All posts by Brian Leubitz

Governor Schwarzenegger Moves All In On Prop 23

Governor Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman aren’t really seen around town too often.  Whitman can’t seem to get far enough from Arnold, and with his record, who would blame her.  Yet, as Meg Whitman attempts to make California into Texas, Governor Schwarzenegger is lashing out at the terrible Texas two, Valero and Tesoro, who have been funding Prop 23’s effort to kill California’s regulation of greenhouse gas pollution.

Schwarzenegger, speaking before several hundred people at the Commonwealth Club in Santa Clara, said the proponents of Prop. 23 are attempting to subvert the democratic process using scare tactics. He likened the campaign to a shell game hiding what he said was the real purpose: “self-serving greed.”

“They are creating a shell argument that they are doing this to protect jobs,” the governor said. “Does anybody really believe they are doing this out of the goodness of their black oil hearts – spending millions and millions of dollars to save jobs?”

Schwarzenegger said AB32, which he signed into law in 2006, will create jobs by allowing California to establish a “green economy” featuring solar energy, hydrogen power, bio-energy and a renewable electricity standard that will provide “the seed money for the world’s energy revolution.”

The only job losses or costs, he said, would be in polluting industries like Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., both of which have refineries in California that climate experts say are sources of greenhouse gas emissions.(SacBee)

The tone of Schwarzenegger’s attacks were as surprising as anything else, so it is worth watching the Olbermann clip up top to here the audio of the speech.  He puts the lie to the notion that Prop 23 is going to “save a million jobs.”

It is striking that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has attempted to throw the state off the cliff through his shock doctrine budget techniques.  But even for him, this is a bridge too far.

Cal Berkeley’s Health Plan Lets Down Student, State

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal featured an article about student health plans. One of the cases studied was Paula Villescaz, a student at Berkeley and somebody that I have met through my participation in the California Young Democrats. She has been involved with CYD and the College Democrats for a while now, and has really been a rock star of involvement.

Unfortunately, as outlined in the article, when she got sick and actually needed health coverage, Berkeley’s student health plan failed her.

Paula Villescaz, a senior at the University of California at Berkeley, says she never looked closely at the Anthem Blue Cross insurance policy she got through her college. The plan has a $400,000 ceiling, but also has some important limitations, as Ms. Villescaz found out recently.

The political-science major had always been healthy-until March, when doctors discovered she had Ewing’s Sarcoma, a rare form of cancer. Berkeley’s plan didn’t cover her first MRI, her PET scan or many blood tests her doctors required, she says.

In between chemotherapy treatments, Ms. Villescaz says she had to battle the insurance company, which refused to cover her last round of chemotherapy, declaring it medically unnecessary. Her chemotherapy has since concluded, but she is now undergoing radiation treatment.

Ms. Villescaz says she owes about $80,000 all told. Before she got sick, she worked two jobs to support herself and help out her single mother. “I’m going to be paying off these bills for the rest of my life,” she says. (Wall Street Journal)

If anything shows the failing of our medical system, this is surely it.  Paula played by the rules. She bought health insurance from her university.  She had a right to expect that the coverage would be sufficient if she had a major medical incident. Instead, due to drawing the short straw, she is saddled with an enormous debt before she even has started her career.

And this is at the heart of the flaw in our health care system.  Even if you do everything right, you still cannot rest easy. The solution is to take health care and/or health care insurance out of the for-profit world.  Single payer would prevent these unfortunate consequences of the health industrial complex, and would serve our state, and our nation, far better than the system that we have now.

Interestingly, as highlighted by David Dayen at FDL News, a recent Pew poll shows that 40% of Americans think that the health care bill didn’t go far enough.

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all. (AP)

It turns out that sometimes people want something they can really believe in. The monster that emerged from the Senate is certainly likely to improve the situation, but it isn’t the end game in any way shape or form.  We have a lot of work to do before we can actually call our health care system a success.

But returning to Berkeley, I was on the same plan that Paula was on while I was getting my graduate degree in public policy.  Over the course of my four semesters there, the cost increased over 25%. It was still more affordable than many of the individual plans I could find, but it was far from a good solution.  The University fails us by not fighting harder for their students, and ensuring that the health care plan they are pitching to students will work for them.  And Anthem? Well, Anthem has made failing Californians an art form.  

This failure hurts not just our students, but the future of California. Setting our students for a lifetime of economic burden is hardly a recipe for long-term success.

Field: Props 19 and 25 narrowly lead, 23 trails






















Prop September (Yes-No-D/K) July
19(Cannabis) 49-42-9 44-48-8
23(Climate) 34-45-21 36-48-16
25(Majority) 46-30-24 65-20-15
Field is out with another poll today, this time featuring the three most watched propositions.  As you can see on the right, the news is generally pretty good, but there is a lot of doubt left for the next five weeks.  

The movement on these measures results more from people becoming more engaged in the election, as there hasn’t been any substantial paid media in any of these campaigns.  Starting with Prop 19, the measure to legalize and tax marijuana has now moved into a small lead. The push to 49 is actually pressing that big 50% borderline.  Generally, when looking at a measure, they need to have that 50% when heading into the 4 weeks of the election.  When voters get to a measure that they haven’t really decided upon, the first inclination is to vote no.  So, you have to figure undecideds break at least 2 to 1 for No.  This might be enough to push Prop 19 over that magical 50% come Nov. 2, but it is going to come down to the wire.

On the other hand, the numbers on Prop 23 are fairly encouraging, especially considering the results of a recent LA Times poll showing a 40-38 lead for Prop 23.  I think what we can surmise from these very different poll positions is that a) Prop 23 is fairly complicated and b) how you ask the question will make a huge difference.  Here are the two questions:

Field: Proposition 23 suspends implementation of the air pollution law, AB 32, requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for a full year. Fiscal impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues. If the election were being held today, would you vote YES or NO on Proposition 23?

LA Times: As you may know, in the elections in November, there will be a ballot proposition that, if passed, would suspend the state law aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions until the state’s unemployment rate falls below five and a half percent. Do you favor or oppose passing this ballot initiative?

The Field question was a lot more detailed, but also a lot closer to the actual ballot description of the measure.  You have to think that is an optimistic sign. Also somewhat interestingly, Prop 23 does better among Democrats than DTS and others, 29% of Dems support it, and only 26% of DTS/others.

Prop 25, the majority vote measure took a big dive in support, as is normally the case for measures that dramatically change our system.  However, the recent ads for the measure advertising it as a punishment for legislators on late budgets might just be enough to push it over the hill.  However, don’t expect the other side to lie down on this one. They’ve already spent a big pile of cash on it, and will likely spend several million more before Nov. 2.

Now, as the prop campaign really begins in earnest, we will see how soft the support for these measures really is.  In the end, it is going to be about turnout though.  Will people turn out to support Prop 19 and oppose Prop 23?  Both promise to be strong turnout forces for progressive California voters, but whether it is enough is still an outstanding question.

Boxer Opens Small Lead

4Yesterday, we got the Field Poll’s take on the Governor’s race, and today we get the state of the Senate race.  While there wasn’t any major movement in the head to head, Sen. Boxer picked up 3 points to open a 47-41 lead, there were some other interesting statistics.

First, as you would expect, both candidates are doing similarly well within their own party, hovering in the upper 70s.  But while nonpartisans are split at the Governor level, Boxer holds a 6 point lead here, 46-40.  

But what is worth noting is that while Carly Fiorina hasn’t really inspired anybody, Sen. Boxer gets people moving one way or the other.  2/3 of her supporters are voting for her, for her.  Meanwhile, over 60% of Carly’s supporters are motivated by their dislike for the incumbent.  In California, Boxer has been an occasional lightening rod, but one thing that you can say for her is that she has the support of the grassroots base.  What is expected and nurtured in the Republican party, is typically shunned within the Democratic Party.  But Senator Boxer embraces the grassroots. She supports marriage equality, and has worked passionately for years on the climate crisis.  She is giving Democrats something to fight for.

Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina’s unfavorables continue to rise. Since July she has hovered at 34% positive, but her unfavorables have grown from 29 to 38.  There is still a lot of room for growth with 28% undecided, but California voters have not liked what they have heard about the failed CEO of Hewlett-Packard.  

The Bee has a pretty picture of much of this data here.

A Framework of a Budget?

This is going around the California politics world right now like a Britney Spears haircut goes through the papparazi blogs, but why not have it here too:

“The governor and the leaders have reached a framework of an agreement. We will continue to work through the details over the weekend and hope to come to a final agreement Monday when they reconvene,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. He declined to provide any details. (LA Times)

By no details, they mean it.  Which of many ways will working Californians get the shaft? What’s the deal with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s threat not to sign any budget without a deal on pension reform?  Questions, we have plenty. Not so much on the answer front.

Whitman Gets Mealy-Mouthed over Prop 23 and Climate Regulation

Meg Whitman is trying to shoot the moon with her latest announcement of a position on Prop 23:

Whitman has said she would suspend the law, AB 32, for at least one year, and in a written statement this morning she called the law a “job killer” and said it needs to be revised.

However, Whitman said Proposition 23 “does not offer a sensible balance between our vital need for good jobs and the desire of all Californians to protect our precious environment.”(Sac Bee)

Here’s her math here: Prop 23 is trailing in the polls, and Democrats are generally bludgeoning the Republicans on this issue.  Boxer used it effectively against Fiorina at the last debate, and Jerry Brown has been hammering at Whitman for her failure to announce a solid position.

But, this isn’t a solid position.  Now, it will be enough to convince a few folks perhaps, but anybody that is really voting on the candidates based upon environmental concerns is hardly going to love this position.  That one year moratorium isn’t really that hidden as a means of killing AB 32.

There’s a dark side for Whitman on this too.  The conservative base has been pushing for her to take a strong Yes position on Prop 23.  This will not make them all that thrilled to rush out and vote for her.  Nonetheless, Carly Fiorina has been running really hard to the right, so does that help Whitman’s Right flank on turnout?  

Whether the political tradeoff for whatever centrist votes she can get for whatever Right-wing votes she lost was a good one for her is an open question, but expect some additional anger on the right.  But hey, they like that sort of thing.

Field: CA-GOV all tied up

Nonnie9999 GameWhitmanBrownWell, after a few weeks of up and down in the polls, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown are now at a dead heat in the latest Field Poll.  Each is sitting at 41 percent of likely voters (MoE +/- 4.1%) with 6 weeks to go. The numbers break down how you would generally expect these things to go, Whitman gets 75% of Republicans, Jerry Brown gets 69% of Democrats, and they split the DTS vote at 38% each.  Now, what Meg Whitman has got for her $111 million is that split down the middle in DTS vote, which you wouldn’t normally see absent the unprecedented ad buy, as well as her capturing 15% of the Democratic vote compared to Brown’s 9% of the Republican vote.

But like everything else in California politics, it seems people don’t particularly like either of the candidates:

“This race is boiling down to a tough decision,” said Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo. “More voters hold negative than positive impressions of the candidates, and that contributes to the situation.”(SacBee)

Whitman has a minus 5 favorable (40/45) while Brown sports only a minus 3 (44/47).  These aren’t numbers you would typically love to see an inspired electorate.  But, with the barrage of ads from Whitman, and the smattering of efforts on the left, people know that they just shouldn’t like these candidates. They aren’t exactly why, but it’s what they’ve been told on the TeeVee, the radio, and on the internet.  And so, shockingly enough, all that money is having an impact.

Over the next 5+ weeks, while surrogates and the campaigns continue to wail on each other in every media outlet available, the candidates themselves will be trying to give the state some reason to vote for them.  In the end, however, the Field numbers indicate about half of all voters will be choosing the lesser of two evils rather than somebody they believe in. Only 49% of Whitman voters and 53% of Brown voters are voting for their candidate rather than against the other one.  This is unfortunate on many levels, not the least of which is that the state needs a leader who has some political capital (read: not Whitman’s millions) to make something happen in Sacramento.

All things considered, Jerry Brown has to like where he is sitting right now.  He’ll nearly match Whitman in ad spending the rest of the way, and will hope that Democrats start returning home when they hear a message from their candidate.  At any rate, this is clearly shaping up to be one of the tightest elections in recent memory.  Progressives will need to focus on turning out and getting their networks to turn out for the Democratic ticket this year, the idea of a Whitman/Fiorina victory party is too difficult to process.

Picture from PhotoBucket User Nonnie9999

Carly Fiorina: Fueled by Tea and Koch

Carly inviteWhile Meg Whitman was hobnobbing with Condi, Carly Fiorina is getting ready to do a big fundraiser in DC tomorrow.  It’s being headlined by that Tremendous Trio of Senators McConnell, Cornyn and Kyl.  What a bunch.  But the more interesting message comes on that left hand column, where just near the bottom comes “Koch Industries PAC.”  More from Talking Points Memo:

Republican Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina will attend a high-dollar fundraiser Thursday night that includes Koch Industries PAC, a conservative megadonor that has been the subject of some high-profile magazine pieces of late.

The Koch brothers have become conservative super-villains for Democrats this year, igniting Democrats in the same way George Soros’ spending on liberal causes enrages the right. … Koch has a storied history. TPM has followed the brothers’ involvement in funding tea party groups, among other conservative causes.

The New Yorker recently published a 6,000-word exposé detailing the Koch brothers Charles Koch and David Koch and their involvement in conservative causes aiming to defeat President Obama and his agenda. The latest iteration comes as Koch spars with the White House over corporate donations.  In addition to their role in the conservative movement, Koch Industries has long been pegged as a top outsourcer.(Talking Points Memo)

Is there any doubt about Carly Fiorina left. She favors Prop 23, and decimating our climate regulations. She is in the pocket of the Tea Party funders and Big Coal. She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.  She is a fan of “right-shoring” American jobs oversees, and will continue to favor and advocate for that. Oh, and yeah, she was fired for poor performance at HP.

California, Carly Fiorina is unqualified, and all wrong on all the issues.

Whitman Gets an F: On Jobs, On Schools, On Rhetoric

Meg Whitman was greeted at a fancy high-falutin’ $1000 a person fundraiser by a crowd of protesters, angry over her supposed “plan.”  By plan I mean corportization of our state government combined with a subtle effort to just get rid of the whole thing. But, she did her best to rally the base with the noted War Hawk and architect of failure, Condoleeza Rice.

[T]he Republican candidate, speaking to the audience, said she was confident she will turn out the Republican base, noting they are already “carrying pitchforks and torches..and saying “which way to the castle?”

And the former eBay CEO also vowed to turn out Latinos, small business owners, and women, boasting she is working to build “the largest women’s coalition ever in American politics.”

Whitman also predicted she will attract 18-29 year old voters who supported President Barack Obama in the election of 2008, because she said they are now concerned about one issue — jobs.(SF Gate)

Everything is bigger with $150 Million dollars! But her underlying facts are dead wrong.  Not only are voters between 18-29 strongly going towards Jerry Brown, after all, this is one of the most progressive generations in quite some time, but her “coalition” is a paper tiger.  It’s a lot of pretty posters and posturing, but where will she be when the rubber meats the road.

I should add what is the deal with candidates calling their own supporters an angry and out of control mob.  Way to fuel the fire.  As Arnold Schwarzenegger learned (just see his latest poll numbers) the outsider card only works for so long, eventually, when real results are required, her big talk will amount to even less than what we’ve gotten with the Governator.

Meg’s Values Aren’t California’s Values: eBay Founder Says No on Whitman

Even if you aren’t a fan of Meg Whitman’s management, you still have to admire eBay. It is a company that brought together people to buy and sell from across the country, then across the world. Any way you slice it, the big idea of an online auction, started by Pierre Omidyar was an idea that helped accelerate the digital economy.  Millions of small businesses, and all that we’ve been hearing Meg Whitman promote.

Thing is, Meg Whitman wasn’t the one who came up with that idea. She helped foster the idea from a small operation into an international collussus, and on the way certainly did a better job than CEO flame-outs like Carly Fiorina, but the ideas that she was building were never her own.

So, why not ask Pierre Omidyar what he thinks of Meg Whitman? Certainly there are few people that know her better than he. And they have each other to thank for their respective fortunes.  So, would Omidyar vote for Meg Whitman?  In a word, No.

“Now I have not endorsed her because we have some differences on some of the political issues,” Omidyar, who is now based in Hawaii, told Bloomberg TV in an interview that will air Wednesday on “InBusiness with Margaret Brennan.” “I was disappointed in her not-correct decision, in my view, to support Proposition 8 in California. I was disappointed in her alignment with former Governor Pete Wilson on immigration issues, who I think took some very extreme views years ago about denying benefits to illegal immigrants. And so because of those types of issues, I think we are a little bit apart, and I can’t quite support her because of that.” (LA Times)

Omidyar does well to call attention to Whitman’s new-found love affair with Wilson, the godfather of Proposition 187, the measure that stripped away benefits from immigrants that he rode to re-election in 1994.  Wilson is also the chair of Steve Cooley’s campaign for Attorney General.  Through these two, Wilson is attempting to extend his influence, with all the concurrent hard feelings that brings.

Whitman is wrong on immigration.  And she is wrong on Prop 8.  She’s just wrong for California.