Davis’ Governorship Ended, So Did GOP’s Future, Thanks to Arnold

(A perspective from one involved in the recall election… – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

A decade ago today, one of the most intense political experiences I had ended in heartbreak.

California’s Recall Election was a political thrill ride unlikely to be matched in my lifetime. While things didn’t turn out well for my candidate on Election Night, I have no regrets.

We now have Democratic supermajorities in the Legislature and no Republican elected to statewide office. We have had two (three if you want to argue) balanced, on-time budgets and things are getting done in Sacramento without the partisan rancor that existed previously.

Listening to Governor Gray Davis’s concession speech that night 10 years ago from the balcony of the Biltmore Hotel — I was the anti-recall campaign’s press secretary, and I was working till the bitter end, corralling cameras so they got the best shots of my guy — I thought this was the Worst. Night. Ever.

(My long suffering wife had done the greatest thing one human being has ever done for another: she booked a Caribbean cruise that departed two days later.)

What turned out to only be a bad day for me professionally, has been a horrific decade for the state’s GOP who once viewed Arnold as their savior.

Schwarzenegger’s legacy is record-low Republican Party voter registration (while Democrats have remained steady), a decimated party organization, no bench, virtual and literal irrelevance in the statehouse and a mountain of debt (okay, Brulte finally managed to clear that).

This is a far cry from the brashness the Republican elite and consultant class expressed in the wake of the Recall. Arnold scared the Legislature to repeal the then-AB 60 and his team was mapping out ways to topple the Speakership of my new boss, Fabian Nunez.

Arnold’s team believed – and with good reason in those first moments where everyone was trying to gauge what voters were trying to say – that the stage was set for a GOP political takeover at several levels.

A side note: A similar, but muted, excitement on the GOP establishment’s part has surrounded Jim Brulte’s coronation as their party chairman. But the best he can hope to be is the right guy at the wrong time. Witness how this past weekend’s GOP State Convention was upstaged by a campaign button.

I’ll admit I am biased, but at the start of the Schwarzenegger Administration, he and his team relied on celebrity and gimmicks to talk to voters.

Their team used tough-sounding phrases like “Let’s them taste steel.” Arnold called Democrats in the Legislature “girlie men.”

Yes, they got the media’s attention, but their ultimate failure was an inability to turn this into votes that would create coattails for Arnold. The year after the Recall, in 2004, not a single one of Arnold’s selected candidates in competitive Legislative races won. And let’s not forget the flameout of ’05, Arnold’s Special Election.

At the same time Republican were busy being heady, groups opposing Arnold’s agenda, like Labor, were putting the skull sweat necessary into building bigger and better ways of communicating with voters in substantive ways.

These efforts helped beat back Prop 75 and later it’s ‘son’ Prop 32, help Jerry Brown retake the governorship, win on Prop 30 and win several elections at the Legislative level.

Much has been written recently on the effects Arnold’s election has on small “d” democracy, climate change and workers compensation reform. There are merits to those notions, but the greatest effect of the Recall has been how Arnold terminated the ability of the GOP to win in California.

After ten years of bitterness, and looking at where California is today, I have one thing left to say: Thank you, Arnold.  

Ten Years On: The Aftermath of the Recall

Election Exacerbated Issues in the Capitol

by Brian Leubitz

In 2002, California reelected Gray Davis to a second term. His future was looking bright, and was considered a possible candidate for president in 2004. But, that all changed very quickly in 2003 as the Enron-manufactured electricity crisis combined with a few budget issues to create havoc in Sacramento.  Soon after the second inauguration, a recall petition gathered steam and then took off when (the farce that is) Darrell Issa dumped a bunch of money into the recall efforts.  

Issa was hoping for the spot himself, but he eventually gave way well before the election. The election itself was a mess and made the state the butt of jokes around the world. The list of candidates included a pornography star, a former MLB Commissioner, Gary Coleman, Arianna Huffington, and a slew of randoms that would never typically make the general  election ballot.

And of course one of those randoms that would never make the general election ballot was the man who became our governor for seven years. Arnold Schwarzenegger, though something of a celebrity Republican, would have severe difficulties getting through a Republican primary in California. While we have a progressive tilt overall, the GOP is just as crazy as any other state.

The immediate impact was clearly in the wrong direction for California, and brought us a slew of reactionary policies.  However, the Governator eventually realized that even he had limits with his beating at the 2005 special election.  At that point, it was easy to think that Arnold was a blip, and that perhaps the net result could be a more progressive governor in 2006. Alas, Phil Angelides was not that governor, nor even that candidate. Schwarzenegger won, but left himself in an increasingly difficult situation with his rhetoric, killing the chance to make any big substantive reform:

Although Schwarzenegger won reelection in 2006, by then the chance was probably gone. Indeed, it may have been gone from the first day, when he canceled the vehicle license fee increase Davis had approved, and thus enlarged the state’s gaping budget deficit by $6 billion by the time he left office.

And in talking like anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist about “starving the monster” of government, and about how spending alone, not revenue, was the problem, he backed himself even further into a political corner. Neither could be solved without addressing the other. As for the rest of his governorship, it was mostly showmanship and glitz.(Peter Schrag @LAT)

Schrag points to the non-partian reforms (redistricting, top-2, etc) and Gov. Jerry Brown’s election in 2010 with his “restrained approach” as the reason for our bounceback from the crisis. And perhaps that is true, but that debate will linger on to let history decide. But what is clearly true is that the 2003 recall was nothing but a temporary blip that brought us the Governator, but left us with very little real reform.

Gov. Brown signs undocumented drivers license bills

Law will go into effect in 2015

by Brian Leubitz

Well, it took many years, and Gil Cedillo wasn’t the one to pass it, but drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants is going to happen in California.

Two decades after California barred illegal immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses, Gov. Jerry Brown Thursday signed legislation that restores the privilege, ending a policy battle that liberal Democrats had been fighting — and losing — for years. (Oakland tribune)

In the end, this bill makes Californians safer. It makes all Californians who use the roads safer, as there aren’t a big group of drivers without licenses. And it makes people feel more human:

Janet Napolitano Welcomed by Legislative Letter About UC Employees

Striking Low-income Workers Had Pay Reducing Contract Imposed While Top Earners Get Increases

by Brian Leubitz

Janet Napolitano is just moving into her new offices in the East Bay Office of the UC President. And right on her first day, she got a letter calling out the treatment of some of the lowest paid workers in the system. But let’s back it up, and give some background. From the Davis Enterprise:

The University of California this week notified the union representing about 8,300 service gardeners, food service workers and custodians that would impose its final offer after more than a year of negotiations.

“Having completed all stages of the bargaining process, including state-assisted mediation and fact-finding, the university is legally entitled to implement its last proposal,” said Dwaine Duckett, UC’s vice president for systemwide human resources and programs, in a statement. …

UC will impose a new pension and retiree health benefits program that includes an increase in the university’s contribution from 10 to 12 percent and an employee contribution increase from 5 to 6.5 percent.(Davis Enterprise)

Of course, for workers that are making an average of $35,000 per year, that increase is a big deal. According to their union, AFSCME 3299, the imposed contract is a 1.5% reduction in pay at a time when the top earners are getting 3% pay increases.

Now, Napolitano obviously wasn’t involved in that background, but she is getting a talking to from legislators about the imposition of a contract on a group of workers that represent the most diverse and lowest income of UC employees. From the letter, authored by new Assembly member Lorena Gonzales and signed by nine more legislators:

UC has applied a different standard to its patient care and service workers – 90% of whom are immigrants and people of color.  Service workers are the only ones that have been singled out for a wage freeze.  These womenand men are already the lowest-paid UC employees.

We recognize and respect that UC’s administrative staff are people of good will.  We are confident that they are not consciously singling out employees of color.  But we also recognize that most often discriminatory practices evolve from equitable theories.

Whatever the reason, whatever the recent history, singling out the University’s largest population of minority workers for the harshest treatment at the bargaining table sends a deeply disturbing message.  Nothing could be less consistent with the values you have embodied throughout your career. (Full Letter on Scribd)

Labor negotiations are never easy, whether for the top employees or for the critical employees who make the educational environment possible at UC. But it is critical that all employees be treated fairly, and that is what this letter is all about.

This is hardly the only major contentious issue facing Napolitano as she enters the office, but it is clearly one worthy of her immediate attention.

Legislators Letter to UC President Janet Napolitano

Yosemite is Closed for its 123rd Birthday, Google Doodle

Yosemite Google DoodlePark forced to close for Government shutdown

by Brian Leubitz

Well, the House GOP has gone ahead and leaped over the brink in their vain attempts to stop the President’s Affordable Care Act and forced a government shutdown. It’s a sad state of affairs, and particularly mournful for our very own Yosemite National Park, forced to close as it gets a closeup from the millions of Google users who view the “Google Doodle”:

So Yosemite National Park is sitting there, all majestic in the outfit it planned just for the occasion – its 123rd Anniversary, today, Oct. 1 – but something isn’t right. There are no party guests, no cake and not a celebratory banner in sight, because the federal government is shut down today.

All that remains are the best wishes from Google, which marks Yosemite’s anniversary today with a Doodle Tribute. Meanwhile tourists will be kept from visiting that and all the national parks around the country today.

Park police will be on duty to make sure no shenanigans go down, but the visitors center will be closed and all campers have been escorted off the grounds. (Consumerist)

There are many other blogs to read for some very good opinions on the shutdown, but for those Californians who wanted to see the majesty of Half-Dome, well, they will have to wait. Apparently the Republicans are too busy being held hostage to their right wing fringe to get real work done.

Reducing Truancy Makes Us Safer

Everyday, schools in California and across the nation are unable to educate far too many of our students for one simple reason: our youngest students aren’t in class. Some estimates say that approximately one million California elementary school students were truant during the 2012-13 school year.(1)

This week, my office released a major report summarizing the risks truancy poses, and presents several recommendations for what we can do to address these issues. Click here to read the report.

Truancy makes a profound difference in the safety of our communities. When our students drop out or fail to attend school, we spend additional billions in incarceration and lose productivity and tax revenues. One prominent study showed that for some chronically truant students, just one additional school day missed could reduce their chance of graduating by up to 7%.(2) Children who lack that educational foundation are more likely to end up at risk of becoming involved in crime, both as victims and as offenders.

I have long focused on combating truancy because I see a direct connection between public education and public safety. To really make the changes we need, all adults, – districts, law enforcement, schools, parents, communities – are accountable to find solutions. Only by working together can we find the solutions that our students need.

Click here to read my op-ed with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in the Los Angeles Times, highlighting some of the ways that we can work together to fight truancy.(3)

Together, we can provide brighter futures for our children and safer communities for all Californians.

Kamala D. Harris is the Attorney General of California. If you know anybody that would like to sign up for our email list, please tell them to click here to sign up to get updates and future volunteer opportunities: tinyurl.com/KDHSignup

Non-lead ammo is common sense

TeslafalconNearly twenty California newspapers and a coalition of thousands agree that AB 711 is common-sense public policy

by Robin Swanson

Assembly Bill 711, a bill by Assemblymembers Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) and Dr. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) to require non-lead ammo for hunting, makes so much good common sense that is supported by dozens of groups from across the spectrum, from the California Medical Association to Children Now to the American Federation of County, State and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), not to mention being endorsed by almost every major newspaper in our state (see below).

And yet the opponents of the bill are asking the public to ignore decades of science proving that lead is a poison that is bad for humans and our environment, instead resorting to classic “slippery slope” arguments and trying to create other red herrings.

So I’d like to get back to the basics, because despite working in politics for a very long time, I still believe that common sense wins the day:

Lead is bad.

The Centers for Disease Control has said that there is no safe level of lead exposure for humans.  That why we’ve banned it in everything from paint, to gasoline to children’s toys.  Eating lead particles left in game meat shot with lead ammunition is bad for you.  It’s bad for animals, like the California Condor, Golden Eagles and 130 other wild species, too.

Lead ammo is also bad.



“Over 60,000 metric tons of lead is used annually in the production of lead ammunition in the United States. Thus, lead-based ammunition is likely the greatest, largely unregulated, source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the US,” said Dr. Don Smith, Professor, Department of Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology, UC Santa Cruz. “In contrast, other significant sources of lead in the environment, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paint, and lead-based solder, are recognized as hazardous and have been substantially reduced or eliminated over the past 50 years.”

Dr. Smith led a recent effort that attracted the signatures of more than 30 nationally respected scientists, who reached consensus on the need to remove lead from ammunition used in hunting.

Lead ammo is mean.



It only takes a tiny amount of lead to poison animals, causing immense suffering before killing them, and unfortunately, I see these animals in my clinic all too often,” said Dr. Vickie Joseph, a Placer County veterinarian who specializes in wildlife health. “Lead is toxic to vertebrate physiological systems, including the central and peripheral nervous, renal, cardiovascular, reproductive, immune and hematologic systems, and it is recognized as a carcinogen in California. Lead poisoning can cause an inability to fly, starvation, weakness, lethargy, vomiting, diarrhea, anemia, blindness, seizures and death.”

Dr. Joseph joined more than 100 other California veterinarians who signed a letter supporting the policy of requiring non-lead ammunition in hunting, an effort spearheaded by the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association.

We don’t have to use lead ammo.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1991 began to require the use of non-lead shot like steel for hunting ducks and geese across the United States, California began requiring lead-free ammo in the condor zone in 2008, and the National Park Service in 2009 announced the goal of eliminating the use of lead ammunition.

There are already manufacturers of non-lead ammunition in the state of California, and thousands and thousands of waterfowl hunters in California already use non-lead ammunition.

And if this isn’t enough, the following  newspaper editorials agree with the bill’s sponsors including Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States in calling for enactment of AB 711… (over the flip)

And if this isn’t enough, read any of the following  newspaper editorials who agree with the bill’s sponsors Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and The Humane Society of the United States in calling for enactment of AB 711…

 

The Bakersfield Californian: Editorial: Why we must ban lead ammo

 

Los Angeles Daily News: Editorial: Ban lead ammo for a more humane California  

 

 

 

San Bernardino Sun: Editorial: Ban lead ammo for a more humane California

 

 

 

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Getting the lead out of ammo

 

Monterey County Herald: Editorial: Lead-free bullets small price to pay

 

Sacramento Bee: Editorial: Scare tactics on lead bullet ban should be ignored

 

 

Sacramento Bee: Editorial: Time to get the lead out of gun ammo and wildlife

 

San Jose Mercury News: Editorial: Three bills Gov. Brown should sign

 

San Jose Mercury News: Editorial: California should ban lead ammunition for all forms of hunting

 

San Francisco Chronicle: Editorial: Ban lead bullets in hunting

 

Riverside Press-Enterprise: Editorial: Hits and misses

 

Riverside Press-Enterprise: Editorial: State should ban lead ammunition for hunting

 

Ventura Star: Editorial: Lead-free ammo makes sense on many levels

Covered California Launches Tomorrow

 photo DOT-COM-LINK1_zpsd770da93.jpgState to begin enrollment in “Obamacare” plans for 2014

by Brian Leubitz

House Republicans look like they are willing to shut the government down to put the brakes on ObamaCare, but that won’t actually change Covered California’s plan to open up shop tomorrow.

Indeed, Covered California – the state’s version of the federal health care law – is preparing to begin enrolling customers in its health insurance exchange on Tuesday. Parts of the government would close on the same day if lawmakers in Washington don’t act on legislation to extend discretionary spending. …

California, one of 14 states rolling out its own marketplace, will mark opening day with a series of events in Sacramento, Fresno, San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The federal government will oversee the launch in the remaining states.(SacBee)

In fact, if you want to see how much, roughly, your health insurance will cost under the new law, it is already available. Just head over to CoveredCA.com and click on “Shop and Compare” to get a few quotes for ACA-eligible plans.

If you have employer insurance, this won’t really change much for you. However, for those of us with individual plans, the new exchange will open up new options.

Solar Divide – First Solar Attacks its Own Industry

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

You might assume that the solar energy industry represents one united group, working together in harmony towards a renewable energy future.  It’s a beautiful thought, but evidently this is not the case.  Within the solar industry there is conflict arising between rooftop solar and large scale solar developers — namely First Solar — which sees rooftop as a threat to its future success.

James Hughes, the CEO of First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer and PV power plant developer based in Tempe Arizona, has come out publicly against net metering.  Despite the fact that studies show distributed solar provides $34 million in annual benefits to all Arizona Public Service ratepayers, Hughes makes false claims that net metering is a subsidy “funded by all other utility customers who must pay proportionately more in rates.”  He uses false information to make a direct attack on his own industry.

You might ask why First Solar has such strong opposition to the success of rooftop solar.  The answer to that question can be found in the company’s 2012 Annual Report, in which it identifies rooftop solar as an obstacle that is likely to get in the way of the execution of its Long-Term Strategic Plan.  The rooftop solar market is not part of First Solar’s business strategy, and the company admits that it will “have a material adverse effect on our business.”

In order to protect itself from the perceived threat of rooftop solar, First Solar is filing comments against net metering in states like Arizona and Nevada where a significant portion of its large-scale project portfolio is located, and where the preservation of net metering policies is up for evaluation.  Nevada is the site of two of the company’s large scale projects, which means the utility in that state is a major customer for First Solar. Comments filed in Nevada by First Solar advocate for thwarting the growth of their own industry by attacking residential solar.  Similarly, First Solar filed comments with the Arizona Corporation Commission on September 18, 2013, in which it claims that the spike in rooftop PV growth has led to a financial burden on ratepayers and utilities.  As I mentioned above, studies show this is not true at all.

Rooftop solar’s popularity among ratepayers and utilities does not come exclusively from the fact that it is a renewable source of energy.  In addition to societal benefits, it is also a form of distributed generation – which means that it is energy produced close to where it is used. In areas where the grid is constrained and electricity demand is on the rise, utilities have the potential to save millions by avoiding the costs of paying for new power lines and purchasing more electricity. Utility scale solar just cannot compete with that.

Brown Out

Governor Jerry BrownGovernor Jerry Brown waited until late Friday to veto legislation requiring coroners to report to the medical board whenever narcotics cause deaths. The medical establishment has opposed the bill, which is aimed at weeding out the small number of dangerous and drug dealing doctors who are responsible for the vast majority of prescription drug overdose deaths.

Brown cited state costs as his reason, but it just doesn’t add up.  The bill would have cost no more than hundreds of thousands of dollars. The power of the medical establishment is the real motive here, and their distaste for any accountability or transparency.  The arrogance of medical-pharmaceutical complex is astounding, but what’s really disturbing is that they have Jerry Brown’s ear and pen.

The Los Angeles Times did a groundbreaking investigation of prescription overdose deaths and dirty doctors based on obtaining coroner reports like the ones that SB 62 would have required to be reported to the medical board. The fact that such a simple measure cannot get past the governor’s desk shows why we need to go to the ballot with the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act, which requires mandatory drug testing of physicians and other patient safety measures.

Drug testing physicians is not only critical to protecting the public from substance abusing doctors, but it is also remedies another epidemic — the belief by the doctors lobby that they are above it all.  Make them pee in a cup and some of the arrogance we have been witnessing in response to common sense measures like SB 62 will be reduced too.

After today, it might be wise to make Governor Brown pee in a cup too. The loss of judgement and clarity in the deliberation of SB 62 makes one wonder.


Posted by Jamie Court, author of The Progressive’s Guide to Raising Hell and President of Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.