on Tim Thiesen, a real-estate agent and political novice who incurred major campaign debt during a divisive primary and continues to run on fumes.  Did I mention that Thiesen refers to himself as a “lifelong family farmer”?  Apparently, the Kings County Farm Bureau is unimpressed.

Senate Republicans also face a very strong candidate in Anna Caballero, running in SD-12 against Republican Anthony Cannella. SD-12 has a massive Democratic registration advantage, but Republican Jeff Denham played on lower turnout and advanced a fake “moderate” image to win two terms there. A broke Senate GOP caucus isn’t going to help the GOP hang onto this seat.

And that’s where Meg Whitman comes in:

Meg Whitman has spent more than $100 million on her campaign for governor, but later this month, she will be raising cash for the next state Senate Republican leader, a key potential ally if she is elected.

Whitman may not be writing any personal checks, but the billionaire former EBay chief will appear at an evening fund-raiser for Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga), who is expected to be the Senate’s GOP leader when the next governor is sworn in.

Whitman is billed as the “special guest speaker” at Dutton’s birthday bash on Sept. 30, which is to take place at a DoubleTree hotel next to the Ontario International Airport.

Whitman also helped support the Sam Blakeslee campaign in SD-15 with a fundraiser and, reportedly, with help crafting his message and with GOTV for both rounds of the special election. There have also been persistent reports that Whitman is lending her help to other statewide downticket races, with the aim of not just getting herself elected but bringing Republican coattails in a way we haven’t seen in this state in a long, long time.

This just shows the need for progressive Californians to get even more engaged in the November election. Meg Whitman doesn’t want to buy just the governor’s office – she’s after the whole state government.

Senator Barbara Boxer today released her first TV ad at right, emphasizing her accomplishments (including helping veterans and providing for children’s programs) as well as her commitment to a sustainable economic recovery that focuses on small businesses and green jobs.

It’s a clear contrast to Carly Fiorina, who opposes small businesses (wanting to deliver more wealth to big businesses), who opposes green jobs through her support of Prop 23, and who has a long record of destroying jobs, often through offshoring. Boxer takes a jab at Fiorina with her closing line about wanting jobs that are “Made in America” – which is also just plain good economic policy along with being smart politics.

The TV ad wars are almost certainly just beginning, and Fiorina has money to burn. If you want to help Boxer keep her ads on the air, click here to do so.

Back in 2008 Californians saw the price of oil soar to record levels, topping out here in Monterey at $4.50 a gallon for the lowest grade of gasoline. This wasn’t anything new; gas prices had steadily been rising for about 5 years, breaking $3/gal in 2006 and bursting the housing bubble as a result.

The underlying cause was the impact of peak oil, which depending on who you talk to has already arrived or is just around the corner. As oil field production tops out and new discoveries tail off, combined with increased global demand, the price of oil will steadily increase. That’s what happened from 2003 to 2008. The gas price spike of 2008 wasn’t a random event that is past – it was a first glimpse of our future.

After all, even in the midst of the worst recession in 60 years, prices at the pump in California are hovering around $3/gal, suggesting that the days of cheap oil are indeed over. Wall Street recognizes this too, with Deutsche Bank projecting oil will hit $175/bbl in about 5 years, translating into pump prices of around $5/gal, only declining if there is enough alternative fuel and transportation options available to produce “demand destruction.”

The end of cheap oil played a major role in our economic crash, and will throttle any efforts at economic recovery – unless we start innovating our way out by providing affordable alternatives. AB 32 will help us do just that, by funding the growth of renewable power that can insulate California from the oil price shocks that are certain to happen, and helping provide economic recovery at the same time. And therefore, Prop 23 risks leaving California vulnerable to the economic damage that those future price shocks will produce.

That’s the conclusion of a new study from the Center for Resource Solution titled “Shock Proofing Society: How California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) Reduces the Economic Pain of Energy Price Shocks. It makes very clear that AB 32 is essential to providing economic security and stability for California – and that repealing it, as Prop 23 would effectively do, would leave us defenseless against oil price shocks. Their core conclusion:

Under energy price shock conditions, this avoided energy demand due to AB 32 measures would save people and businesses buying gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, propane, natural gas, and industrial oil between $4.8-$9.6 billion beyond the savings already reflected in other macroeconomic studies. This range amounts to $332-$670 in savings for the average California household in 2020 taking into account population growth.

That savings is a massive economic stimulus to California, and that’s even before we start considering the green jobs that AB 32 has already created and will continue to create.

No wonder the Texas oil companies are spending millions of dollars to stop this. Their ability to gouge Californians during the inevitable future price spikes is directly threatened by AB 32, which represents a threat to the oil companies’ dominance of our energy system. They would prefer to keep making money at the expense of the greater economy, like a leech that will happily bloodsuck its host dry without regard to the consequences.

For the sake of California’s future economic prosperity and security, Prop 23 has to be defeated. The age of oil is over. Any effort to deny that reality will just cause more pain.