All posts by Brian Leubitz

The World Looooves Carly Fiorina!

After all, why wouldn’t they? She sends American jobs overseas with regularity.  Year after year, Carly Fiorina sent jobs from HP’s American facilities to new facilities in low wage countries. Oh, and then she was fired for being one of the worst CEO’s in history.

So, now she’s running around the state complaining about the high unemployment rate. And even setting up a website calling Boxer the Failed Senator.

Well, Karl Rove did always say attack at your weekness, and guess what, failure is Carly Fiorina’s persistent weakness. She failed at HP, and then was shoved out the door, and now she wants to bring all that failure with her to DC. And remove what was left of the middle class in California and the nation.

Remind me again why she is qualified for this job?

Struggling to Educate Our State

Following up on Michael O’Hare’s essay from yesterday, today we get the very real consequences of what we have become.  We no longer pay to educate our students:

California’s top fiscal officials Monday ordered the deferral of $2.5 billion in payments to the state’s public schools next month to conserve cash and stave off the need to begin issuing IOUs.

The state’s budget is 54 days late, and that delay has stretched the state’s depleted treasury to the breaking point. Issuance of scrip could come within weeks.

The deferral announced Monday “was not taken lightly,” state Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos wrote in a joint letter to the Legislature. (LAT)

Sure, the schools had notice that this was coming down the pike, and they will be able to get loans to cover them in the short term until the budget is passed.  But that’s not really the point is it?  

Once again, we allow ourselves to be at the whim of the credit markets, and are paying interest where none should be paid. We spend a lesser share of our GDP on state funding today than we did 30 years ago, and we spend a lesser share of that smaller pie to educate our students.

And if the neo-liberal takeover wasn’t well and truly complete, we have the fact that financial institutions are the ones that benefit from this little delay.  Hardly the biggest moneymaker ever for them, but when this is all said and done, some very real money will come out of classrooms and land in the pockets of Wall Street.

The fight is worth fighting, we simply cannot continue to cede further ground every year.  This isn’t a matter of not being able to afford our services, it is a matter of not wanting to pay for our services.

At one point, there was an ideal for California as the place where people could go to dream big dreams, and climb up the ladder.  The ladder is now just being pulled up faster than people can attempt to move up. If we are to move forward, we must fight just as hard in order to push the ladder back down and facilitate education, and development in the state.

That doesn’t mean a slavish devotion to jobs at any cost.  If we are giving Californians the option of a McJob or nothing, we are not really helping anybody, and we have failed.  We need real jobs, with real pay that can support a middle class lifestyle.  That is why Jerry Brown’s plans are simply far more appealing than Whitman’s plans for forced austerity, and the slashing of 40,000 jobs. It is neither possible nor positive.

And it is just one more reason that we have to ensure that we elect Democrats throughout the state this year. The alternative is just too horrifying.

A Promise Broken…What Anti-Tax Rhetoric Has Wrought

 A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to graduate from Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy.  While there, I had the opportunity to meet Michael O'Hare, a professor there.  To put it simply, he was a fantastic teacher, somebody who could break down complicated ideas into digestible nuggets.

 And while it is nigh impossible to explain the actions of the budget since about 1975, he did about the best I've seen in quite a while.  And I've seen quite a few people try to do this.  In short, he explains that the Baby Boomer Generation, when they got into power, decided to pull up the ladder for those coming behind them.  They were the recipients of the largesse of a well-planned and financed government, lead by Governor Pat Brown's committment to both education and infrastructure.  But rather than mutilating his argument, I'll let him explain it. (Full version over the flip or at the always interesting Reality Based Community.)

The bad news is that you have been the victims of a terrible swindle, denied an inheritance you deserve by contract and by your merits.  And you aren’t the only ones; victims of this ripoff include the students who were on your left and on your right in high school but didn’t get into Cal, a whole generation stiffed by mine.  This letter is an apology, and more usefully, perhaps a signal to start demanding what’s been taken from you so you can pass it on with interest.

 

Swindle–what happened? Well, before you were born, Californians now dead or in nursing homes made a remarkable deal with the future.  (Not from California? Keep reading, lots of this applies to you, with variations.) They agreed to invest money they could have spent on bigger houses, vacations, clothes, and cars into the world’s greatest educational system, and into building and operating water systems, roads, parks, and other public facilities, an infrastructure that was the envy of the world. They didn’t get everything right: too much highway and not enough public transportation. But they did a pretty good job. …

This deal held until about thirty years ago, when for a variety of reasons, California voters realized that while they had done very well from the existing contract, they could do even better by walking away from their obligations and spending what they had inherited on themselves.  “My kids are finished with school; why should I pay taxes for someone else’s?  Posterity never did anything for me!”  An army of fake ‘leaders’ sprang up to pull the moral and fiscal wool over their eyes, and again and again, your parents and their parents lashed out at government (as though there were something else that could replace it) with tax limits, term limits, safe districts, throw-away-the-key imprisonment no matter the cost, smoke-and-mirrors budgeting, and a rule never to use the words taxes and services in the same paragraph. (Reality based community)

 The turning point, of course, was Prop 13, but it was more gradual than the simple passage of Prop 13.  There was a movement built on the entire purpose of keeping the wealth held tight within one generation, locking in the static state of who was wealthy and who was not.  Our universities, still a factory for the American dream, were defunded as somebody else's problem.

it is dangerously short term thinking, but the appeal is immediately obvious.  Keep more of your paycheck, Yay! But, if we aren't building for tomorrow's economy, then who exactly will be there to pick up the slack for the next generation.  This is now the primary battle. Greater than taxes vs. services, corporations vs. unions, it is a matter of short-term cash vs. long-term investment.

And right now, the state is heading down the dangerous road of a financial hedonism that indulges the primacy of self-interest. There is no question that the ramifications have been horrific.  The only question left to answer is whether we can recover.

Welcome to Berkeley, probably still the best public university in the world. Meet your classmates, the best group of partners you can find anywhere.  The percentages for grades on exams, papers, etc. in my courses always add up to 110% because that’s what I’ve learned to expect from you, over twenty years in the best job in the world.

That’s the good news.  The bad news is that you have been the victims of a terrible swindle, denied an inheritance you deserve by contract and by your merits.  And you aren’t the only ones; victims of this ripoff include the students who were on your left and on your right in high school but didn’t get into Cal, a whole generation stiffed by mine.  This letter is an apology, and more usefully, perhaps a signal to start demanding what’s been taken from you so you can pass it on with interest.

Swindle–what happened? Well, before you were born, Californians now dead or in nursing homes made a remarkable deal with the future.  (Not from California? Keep reading, lots of this applies to you, with variations.) They agreed to invest money they could have spent on bigger houses, vacations, clothes, and cars into the world’s greatest educational system, and into building and operating water systems, roads, parks, and other public facilities, an infrastructure that was the envy of the world. They didn’t get everything right: too much highway and not enough public transportation. But they did a pretty good job.

Young people who enjoyed these ‘loans’ grew up smarter, healthier, and richer than they otherwise would have, and understood that they were supposed to “pay it forward” to future generations, for example by keeping the educational system staffed with lots of dedicated, well-trained teachers, in good buildings and in small classes, with college counselors and up-to-date books.  California schools had physical education, art for everyone, music and theater, buildings that looked as though people cared about them, modern languages and ancient languages, advanced science courses with labs where the equipment worked, and more. They were the envy of the world, and they paid off better than Microsoft stock. Same with our parks, coastal zone protection, and social services.

This deal held until about thirty years ago, when for a variety of reasons, California voters realized that while they had done very well from the existing contract, they could do even better by walking away from their obligations and spending what they had inherited on themselves.  “My kids are finished with school; why should I pay taxes for someone else’s?  Posterity never did anything for me!”  An army of fake ‘leaders’ sprang up to pull the moral and fiscal wool over their eyes, and again and again, your parents and their parents lashed out at government (as though there were something else that could replace it) with tax limits, term limits, safe districts, throw-away-the-key imprisonment no matter the cost, smoke-and-mirrors budgeting, and a rule never to use the words taxes and services in the same paragraph.

Now, your infrastructure is falling to pieces under your feet, and as citizens you are responsible for crudities like closing parks, and inhumanities like closing battered women’s shelters. It’s outrageous, inexcusable, that you can’t get into the courses you need, but much worse that Oakland police have stopped taking 911 calls for burglaries and runaway children. If you read what your elected officials say about the state today, you’ll see things like “California can’t afford” this or that basic government function, and that “we need to make hard choices” to shut down one or another public service, or starve it even more (like your university). Can’t afford? The budget deficit that’s paralyzing Sacramento is about $500 per person; add another $500 to get back to a public sector we don’t have to be ashamed of, and our average income is almost forty times that.  Of course we can afford a government that actually works: the fact is that your parents have simply chosen not to have it.

I’m writing this to you because you are the victims of this enormous cheat (though your children will be even worse off if you don’t take charge of this ship and steer it). Your education was trashed as California fell to the bottom of US states in school spending, and the art classes, AP courses, physical education, working toilets, and teaching generally went by the board. Every year I come upon more and more of you who have obviously never had the chance to learn to write plain, clear, English.  Every year, fewer and fewer of you read newspapers, speak a foreign language, understand the basics of how government and business actually work, or have the energy to push back intellectually against me or against each other. Or know enough about history, literature, and science to do it effectively!  You spent your school years with teachers paid less and less, trained worse and worse, loaded up with more and more mindless administrative duties, and given less and less real support from administrators and staff.

Many of your parents took a hike as well, somehow getting the idea that the schools had taken over their duties to keep you learning, or so beat-up working two jobs each and commuting two hours a day to put food on the table that they couldn’t be there for you. A quarter of your classmates didn’t finish high school, discouraged and defeated; but they didn’t leave the planet, even if you don’t run into them in the gated community you will be tempted to hide out in.  They have to eat just like you, and they aren’t equipped to do their share of the work, so you will have to support them.

You need to have a very tough talk with your parents, who are still voting; you can’t save your children by yourselves.  Equally important, you need to start talking to each other.  It’s not fair, and you have every reason (except a good one) to keep what you can for yourselves with another couple of decades of mean-spirited tax-cutting and public sector decline. You’re my heroes just for surviving what we put you through and making it into my classroom, but I’m asking for more: you can be better than my generation. Take back your state for your kids and start the contract again.  There are lots of places you can start, for example, building a transportation system that won’t enslave you for two decades as their chauffeur, instead of raising fares and cutting routes in a deadly helix of mediocrity.  Lots. Get to work.  See you in class!

UPDATE: Like your political science in musical form? Here’s the way people thought about this stuff back in the day, and maybe should again. Bet there’s a good rap along these lines waiting to be born…

On the CRP Convo…and Me

Unfortunately, I was unable to make it to the California Republican Party convention this weekend in San Diego. I’m sure it was a blast for all involved.  The conservative, the right-wingers, the Tea partiers, and the over the top offensively backward.  A raucous good time, I’m sure.

Fortunately, the good folks at CalBuzz were able to make it.  I suggest you go read their 10 insights, but I’ll just pull out one, perhaps off-hand comment:

The convention’s biggest surprise came when a thickly muscled bouncer demanded that your Calbuzz correspondents (combined age: 122) produce I.D. to gain admittance to some second-rate pizza-joint-with-a-full-bar in the Gaslamp Quarter which they stumbled upon in the pre-dawn hours. The move by Thor (not his real name) reflected not only his apparent legal blindness, but also some CYA concerns he clearly felt in noting we were two decades younger than the average GOP convention worthy swarming the streets.

Of course, California Democrats have the same issue.  The party infrastructures of both parties are dismissive of the youth, and vice versa.  Of course, it comes down to a chicken and the egg type situation at some point, but if California is to become a truly 21st Century state, we need more young leaders willing to get involved in all segments of the state’s politics.

I suppose that I should mention here that I was just elected as the regional director of the state Democratic party for San Francisco and the northern half of San Mateo county.  So, I suppose I’ll say not just to my fellow Democrats, but to those of all political persuasions, that the way we make change is to get involved.  We must insist that California plans for the long-term instead of playing games with the present.

Democrats have a leg up in this area.  Young voters are overwhelmingly Democratic voters, but we must make sure that this stays true, and the so-called “millenials” continue to stay engaged beyond a one-off election.  Sure, it will be good for Democrats, but it will also be good for (small-d) democracy.

In Fits and Starts

The state unemployment numbers for July were just released, and it is a pretty mixed bag. Overall, the rate is stagnant at 12.3%, but there are small rays of hope.

The state’s unemployment rate remained constant at 12.3%. … Many of the jobs cuts were in the government sector as temporary census jobs ended, according to a release from the state Employment Development Department. Private sector employers added 13,700 jobs to payrolls. Still, the state lost jobs in the manufacturing, leisure and professional and business services sector. (LA Times)

The census cuts were expected, and the fact that the census was done cheaper and faster than ever before is a credit to the Commerce Department, and the folks who worked themselves out of a job. The billion dollars that the census was under budget will now go to other programs in the federal government.

But the other thing to notice is that the regional economies in the state are quite different.  The Bay Area remains the strongest, with Marin County having the lowest unemployment rate followed closely by several other Bay Area Counties.  Los Angeles is a worrisome 13.4%, but Santa Barbara and a few other coastal counties are doing better, but you check out the full list by county here (h/t to SF Weekly).

Meanwhile, the crisis seems to show no signs of letting up in other parts of the state.  Imperial County’s 30%+ unemployment is simply shocking, followed by upper teens in several other Central Valley counties.

This is where it becomes appropriate to mention just how critical it is to defeat Prop 23.  The promise of green jobs shines most brightly in communities where land is cheaper with abundant helpings of wind and sun.  Imperial County would be a particularly devastated by the loss of green jobs with the failure to implement AB 32.

What is also clear is that now is not the time to further exacerbate the problem by laying off 40,000 valuable state workers. While we are always forced to make tough decisions in a rough economy, austerity measures will harm the economy far more than many of the revenue measures that have been proposed.  We can’t simply go down the path of cut, cut, cut without expecting such negative reactions.  We cannot sacrifice our public sector without damaging the long-term stability of our economy.

The Answer is No

In today’s Sacramento Bee, Jack Chang asks a question:  Can Whitman’s spending move the tied polls?

And while the title sentence could work for a million questions in Sacramento, it works perfectly for Chang’s question.  No.  Whitman’s spending cannot move Californians.

Of course, that statement alone doesn’t end debate, so let’s look at the situation.  Most importantly, Meg Whitman has been spending $2 million per week on her incessant ads, basically since the Winter Olympics back in February. They were annoying back then, but by now people just want them to stop.  This is born out by anecdotal and hard data.  As Robert pointed out recently, Jerry Brown’s team has data showing that her ads are moving people in the wrong direction from what she intended:

A survey we completed three days ago found most people who have seen a Whitman ad don’t believe her claims are true. When we asked whether these ads have improved or worsened their opinions of the candidates for Governor, the results were as follows:

Attorney General Jerry Brown: 6% improved; 4% worsened; 58% unchanged

Meg Whitman: 8% improved; 27% worsened; 31% unchanged

But there is another issue at play here, it is more than just the point counter point ads.  For whatever money labor is spending to support Jerry (and I assure you that it is nowhere near the funding level that Whitman is looking at), the real issue is that it isn’t just Meg alone, or her ads, that are turning off voters. It is her failed ideas.

For nearly seven years now, we have dealt with a Governor who has espoused the notion that our government is a failed experiment and we just cannot afford it.  The facts don’t bear that out, and Whitman’s ideas to slash and burn through the state government are simply a step too far, even when compared to the Governator.

There aren’t 40,000 jobs to cut in the state.  There aren’t billions to be saved through IT innovation.  A few hundred million, perhaps, if it is done correctly.  But the huge savings she is predicting simply by improving and “innovating” just will not be there.  They are simply a new way of the old conservative propaganda tune of “Waste, Fraud, & abuse.”  Sure, there is a bit of waste, but overall productivity rates at our government institutions are quite high.  

We have to stop looking for new panaceas and get back to the simple drudgery of providing quality services.  The way we do that is to provide stable and good-paying jobs for well-trained state employees while providing enough oversight to ensure that our money is well-spent.  Not by going on staff cutting binges that produce no savings, but a lot of confusion and failure.

Then Arnold Must Be the Mayor of Bell

Yesterday, a Schwarzenegger spokesman used the name-calling du jour to compare the Legislature to the City Council of Bell.

“What happened in Bell is not unlike what Democrats in the Capitol are trying to do: increase taxes to pay for public employee pensions,” said Matt Connelly, a spokesman for the governor. (LAT)

Except, no, it’s really nothing like Bell whatsoever.  The Legislature is not working to protect their own salaries or to abscond with money into their own checkbook.  Rather, the Legislature is fighting to save the priorities that Californians have traditionally demanded.  It is just that now the Republicans are putting up smoke screens to say that we cannot afford these priorities.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.  To put it another way: there is no radical out of control spending problem.  We are not spending any more than we have in the past.  It is just now that Republicans decided to let the free market run amok, and to tell Americans that they shouldn’t have to pay for government.

As wschafer pointed out, spending simply hasn’t risen over the past forty years.  Once adjusted for population growth and inflation, the state is spending a smaller proportion of Californian’s take home pay than in the past.

For each $100 Californians earn, the state spends $7.44.  That spending number has been this low only four times in the past three decades.  The cost of general fund programs (e.g., public schools, health, social services) hasn’t been as low as now ($5.19 for each $100 Californians earn) since 1973.

The difference is the Two Santa Theory of government.  The Right has discovered that they can undercut the populist left’s message by offering tax cuts and waiting for the people to demand cuts.  And that is where we are doing. As David Dayen said last year:

In the intervening 35 years, we have had no progressive leader in California, no Democratic leader, challenge that ridiculous theory in any meaningful way.  Instead, over and over again, Democrats must lead the charge killing off the two Santa Clauses, filling budget deficits by raising taxes or cutting spending, frequently the latter.  And while other factors have contributed to Democratic dominance in recent years, the ideological theories of Santa Claus conservatism remain.  And Democrats and Republicans alike have ingrained them into their lizard brains, either by believing in them, or believing that everyone else believes in them and there’s no way to change that.

For an example, see none other than Gray Davis.  He was convinced to slash the vehicle license fee (VLF) during the “good times” (aka the Internet Bubble).  Then when forced to acknowledge that the good times were over and raise the tax back, Arnold beat him over the head with it on his way to the victory in the recall election.

If anything, Arnold is the Mayor of Bell.  He wastes money by failing to capture all of the federal dollars that we are entitled to, and he has failed to provide a government that works for the people.

Arnold Schwarzenegger has been a fundamental failure, with but a few moments of passing rationality (think AB 32).  Whitman would be a third term of Arnold…save the fleeting moments.  Where Arnold at least attempts to deal with real world facts, Whitman has completely rejected them.  She is a threat to the long-term stability of the state; her short term austerity plans to fire 40,000 workers would cast the state into a deeper recession and threaten our economic future.

Arnold’s Furloughs Get the Momentary Go-Ahead

The California Supreme Court handed down a stay of the Alameda County court’s order blocking the furloughs.  Here’s the text of the order:

The petition for review is GRANTED. Because the issue whether the Governor has the authority to direct the unpaid furlough of state employees is pending before this court and is scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, in the related case of Professional Engineers in California Government et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et. al., S183411, and without expressing any view on the merits of that issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant review in this matter and defer further action pending our resolution of the currently pending proceeding. Pending further order of this court, further proceedings in the Alameda County Superior Court in case number RG10494800 (and in consolidated cases numbered RG10507922, RG10507081, RGI0503805, RGI0501997, RGI0516259, RGI0514694, and RG10528855), as well as the temporary restraining order of the Alameda County Superior Court issued on August 9, 2010, are stayed. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

What this means for the time being is that the upcoming furloughs, as defined by the Governor will go ahead until further notice.  The Supreme Court will directly review the decision (bypassing the court of appeal) and render a decision, which you would assume would come in a fairly speedy manner.  

Stay tuned for more on this, but this is a big win for Arnold’s furloughs and will probably control through much of the budget fightin’ season.

SD-15 Results Thread

We’re waiting for results in the SD-15 race.  Here is the Secretary of State’s webpage for the race. Here’s the first batch:

Jim Fitzgerald 5606 5.8%

Mark Hinkle 1874 2.0%

John Laird 39857 41.5%

Sam Blakeslee 48617 50.7%

UPDATE by Robert: Returns are slowly being updated by the five counties. Here’s the latest, as of 10:16 pm:

Jim Fitzgerald 7277 5.6%

Mark Hinkle 2811 2.1%

John Laird 56653 43.2%

Sam Blakeslee 64352 49.1%

UPDATE by Brian: As of 12:07 AM, with 100% of precincts reporting:

Jim Fitzgerald 8014 5.1%

Mark Hinkle 3162 2.0%

John Laird 69649 44.1%

Sam Blakeslee 77107 48.8%

Sam Blakeslee will be the next Senator in SD-15.  Arnold’s gamesmanship worked like a charm.  By moving this election away from a real election date, he got what he wanted.  From the look of these numbers, I think we have a great shot of winning this election if it was held concurrently with the general in November.  I hope he’s going to pay the extra money that it took to win this seat for Blakeslee out of his own pocket.  

As If Meg Whitman Needed More Help…

Just in case you didn’t know, Meg Whitman has a lot of money.  Her gigantic pile of money includes that she which made from eBay and her little dalliance with Goldman Sachs.  Heck, even Steve Poizner thought it was skeezy.  But, at this point, she doesn’t see any reason whatsoever to stop making every effort to purchase the governor’s gig.  And why not, $104 million is really only a down payment, and it’s just one step away from the White House, her intended destination anyway.

So, she really doesn’t need any added financial resources, but why the heck not?

Days after California’s  political watchdog agency said it would not crack down on issue advocacy ads until after the Nov. 2 election, a business group took aim at Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown with a blistering example of such ads.

The Small Business Action Committee, backing Republican Meg Whitman for governor, launched a new television ad attacking Brown’s record on job creation and spending. (SacBee)

Of course, Joel Fox, the leader of this committee is quite supportive of Whitman.  He should be anyway. Just a few days after she paid $10,000 to be on his slate card for the primary, the committee endorsed her. How convenient. Must be good to get the green stuff coming in from Whitman and going out from the big corporations.  And there are cuts to be had at each stop.

Now, I would post there ad, but I think I prefer this Steve Poizner ad about Meg a lot better.