Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally.

Budgets are Moral
Documents

• Working Californians: Messaging the Environment: Budget
  Edition
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/08/09/messaging_the_environment_budget_edition
• California Progress Report: Impact of California State
  Budget Delay on the Disabled and Seniors
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/impact_of_calif.html
• California Progress Report: 14 White Men Hold California
  Budget Hostage
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/14_white_men_ho.html
• California Progress Report: Maldonado is No Moderate and
  His
  District Deserves Better: The Budget as an Example of Why We Should
  Fight for a Real Democratic Majority in California
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/maldonado_is_no.html
• California Progress Report: Representing His District: Abel
  Maldonado—The Only Republican Senator So Far to Vote for the
  California
  State Budget
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/representing_hi.html
• California Progress Report: DO
  ‘COMPETITIVE’ LEGISLATIVE
  DISTRICTS PRODUCE MODERATE AND REASONABLE LAWMAKERS? SENATOR DENHAM
  PROVES THE OPPOSITE!
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/do_competitive.html

Not Enough of Anything
Else for Separate Categories

• DownWithTyranny!: AT&T CENSORS PEARL JAM’S
  LOLLAPALOOZA SET BECAUSE A SONG MENTIONED BUSH
  http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/08/at-censors-pearl-jams-lollapalooza-set.html
• GregDewar.com: Why Chris Daly Should Run and How We Got
  Here – Campaign Analysis By Savannah Blackwell
  http://www.gregdewar.com/2007/08/post.html
• Educational Justice: Supreme Court Limits School
  District’s Ability to Desegregate: It’s Up to
  Teachers and Communities to Ensure Educational Equity
  http://edjustice.blogspot.com/2007/08/supreme-court-limits-school-districts.html
• . . . Surf Putah: A New California Dream
  http://surfputah.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-california-dream.html
• California Progress Report: AIDS/HIV, a Key California
  Issue in Today’s Democratic Presidential
  Candidates’ Debate in Los Angeles
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/08/aidshiv_a_key_c.html
• The California Majority Report // Today’s Fresh Meat
  http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=2158
• The BRAD BLOG : CA’s E-Voting Earthquake: Kentucky AG Takes
  On Hart Intercivic and Diebold After California’s Demand for Corrective
  Action from Voting Machine Companies
  http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4933
• The California Majority Report // Senator George Runner:
  Hypocrite
  http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=9&aid=2160
• Dump Doolittle: August expected to yield Congressional
  retirements
  http://solongjohn.blogspot.com/2007/08/august-expected-to-yield-congressional.html
• California Policy Inbox » California Is Expensive
  — Especially When You Add on Health Care Costs
  http://inbox.berkeley.edu/?p=369
• The Ojai Post: MY PARENTS WERE ALIENS
  http://www.ojaipost.com/2007/08/my_parents_were_aliens.shtml
• SoHum Parlance: Check out the colors at Humboldt Homestead!
  http://redwoodreality.blogspot.com/2007/08/check-out-colors-at-humboldt-homestead.html
• Pam’s House Blend:: Hate Crimes on Wikipedia: “Obeying
  God’s Law”
  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2572

Lots of posts in the California blogs in the last 24 hours, almost all of them on Bush commuting Scooter Libby’s sentence (it’s good to be the king — or his friend). Actual California stuff I found below the fold. As always, if I missed something, post it in comments.

Incidentally, I noticed that for some reason the links sometimes appear as plain text in the RSS feed. They do seem to show up as hyperlinks in the emailed roundup. I’ll see what I can do about that. Until then, just click through for hyperlinking.

Not Working Californians
or California Progress Report

• From the Fever Swamp: Horrible Preemption Provision Dropped
  from Energy Bill
  http://fromthefeverswamp.blogspot.com/2007/07/horrible-preemption-provision-dropped.html
• . . . Surf Putah: Ode to the Delta Breeze (a Meditation on
  Living in One’s Actual Environment)
  http://surfputah.blogspot.com/2007/07/ode-to-delta-breeze.html

Working Californians

• Working Californians: Tax Breaks vs. Fees for Investing in
  Alternative Fuel Research 
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/07/02/investing_in_alternative_fuel_research_tax_breaks_or_fees
• Working Californians: Supermarket Swindle: Brave New Films
  Joins the Grocery Worker Fight
  http://workingcalifornians.com/blog/julia_rosen/2007/07/02/supermarkert_swindle_brave_new_films_joins_the_grocery_worker_fight

California Progress Report

• California Progress Report: California’s
  High-Speed Rail System at a Crossroads 
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/californias_hig.html
• California Progress Report: Klamath Water Users and Tribes
  Negotiate Removal of Warren Buffett’s Dams That Poison Local
  Communities and Result in Public Health Warnings
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/klamath_water_u.html
• California Progress Report: California Assembly Committee
  Readies Hearing on Schwarzenegger’s “Global Warming Gate” as Ex Air
  Board Officials Prepare to Tell All on Friday
  http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/california_asse_18.html
• California Progress Report: Bill to Gut Local Campaign
  Finance Laws
  Blasted by League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and California Clean
  Money Campaign http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/07/bill_to_gut_loc.html

Over the last few months I’ve been writing about high speed rail and the ongoing legislative efforts to save the project from Arnold’s efforts to kill it. As the budget negotiations reach their climax in Sacramento, the future of California’s high speed rail project – and of transportation funding itself – remains as uncertain as ever.

As the BayRail Alliance notes, the legislative budget conference committee didn’t resolve differences between the chambers on what to do about overall public transportation funding or about high speed rail funding itself. As I noted  last month Arnold is looking to gut public transportation funding to the tune of $1.3 billion. Both the Assembly and the Senate want to restore some or all of this funding but disagreed on how much should be restored.

How does this impact HSR? And why is it critical that HSR get funding in this budget? Keep reading…

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has been working toward completion of necessary environmental studies, analysis of ridership, and final route/station selection ever since Gray Davis signed the original high speed rail bond act in 2002. Earlier this year the CHSRA requested $103 million to finish these studies and begin property acquisition.

Instead, Arnold only offered $1 million in his January budget, upped to $5 million in the May revise. Arnold and his advisers seem to believe that this will allow them to “keep the lights on” at the CHSRA until they can find private and federal commitments.

This thinking is flawed – private investors and the federal government simply do not commit to a project like this without the state taking the first step. That’s how these things always work. But without completed studies, even a state vote to fund HSR will not alone attract investment. Every major development needs to have all of its important environmental impact studies completed before it can be considered viable, and without a finalized route, including station selection, no private investor will be willing to take on such a project that still has some lack of certainty about it.

Both chambers of the legislature seem to recognize this – one chamber supported giving CHSRA $50 million, another supported $40 million. But as I noted above, the conference committee was unable to reconcile these numbers and, along with public transportation funding as a whole, chose to let the leadership decide. High speed rail funding is now in the laps of Senator Perata, Speaker Núñez, Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman, and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines.

The next two weeks, then, are critical for marshaling support for this project. The BayRail Alliance has created a contact page for getting in touch with these key legislators and, of course, the governor. State legislators need to know that the public takes this project seriously and expects to see it given enough funding to make it to the ballot.

Obviously to mobilize the public to save high speed rail, and to begin building support for it ahead of the November 2008 vote, we need to ramp up public outreach. There have been some significant positive steps in this direction – Fiona Ma’s trip to France to be a part of the TGV speed record event generated a lot of publicity and support for California’s project, with some in Sacramento believing that her actions helped push Arnold to make a public statement of support for HSR.

But certainly more must be done. The key may well be the Central Valley. As wu ming noted, inland Californians are used to seeing the Bay Area and SoCal hog all the infrastructure funding while highway 99 rots. One of the *main* beneficiaries of high speed rail will in fact be the Central Valley, which will be connected to the other major metro regions of the state, making it easier for residents of Fresno and Bakersfield to travel not only to SF or LA but to the rest of the country and the world (thanks to easier connections to major airports). Virtually every Chamber of Commerce along the line in the San Joaquin Valley supports HSR, but Assemblyman Mike Villines needs to hear this again.

With so much going on in Sacramento these days surrounding the state budget – especially on the health care issue – it can be easy for HSR to be lost in the shuffle, as it has been for the last few years. But this is the most important project California has considered in the last 45 years. Now is the time to help give HSR the final push over the top so that we can move on to the next phase – getting a successful vote on the bonds in November 2008.

In the long history of a California high speed rail plan there have been few more consistent and more effective supporters of the project than the BayRail Alliance. Their executive director, Margaret Okuzumi, has been active in the current fight to save high speed rail, and today offers a very insightful piece at the California Progress Report suggesting that underlying Arnold’s lack of support is a flawed perspective on the project – that he, influenced by his HSR advisor David Crane, is fundamentally misunderstanding the project. Instead of seeing it as a development, he’s seeing it as an investment banker would. Okuzumi explains:

The investment banker’s approach to making money is to first assemble the money, then figure out what investments to make.

The developer’s approach to making money is to design a building and determine if it will make a good return on the investment, then go out and assemble the financing to pull it off.

More on the other side…

Okuzumi goes into detail about how developers approach project financing:

Developers build “things”- buildings, subdivisions, theme parks and even highways and railways. They are used to having some unknowns initially about where the money is going to come from. If the project is economically sound, then they don’t worry about whether they have all the money in hand from the start; they know the investors will materialize as the project begins to become “real”, as the risks are reduced by that initial investment– the land acquired, the zoning and permitting attained, the environmental risk factors analyzed.

In other words, for a developer, getting the ball rolling is they key to project success. Someone has to take the first step, has to seed the project with startup funds – and once that is accomplished then the rest of the funding will typically materialize.

To hear Arnold tell it, we have no assurances that this other funding will appear. But this is not entirely true. As I noted on Wednesday, 2/3 of CA’s Congressional delegation signed a letter written by Jim Costa – including virtually all of the San Joaquin Valley Republicans – expressing strong support for HSR and a commitment to provide federal dollars. Okuzumi reports in her article this morning that every time she’s visited members of Congress to lobby on rail issues more broadly they tend to volunteer their support for HSR without prompting.

Yet Arnold still claims this is not enough. Why is he seeing this from and investment and not a development perspective?

Because, as Okuzumi notes, his liaison to the HSR project, the aforementioned David Crane, is himself an investment banker.

Who is David Crane, exactly?

He is a “San Francisco Democrat” who, like Susan Kennedy and Angela Bradstreet, has forsaken their nominal party affiliation to join Team Schwarzenegger. Since 1979 he worked for investment banking house Babcock & Brown, and today he is Arnold’s Special Advisor for Jobs and Economic Growth. Sunne Wright McPeak, Secretary of Transportation, Business, and Housing, is quoted in a January Capitol Weekly profile as saying that Crane “is involved in all of the key deliberations that I have been a part of.”

Crane is not only reputed to be a longtime and close friend and advisor to Arnold and Maria – but his philosophies are not particularly Democratic. According to the Capitol Weekly profile:

Crane’s economic philosophy sounds distinctly libertarian. He advocates against government intervention in private business and touts his admiration for conservative economist Milton Friedman.

“Governments don’t create jobs, and if they are not careful they can kill jobs,” Crane told an audience of business leaders at a San Francisco
luncheon last summer.

The profile goes on to detail Crane’s right-wing economic views, which hold that public pensions are “special privileges” and that the minimum wage hurts jobs. The Capitol Weekly claims his “abrasive” personality has alienated him from many Sacramento lobbyists and interest groups, which along with his right-wing economic views cost him a spot as a CalSTRS trustee earlier this year.

In spite of this, Crane has been delegated by Arnold to work on environmentally friendly business and development projects, including HSR. Last month he attended a symposium on Low Carbon Fuels Standards at Lawrence Berkeley Lab, where he spoke on a panel on international approaches to low carbon fuels standards. Surely he understands, then, that there are few better low carbon fuels than an electric, high speed train.

The combination of a right-wing approach to government’s role in jobs and infrastructure with an investment banking background makes it unlikely that Arnold will be getting the best advice on HSR from Crane. Of course, it’s still an open question whether Arnold actually supports the plan or whether he wishes to help out his Big Oil contributors by killing a rival plan.

HSR has widespread support among Californians of all kinds, especially those living on the route, their representatives, and in the Congress. They all understand that for job creation, a sustainable and environmentally friendly method of transportation is essential to California’s future. Arnold should show some leadership by supporting HSR instead of killing what is the most important project this state has debated in the last 45 years.

This summer is going to see a lot of intrastate travel in the Robert in Monterey household. Next week my fiance goes to San Diego for a 2-week training. The week after that, we’re both going back to OC for my sister’s wedding. In August is my 10-year high school reunion, also in OC.

Because there is no reliable train that connects Monterey County to SoCal, we’re going to drive each time – three round trips by the time September rolls around. We’re lucky that we can still do this – gas prices are high, but not yet crippling. There’s enough supply to fuel our new subcompact. But the environmental cost of these trips is already significant, and in the coming years, this easy galavanting around the Golden State will no longer be possible or desirable. Peaking oil supplies, crowded freeways, and unaffordable gas costs will mean that millions of summer trips like these – and the economic activity they collectively generate – will simply cease.

Happily, there is a plan to deal with this. As I’ve written about before, California has had a detailed plan to build a high speed rail line to connect the major metro areas of the state since 2002. Were it in place we could just hop a bus to Gilroy or San José and “Fly California” via the rails, arriving in SoCal in just a few hours, without using gas or adding carbon to the atmosphere.

As I’ve also written about, Arnold is trying to kill this plan. Democrats in the state legislature are trying to fight him off, and committees in both chambers have voted to give nearly $50 million for the project. But to hear some newspapers tell it, this plan is pretty much already dead. What gives?

Over the last week two San Diego papers have turned their attention to the high speed rail project, and both gave the very strong impression that what I believe to be the most important project debated by Californians in the last 45 years is “pretty much dead.” Their coverage misstates the situation and provides a false impression that high speed rail is not only dead, but not really worth fighting for. At the same time though, these articles DO suggest who some of the other forces in SoCal are that are trying to slow or kill the project.

First comes an article from Saturday’s North County Times headlined “High speed rail called dead”, quoting some government officials in the Temecula area as saying that high speed rail is “dead.” Temecula councilman – and head of the six-county Metrolink board – Ron Roberts says “A long time ago I thought it was dead. And I still think it is dead.” Bob Magee, Lake Elsinore’s mayor and Riverside County transportation official is quoted as saying “I don’t think we’re going to see high-speed rail in my lifetime.” And a Republican State Senator, Dennis Hollingsworth (CA-38), an avowed opponent of HSR, is allowed to spout this talking point: “The state’s finances are going to have to improve at a pretty remarkable clip to make it attractive to go out for a big bond for something that would be completely new.”

The article does also quote some HSR supporters, and we’ll have more to say about them later. But let’s parse the above quotes. Roberts, the head of the Metrolink board, calls HSR dead. Does Metrolink have full support for HSR, or do they worry that it might compete with them for funding, right-of-way, capital, and riders? If Magee, who sits on Riverside County’s transportation commission, says “we’ll never see it in our lifetimes,” was Riverside County ever really on board the HSR plan? Magee was later quoted by KCBS/2 news as saying Metrolink trains, not HSR was the solution to gridlock on the Interstate 15 corridor. As Magee also presided over a freeway and roads-centric transportation plan for Riverside County, it raises questions about whether he and the county were ever serious about HSR or whether they and local officials always preferred to work with Metrolink alone.

A few weeks back I noted that the CHSRA had voted to proceed with construction on the SF-LA portion of the line first, as mandated by the state legislature. This was seen as a “piecemeal” approach and at the CHSRA meeting in late May where this was decided, it was said that local government agencies such as SCAG (SoCal Association of Governments) and SANDAG (SD Association of Governments) were interested in other alternatives. Might it be the case, then, that local officials such as those quoted in this article had never been on board with HSR in the first place, and were all too happy to help try and kill it by withholding crucial support east and south of LA?

The other article comes in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune, wondering if Arnold’s opposition will “finally kill it,” as if the project has somehow been on life support. The text of the article itself suggests otherwise – that transportation issues remain a central focus of the budget negotiations and that Democrats remain committed to protecting local transit agency funding as well as the CHSRA plan, quoting Assemblymember John Laird (CA-27) to that effect.

Frank Russo recently bemoaned the lack of media coverage of important issues in our state. When a few articles DO appear on high speed rail, such as these two, they tend to emphasize the obstacles HSR faces, instead of emphasizing the popular support that exists for it.

In that NC Times article, State Sen. Christine Kehoe (CA-39) argues that the project is alive and well, but rightly points out that Arnold’s lack of leadership is endangering this vital proposal: “The governor is sending a very mixed message on the high-speed rail, unfortunately…We need leadership that says California is committed to this project. And we don’t have that yet.”

The article also closes with several quotes from locals about the project, including many who support it. Escondido’s mayor clearly gets why HSR is so valuable:

I think high-speed rail is the next generation of transportation, and it is critical to the economic success of California. I think it has to get built because, fundamentally, our highways are constrained, our airports are at capacity and our railroads are at capacity. If we want to keep moving people and goods, our next choice is going to be high-speed rail.

And just a few days ago we learned that ridership on California’s regional Amtrak routes has shattered all previous records, led by the extremely popular Capitol Corridor line between San José and Sacramento.

The desire for rapid, effective, and environmentally friendly rail transportation is quite clearly there. Support is there for the taking. But who will lead? Who in Sacramento, or who out there in California, will take up the cause? This project is clearly not dead. But without strong support, it could soon be.

Will California’s high speed rail project survive Arnold’s budget cuts – and if so, how will it get built? George Skelton’s Monday LA Times column turns its attention to the issue, with some important insights about the current status of the plan. With an excellent excoriation of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s unwillingness to lead on the issue, despite his public claims of support for the project, Skelton also questions some recent decisions of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the implementation schedule of the project.

The first part of the column focuses on Arnold’s lack of support for the project. A few weeks back he published an op-ed in the Fresno Bee claiming to support the project. As I noted in response, this seemed to be a bit of smoke and mirrors, as Arnold continued to seek cuts for the plan behind the scenes.

Skelton’s column lays this point out further, noting that such an interpretation is prevailing wisdom in Sacramento, and that Arnold wants to preserve the funding capacity for more dams and freeways, despite the obvious environmental benefits of high speed rail. Quentin Kopp, the longtime San Francisco supervisor, state senator, and judge, who now runs the CHSRA, argues that if Arnold would come out and champion the project publicly, the battle would be “80% over.”

Skelton also correctly points out the flaws of Arnold’s claim that the CHSRA funding plan is inadequate – that there’s no way federal or private financers will commit until the state has indicated its support through a vote:

Most everybody outside the governor’s office considers this naive. Until California voters commit to the project, seasoned pols note, no private investors or government officials will. Besides, no one knows who’s going to be in charge in Washington after 2008. And about the only Sacramentan with the ability to coax Boxer, Feinstein and Pelosi into a negotiating room is Schwarzenegger, who isn’t lifting a finger for high-speed rail.

In short, Arnold himself is the key to the CHSRA funding plan – and he refuses to act in that capacity. What better place to get some of CA’s tax money returned from DC, as Arnold famously claimed he could do during the 2003 recall election, than to secure federal aid for the project?

The contrast between Arnold’s stated support and his actual efforts to kill the project led State Sen. Dean Florez, a Central Valley Democrat, to bitterly remark “Obviously, the governor’s budget writers don’t read his Op-Ed pieces.”

To Skelton, however, a bigger problem may be self-inflicted. He argues that the CHSRA’s decision to make an Anaheim-SF line the first phase of the project built is a recipe for political disaster. He quotes some important legislators who argue that by leaving Sacramento and San Diego to “some future lifetime” – implying that the plan to build to those cities is merely a vague promise – it will become more difficult for voters to support it, especially if their region is left out. Some of the quotes:

“If the project actually has a life, it’s going to have to include Sacramento,” says Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)…

“I don’t see how they could leave out San Diego and have this make sense,” [Senate Budget Chair Denise Moreno] Ducheny says. “I can’t imagine why anybody in San Diego would vote for it.”

Given these alarmist quotes, what exactly happened at last week’s CHSRA board meeting? Clearly the board believes that the HSR system, like all other rail systems in the country as well as HSR systems around the world, cannot be built all at once. That seems a sensible point. They focused on Anaheim to SF via Merced for the following reasons, as defined in this report:

-This route is the “backbone of the network” which will likely bring in the most riders and the most private financing.

-The SD to LA route is plagued by “considerable uncertainty.” CHSRA argues that SCAG (SoCal Association of Governments) and SANDAG (SD Association of Governments) are more interested in Maglev technology to finish the route.

Granted, I’m somewhat new to this issue, but that doesn’t strike me as a very good reason to leave SD out. Someone need to coordinate CHSRA, SCAG, and SANDAG on finalizing a route and a technology. There’s no need to let local governments go their own way, and if we had leadership coming from Sacto, this might not be a problem (and I am not yet sure that it really is).

Russ Jackson of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada (RailPAC) fills in some of the details here:

Arguments were made during the meeting by Commissioner Lynn Schenk that leaving out San Diego would cripple the potential for the project goals stated above, and probably bury that extension for a very long time. She “could not vote for the plan as proposed if San Diego were left out.”…

Jackson goes on to note that in the 1980s a plan to build a bullet train down the I-5 corridor along the San Diego County coast was killed for a number of reasons, including uncertain funding, lack of US Marine Corps approval to use Camp Pendleton land, and NIMBY opposition – but that CHSRA avoided that mistake by choosing an inland alignment, along Interstate 15.

It seems that not enough has been done to resolve these local issues. Why on earth is SCAG and SANDAG pushing for the expensive and untested maglev technology when CHSRA’s plan is much more solid, reliable, and utilizes existing and successful technology? And why hasn’t this dispute been resolved by now, some 7 years after the initial planning for the HSR project began?

Obviously no project of this scale can be built all at once. It might make sense to give voters a clear timeline – LA to SF by 2020, Sacto extension by 2022, LA to SD by 2025, something like that. But there must be a clear plan to tie the main metro regions into the network, something that can suggest to voters that the plans to get to their metro area are not just made out of thin air.

Voters – and interested members of the media – should also be reminded that the 2002 enabling legislation approving the CHSRA plan and scheduling a November 2004 vote on the bonds (pushed back twice) mandated  that LA to SF be the first route funded (scroll to page 23). This would help justify the emphasis on LA to SF while also reminding folks that is just the start of a system, not its end.

For most rail systems, getting the first line built is the most difficult. Once a segment is in operation other regions clamor for inclusion. This was true of the LACMTA’s lines, it’s true here in Seattle, where a light rail system is a year or two away from its first segment completion, and it’s been true for European high speed rail networks as well.

However, without restoring CHSRA’s funding in this budget cycle, the questions over phasing are moot. Happily there seems to have been some improvements in the budget outlook. In a comment on a HSR diary at California Progress Report, John Shields claims “A California Senate subcommittee on the 22nd May approved a $45.2 million budget for Cal HSR”, which comports with some of the things I’ve heard as well. It’s not the full $103 million but it’s also a far sight better than the piddly $5 million Arnold had offered.

Russ Jackson of RailPAC offers this assessment, which I endorse:

In this writer’s opinion, by eliminating San Diego and not resolving the issue over Maglev with SCAG, not serving the Riverside area, without defining its route into the Bay Area, not serving Sacramento in the initial phase, and not serving the Bay Area to Sacramento segment, the CAHSRA has doomed itself to losing large blocks of votes for the $9 billion bond issue (if it ever gets on the ballot). As desirable as high-speed rail is for the state, it’s what the local folks think they want to approve for other areas to benefit from that will determine the project’s future.

Ultimately the CHSRA plan will require a champion. It took Al Gore to convince the world global warming was a fact, something that we should have realized over a decade ago. It will take Michael Moore to convince America that our health care crisis is real and that universal single-payer care is a viable solution, although Americans have been fighting for this for over a hundred years. Who will step up for high speed rail?

My earlier HSR diaries:

Why is Arnold Trying to Terminate High Speed Rail?

Save the High Speed Rail Project!

Democrats  Will Have to Save California Public Transportation from Schwarzenegger’s Budget

(cross-posted from dailykos)

People (myself included) are giving you a lot of crap in the comments of your post about the Republican wonder Arnold Schwarzenegger.  In it you suggest that Arnold is governing like a Democrat (though an imperfect one), which merits praise.  May I suggest to you that Arnold is simply getting closer to governing the way he ran and that it is sharply contrasted to his 2005 “year of reform”, skewing people’s perceptions.  He is not now, nor will he ever be a Democrat.  Arnold is a moderate Republican and is governing like one.  There are serious differences between what a Democrat would do in office and what Arnold does.

What I want to do is go on a subject by subject basis and get at the heart of what is going on when it comes to his supposed social liberalism, fiscal conservative and environmental progressive governing style.

Let me state up front that since moving to California two years ago, I have written thousands of blog posts on Arnold Schwarzenegger.  This governor loves to say one thing and do another.  His public statements rarely match up with his actions.  I talk about Arnold’s governing philosophy in terms of software versions, since it switches all too often.  He has actually stuck to one version in the last year and a half, something that kos picks up on.

Health Care
The governor is living up to his campaign promises and has pushed forward a health care plan.  I am glad that he has made it a priority, though the Democrats long have been leading on this issue and it is one of the top issues on the minds of the California electorate.  That said there are clear differences between Arnold and the Democrats.

The mainstream Democratic health care policy in California is SB 840, a single payer plan.  It was passed through the legislature last year, but was vetoed by Arnold.  He has pledged to do the same this year.  The Democrats do not have the votes to override him.

In order to pass health care reform, under the reign of Arnold, it must stick within the current private health insurance sector.  He has pushed forward his own plan that has been pretty ripped to shreds by all sides.  Not only that, but he has failed to find a single legislator to carry it forward as actual legislation.  Politically, it would need to be introduced by a Republican and that simply will not happen.  The Republican legislators are far to the right of Arnold on this issue.  His plan is quite business friendly, with an unworkably low percentage of pay roll tax designated for health care.  It is what one would expect from a pro-business moderate Republican, no matter the state.

Budget
This has been the hot topic in the past few weeks, following the revised budget he submitted to the legislature.  No Democrat would have ever proposed the type of cuts Arnold is promoting.  It is “mean-spirited” and completely unacceptable.  Arnold has proposed cuts to aid for the aged, blind, disabled, children and poor.  He has proposed illegally funneling money out of the public transportation budget, just weeks after he was promoting public transit as a response to the bridge collapse in the Bay.

He is also promoting selling off or long-term lease of state assets for short-term gains.  The ultimate goal of these proposals is to free up cash to be able to pay down the state’s debt early.  That would free up the state to be able to issue another round of infrastructure bonds.  Arnold really, really wants to build two new dams.  Selling EdFund and leasing the lottery for 40 years would make it easier for Arnold to borrow more money on the state credit card, which he supposedly cut up back in 2003.

More generally, Arnold has taken the Norquist pledge.  He will not raise taxes.  California has a structural budget deficit.  Either you have to cut spending (like he did on the most vulnerable this year) or raise taxes to close that gap.  He has lucked out in recent years, with the state taking in more revenue than expected, allowing him to take a hope and pray approach to budgeting.  Arnold has failed to make any hard decisions and actually fix this problem.  Thus far the Legislature has shown little willingness in addressing the structural reasons for this deficit.  Arnold is being a coward on the budget, intentionally pushing cuts he knows the Democrats will not stand for, simultaneously sucking up to the Republicans.

For more on Arnold and the budget see my past 10 posts in the last two week.

Environment
Arnold has done a great job slathering on the green paint, despite his fairly pedestrian environmental record.  He only scored a 50% on LCV’s scorecard last year, despite all of the hype and public statements.  Arnold has aggressively promoted some environmentally progressive efforts, while simultaneously undermining the implementation.

It has been useful to have a high-profile Republican talking about global warming, ostracizing those who continue to deny its existence.  But a Democrat would have signed the bill to clean up the LA Ports and a Democrat would not have tried to pass off a cap-and-trade bill as a no cap one.

Prisons
In five years California will be spending more money on our prison system than our state university system.  Our prison system is a disaster and verging on total judicial takeover.  A federal receiver already has full control of the prison health care system.  Arnold’s solution is to throw more money at the problem, and build 53,000 new beds.  He has completely failed to take on his party’s get tough on crime mentality that has put us in this situation in the first place.

Public transportation
The other week an highway interchange collapsed and Arnold’s solution was to promote public transportation.  A few weeks later he introduces a budget that would pull $1.3 billion out of the transportation fund to go to other gaps in the budget.  The Legislative Analyst has indicated that his cuts to transportation may well be unconstitutional.  He is completely hypocritical.  He has talked about supporting high speed rail, but has consistently pushed it off to the side.  It is due to be on the ballot next year, but he has indicated that he would slough it off for another year.  His rhetoric does not match his actions.

—————–

Let me go back to Arnold’s overall performance.  He started off strong when first elected, then went way off course in 2005.  He is now back to governing as he promised, but tackling large issues and actually getting a few things accomplished in the past year.  However, he has never disavowed the basic philosophy behind the anti-teacher, nurses, cops and firefighter year of reform agenda.  That Arnold is just lurking beneath the surface.  He has a much better team in place, pushing him to focus on the issue that get him the most kudos, rather than his more conservative leanings.  He is talking like a progressive, governing like a moderate Republican and yet I can’t trust him further than I can throw him (which is admittedly not very far).

Arnold’s biggest motivation is attention.  He wants to do big things that get him lots of magazine covers.  He talks in a way that brings laudatory praise and wants to cement his own legacy.  The details matter less than getting something done.  The Democrats in the legislature have taken full advantage of this attitude.  They, as kos notes, have been pleased by his willingness to deal and ostracize the Republican legislature to as kos says “an irrelevant sideshow”.  The legislature has been more productive as a result.

We will see a real test of this dynamic in the next several months as they work towards a budget.  The two Democratic leaders, the two Republican leaders and Arnold (aka the Big 5) will be holed up hammering out a compromise.  The 2/3rds requirement means that the Republican legislators must be a party to the discussions.  If Arnold has so soured his relationship within his own party, then he is not particularly useful. 

It is much better to have Arnold working within his own party, rather than switch parties.  That is true from a public relations front as well.  Having a Republican talking about universal health care (even if his proposal isn’t very good), combating global warming (even if he tries to undercut it with signing statements) and high speed rail (even if he never puts it on the ballot) is useful to move the public debate.

Then of course, we should talk about his future ambitions.  There is no reason to clap loudly for Arnold, if it further advances his election prospects for future offices.  Barbara Boxer is preparing herself for a Arnold challenge.  While I am not convinced he would actually be happy in the Senate, it is still a real possibility.

So praise Arnold for his rhetoric, clap loudly when the legislature actually passes something, but don’t tell me that Arnold is a Democrat.  He is a Republican and has no desire to switch parties, nor the record to support such a switch.

(Love the down-payment angle as Arnold tries to sell off future revenue sources. – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

I recently wrote to Governor Schwarzenegger regarding the California High Speed Rail(HSR) initiative that’s been in limbo for some years now and covered very well at Calitics. Scheduled to go before voters in November ’08, Arnold is slashing money for the high speed rail authority in his 2007 budget and asking California legistators to postpone indefinitely the $9.95-billion rail bond that is slated to appear next year.

Below is my letter and the canned response:

(Cross-posted at Eco|Centric.)

From: “mailto:[email protected]“
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:00:11 AM

Subject: Re: Show some love for high speed rail

Thank you for writing to Governor Schwarzenegger to share your thoughts and concerns about highspeed rail. The Governor appreciates hearing from people who care about the important issues facing our great state.

In November 2006, California voters approved one of the largest bond packages in the state’s history. This money represents a considerable down payment on repairing and building our infrastructure and boosting the public services necessary to preserve our quality of life. And, with the tremendous population growth expected for California over the next two decades, the Governor has put forward an even broader proposal that will include funding for flood control, schools, courts and the correctional system.

Because of the critical need for funding these other forms of vital infrastructure, California has a limited ability to borrow money for a full high-speed rail bond measure right now. Governor Schwarzenegger’s comprehensive Strategic Growth Plan, and its varying bond components, cannot happen simultaneously with the high-speed rail bond without putting the state into a position of spending General Fund dollars at too-high levels. This approach instead protects California’s credit rating and support for other important state programs.

But the Governor’s proposed budget does recognize that high-speed rail is a viable transit option worth exploring for the future, and so it includes $1.2 million for staff support of the High-Speed Rail Authority. He is also willing to consider other potential payment options for such a rail system, including private financing.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your thoughts with Governor Schwarzenegger. He welcomes any comments that can help improve the future of California.

Sincerely,
Office of Constituent Affairs

Last week I explained to you all California’s plan for a true high speed rail system that would link the state’s major metropolitan areas, and described how Arnold Schwarzenegger was trying to terminate the plan.

Since then there has been a great deal of activity in the state, ahead of a crucial meeting in Sacramento this week on funding for the project. There now appears to be some significant movement from Arnold’s office toward a supportive position. However, there is still a long way to go, and your help is needed to ensure that California does the right thing and saves this project.

Note: For a full explanation of the California high speed rail plan, see my diary from last week

Is Democratic Pressure Bringing Arnold Around?

As of a few weeks ago it looked like Arnold was trying to kill the project outright. The CHSRA (California High Speed Rail Authority) plan was originally slated to go before voters in November 2004. That was postponed to November 2006 and again to November 2008. In Arnold’s initial budget proposal he suggested postponing the vote indefinitely and slashing CHSRA’s budget to a mere $1 million, barely enough to keep the office open.

Since news of this got a wider hearing, there has been a significant amount of pushback, especially from Democrats. The California Democratic Party, at its annual convention in San Diego two weekends ago, passed a resolution strongly supportive of the plan. Activists from around the state began calling their legislators and rallying support for the project.

Now it appears Arnold has budged – to some degree on this all-important project. In a letter to the Fresno Bee last Friday, Arnold announced that “the state must build high speed rail”:

But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley’s transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region’s growing population and enhance the Valley’s critical importance to our state’s economy.

The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.

On the surface this sounds great. Clearly Arnold understands that this project – the most important project proposed for  California in the last 45 years – cannot be allowed to die. And that is a major victory for our side.

However, careful parsing of his letter indicates how much work we have left to do to truly save this project, and just how little faith we can have in Arnold’s apparent “support” at this time.

The Outstanding Issues: Funding

The bulk of Arnold’s letter to the Bee is a claim that the CHSRA does not have adequate funding identified. The proposal that will go before voters in November 2008 will provide $10 billion in bonds, out of a projected $40 billion cost. Arnold’s letter asks where the rest of this money will come from.

The CHSRA has always maintained that the $10 billion is necessary seed money to convince the federal government and private investors that they can invest in the project and provide for the remaining costs.

Steven T. Jones, a reporter for the truly excellent San Francisco Bay Guardian, notes that these claims are not totally correct, and that major bond houses like Lehman Bros believe that state seed money – in this case, $10 billion – WILL bring in private capital and convince the bond market that the project is worthy of their support.

Arnold’s letter to the Bee makes the CHSRA plan sound like another flawed and unfunded government project and posits a false “chicken and egg” problem. In fact this is by no means the case, as the necessary starting point – $10 billion in state bonds – has already been identified, and a whole lot of people, from venture capitalists to the aforementioned bond market are convinced this will break the logjam and produce the remaining $30 billion. In short, CHSRA has already identified where the remaining money will come from, although they understandably cannot get a firm commitment from the private sector until they get a firm commitment from the public sector.

Arnold’s Unspoken Caveats

As Steven T. Jones noted, Arnold’s administration has not answered this point, nor has it addressed the nonpartisan, no BS Legislative Analyst’s Office report that says there can be no more delays on the project – it is time to vote.

Instead the letter to the Bee suggests Arnold wants to do with high speed rail what he’s done with climate change – adopt a posture of support for action, but in practice do nothing that will actually produce action. Arnold claims to “propose additional funding” in his budget for CHSRA but this is unspecified and probably an effort to claim his paltry $1 million proposal for the 2007-08 budget as “additional funding.” Nor does he commit to a 2008 vote, which everyone else involved agrees is key to the success of the high speed rail project. Reading Arnold’s letter carefully, one finds he talks a big game, but does not actually provide any firm assurances that high speed rail will go ahead. Instead he seems to want “more study,” which as anyone with knowledge of politics knows, is pretty much a statement of nonsupport.

What might be at the root of Arnold’s opposition? Last week I speculated that his millions in campaign contributions from oil companies might have something to do with it. Surely that plays a role. But as Steven T. Jones notes, it is also partly because wants to use the state’s bond capacity for other things – like more prisons, more dams, more freeways. In other words, things the state needs less of, instead of high speed rail, a transformative project that will add much more to the state’s economy and long-term needs than a prison or a dam or a freeway.

How YOU Can Help Save High Speed Rail

As I said at the beginning, there is a all-important hearing in Sacramento this week regarding the project. A State Senate Budget Subcommittee will meet to determine the fate of CHSRA funding – whether Arnold’s paltry $1 million sum will stand, or whether the full funding needs of $130 million to keep the CHSRA alive will be provided. The Bay Rail Alliance has provided the crucial contact information:

Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 hearing
Thursday, May 10
@ 10 AM or upon adjournment of the previous session,
Room 112, State Capitol
item 2665, the High Speed Rail Authority’s budget

Members of Senate Budget Sub 4 Committee

1) Senator Michael Machado (Chair)
Senate District 5 – Tracy, Manteca and Stockton in San Joaquin County; Suisun City, Fairfield, Dixon and Vacaville in Solano County; Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland in Yolo County; as well as Walnut Grove and a portion of Elk Grove in Sacramento County.

Phone:  (916) 651-4005
Fax:  (916) 323-2304

State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento,  CA  95814

2) Senator Robert Dutton (Republican)
Senate District 31 – southwestern portion of San Bernardino County and the northwestern portion of Riverside County: all of Big Bear, Grand Terrace, Highland, Loma Linda, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Upland, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, Crestline, Lake Arrowhead, Mentone, Running Springs, An Antonio Heights and portions of San Bernardino and Colton; all of Riverside, Glen Avon, Highgrove, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope and all but a small portion of Woodcrest.

State Capitol, Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Fax: (916) 327-2272

3) Senator Christine Kehoe – Democrat from San Diego
Phone:  (916) 651-4039
Fax:  (916) 327-2188  State Capitol, Room 4038  Sacramento,  CA  95814

Location:
State Capitol building, room 112, Sacramento

If you live in these districts, by all means, CALL! Even if you don’t there may well be value in calling them to let them know of your strong support for high speed rail. Of course, if you can attend the hearing, by all means do so. I wish I could be there, but unfortunately I cannot.

Some overviews of why high speed rail is a good and necessary project can be found:

– In my comprehensive CA High Speed Rail diary from last week
– An excellent letter from the Bay Rail Alliance

There may also be value in contacting Arnold’s office, to explain how valuable the project will be in terms of transportation alternatives, traffic relief, sustainable development, reducing pollution, slowing global warming, and providing jobs. To contact the governator:

Main contact page E-mail link

Call him! (916) 445-2841

Write him a letter! Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

More contact info for important state legislators can be found in my original CHSRA diary.

Help us save high speed rail in California!