Some statements are facts. Some are opinions.  And some are harder to place in between.  Take this Meg Whitman quote pulled from George Skelton’s column this morning:

Every year, we pay more to sustain an out-of-control state bureaucracy — a wasteful bureaucracy, out of touch with the needs of Californians. And a selfish and arrogant bureaucracy, unwilling to give an inch even in the toughest of economic times.(LAT 10/05/09)

Now, Skelton does a pretty good job of pinning this on Whitman, the column is actually titled “The arrogance may be Whitman’s.”  Now, I think I would change “may be” to “is”, but that’s very newspaper-y. Wouldn’t want to leave yourself without some weasel room in case she wins, and all.

Nonetheless, can it be said that there was a more arrogant statement than this? About a group that has taken pay cuts of between 10-20% from salaries which, despite the right-wing rhetoric to the contrary, really never were that high in the first place.

And to further undercut her point, just take a look at the union negotiations.  SEIU Local 1000 agreed to some pretty big sacrifices in their latest deal with the Governor, only to have the deal blocked by Whitman’s ideological cronies, the Senate Republicans.

And then looking at the general frame of her point, that the bureaucracy is out of touch. First, may I remind her that the boogeyman of the day, the bureaucracy is actually made up of thousands of real, living, breathing Californians. Californians who fight fires, Californians who staff prisons, Californians that help the disabled and educate our youth. Yes, those arrogant, arrogant, firefighters. How dare they want to be compensated for risking their lives for us?  And this from a CEO who made millions off of slave labor at Mattel, and then leveraged that into billions at eBay, warts and all.  I’m sure she was cutting her salary at every opportunity there. After all, to do otherwise would be “selfish and arrogant.” And to just prove that she is the one out of touch with Californians, she hasn’t bothered to vote in 20 years.

The fact is that Meg Whitman is knowingly lying, while at the same time showing just how ill-informed an unprepared she is for the job.  She is knowingly lying when she says that state workers haven’t given anything back. But when you dig deeper into the rhetoric, you see the emperor really has no clothes. When asked how she would cut the state workforce by 200,000, she simply states that she would blue pencil appropriations for which she doesn’t have authority over until they cut staff.

So the tech CEO wants to cut higher education until professors are fired.  She wants to cut courts until trials are unconstitutionally slow. She’s just going to cut and slash her way through what is left, so that we will pine for the days of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Pretty scary huh?

California political junkies are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll which shows former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown handily leading all the major Republican gubernatorial contenders (Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner and Tom Campbell) while Brown's rival for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination trailing the same three possible Republicans. Here's the data:

Brown (D) 44%, Whitman (R) 35%
Brown (D) 45%, Poizner (R) 32%
Brown (D) 44%, Campbell (R) 34%
Whitman (R) 41%, Newsom (D) 36%
Poizner (R) 40%, Newsom (D) 36%
Campbell (R) 42%, Newsom (D) 36%

This is definitely NOT very good news for the Governor Gavin movement. That's too bad, because MadProfesah has been leaning towards Newsom, especially since Gerry Brown hasn't announced whether he wants the job (again) yet, and acting as attorney general, Brown was responsible for the devastatingly incompetent presentation by an Assistant Attorney General during the Proposition 8 California Supreme Court oral argument.

UPDATE by Dave: I would say that this poll is fairly meaningless. I’m guessing Rasmussen pushed leaners hard to get any kind of opinion. I don’t think anyone has really engaged on this race, and anyone thinking it will remain static isn’t being honest. This is more of a reflection of name ID, for good and ill, than anything else.

Last week, Meg Whitman raised some eyebrows when she vowed to suspend implementation of AB 32, California’s landmark global-warming law.  This drew criticisms from the usual suspects, and also happens to be broadly unpopular in a state which supports action on climate change.  It was also a thumb in the eye of the current Governor and practically the only policy on which he can claim a legacy.  So Schwarzenegger came out today and said Whitman’s making an idle threat that she doesn’t mean.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today dismissed a vow by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to suspend California’s landmark greenhouse gas law if she’s elected to succeed him next year as “just rhetoric that is going on among the candidates.”

“You will hear all kinds of stories,” Schwarzenegger told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. “What will happen in reality and what they will do when they go into office is probably a whole different ballgame, and I think she will probably reconsider what she said.

“I’m sure she does not want to be counted as one of those Republicans that will want to move us back to the Stone Age or something like that,” the Republican governor said. “So I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric.”

Of course, relics from the Stone Age are the target demographic for a Republican primary, so Whitman has to say what she said.  And she’s not being accused of political pandering by, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Which should make for a fun weekend when the two appear together at the GOP convention in Indian Wells starting tomorrow.

Whitman’s more pressing problem is that she has virtually no voting record as a private citizen, apparently having not even registered to vote prior to 2002.  In an amusing moment of brazenness, Steve Poizner called on her to end her campaign as a result.

Poizner’s camp issued a statement in response to the story this morning, attacking the Whitman campaign for “refusing to answer simple questions and deliberately lying to cover up the facts” and calling for the candidate to “step aside” and drop out of the race.

“It’s understandable that Meg Whitman is ashamed of this record. But it’s unacceptable that she continues to run from the record and deceive voters. Though there is no shred of evidence she ever registered as a Republican before 2007, she insists she did, yet she refuses to provide any evidence. Her arrogant answer: ‘Go find it,’ ” Communications Director Jarrod Agen said in a statement. “In the history of America, no one has been elected governor of a state with Meg Whitman’s 25 year history of no-show voting. She is unelectable and has tried to cover her lack of honesty with millions of dollars.”

Hysterical.  By the way, if you think eMeg’s voting record is bad, take a look at iCarly’s.  Quite a team they’ll make on the GOP ticket next year…

Desperate to win over the wingnut base of the California Republican Party, and likely herself a true believer in the “let’s destroy government” cause, Meg Whitman has joined Steve Poizner and taken the Grover Norquist “no new taxes” pledge:

“By signing the Pledge, Whitman makes clear that if elected she will stand up for taxpayers and not the tenured bureaucrats, coercive utopians, and union bosses that currently run Sacramento,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “In a state with one of the highest tax burdens in the country, a dismal business tax climate, rampant overspending, and a government that is so costly that Californians had to work 235 days this year, well over half the year, just to pay for it, higher taxes should be a non-starter for all elected officials and candidates. In signing the Pledge, Whitman has made clear that she recognizes this.”…

“Californians are fortunate to have two high quality candidates who have made this important commitment to defend the overburdened Golden State taxpayers,” added Norquist. “I strongly encourage, and challenge, Tom Campbell, Gavin Newsome [sic] and every candidate for governor to sign the Pledge.”

Presumably this means Whitman and Poizner oppose making the wealthy pay more to help keep teachers in the classrooms, that they enjoy seeing classes with a whopping 42 students in them, and that they are happy to prolong the recession in order to carry out their shock doctrine of California’s once-great prosperity.

Interestingly, you’ll note that of the other candidates Norquist challenged to sign the pledge, Jerry Brown was not among them. He hasn’t officially signed that pledge, but as Brian mentioned last week, he might as well have:

Brown said he would not raise taxes if he became governor, noting that the public is opposed. “We’re not in the revenue raising business,” he said.

Of course, the polls tell a different story. Californians are quite willing to raise certain taxes to restore and preserve vital public services. How exactly Brown would balance the state’s budget without embracing the kinds of cuts eMeg has proposed is quite unclear.

If we are going to beat Poizner or Whitman, Democrats will have to offer a different vision for California’s future. And that means rejecting the “no new taxes” mantra that is destroying our state and the economic prosperity of the working and middle classes. If Jerry Brown won’t offer that vision, will Gavin Newsom?

A few weeks ago, Jim Evans wrote about Meg Whitman telling the Earth to “Get Bent”.  Today she affirmed her commitment to being a worse environmental steward than the faux-environmentalist that currently occupies the Horseshoe:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman said in San Diego on Wednesday she would suspend Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature environmental initiative if elected.

The former eBay CEO told an audience at Gen-Probe Inc. in Mira Mesa she would issue an executive order suspending AB 32, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, until its long-term economic consequences are better understood.

“As governor, I would work hard to protect our environment,” she said. “But the needs of our environment have to be balanced with the needs of our people and the needs of our economy.We have too many overreaching environmental regulations that have left us at an economic disadvantage to our neighboring states and AB 32 is a prime example.”(SDUT 9/23/09)

Of course, this is yet another example of Whitman not really knowing what she’s talking about, as most of the Western States are either participating in or “observing” the Western Climate Initiative. But beyond that, Whitman is perpetuating a false choice.

It is a false choice that we either address climate change or we grow our economy. Not only are these goals compatible, they are mutually beneficial.  As we aim to decrease our carbon emissions, we will develop new technology and build new business that will lead California into the new low-carbon growth era.

As much as Whitman and her other ostrich-headed friends like to claim, we should not and cannot ignore climate change. It is a greater threat than any temporary inconveniences that it causes the state. Yes, we will need some help during the transition period, but the question isn’t whether we are going to transition to a low-carbon economy, it’s whether we are going to do it the easy, business-smart way, or by being dragged kicking and screaming as others take the initiative.

California must be the leader.  Whitman intends to crush that leadership in a misguided attempt to revert to yesterday’s economy.

As we drift headlong into the 2010 Governor’s race, there are some very big issues facing the state.  One of these, is the prison crisis.  The legislature and the Governor were only able to come up with cuts that would reduce the population by somewhere in the 25,000 range, while the federal courts are looking more in the 44,000 range.

The Bee took a look at how the candidates are talking about this issue, and let’s just say that some of the positions are semi-reasonable, and others simply aren’t.  Now, for those of you who were wondering about the Michael Jackson “Black or White” Video, well, I give you Steve Poizner’s black or white take on the world:

Whitman and Poizner, on the other hand, have tried to out-tough each other, railing against legislation passed last month by the state Senate that would have let some inmates out earlier and appointed a commission to rework state sentencing laws. The ultimate version of the bill passed this month did not include the sentencing commission or a provision to release more than 6,000 inmates to home detention.

“You have to be a really bad person to get into state prison,” Poizner said. “So I’m opposed to releasing people who are dangerous, absolutely opposed. That’s no way to balance the budget.”

Whitman went even further, saying she opposed rewriting any prison and parole guidelines that would shorten prison terms for any inmate.(Sac Bee 9/23/09 emphasis mine)

Poizner simply takes the reactionary view, that is, that if you are in prison, you are a bad, bad, person.  Of course, this ignores the crazy, messed up world of parole violations that lead to people going to prison to serve out a term because they missed a meeting with their parole officer or some other technicality.  So, yes, you have to break the law to end up in prison, but painting all prisoners with such a wide brush serves neither the prison system, the prisoners, nor the state very well.

And then you look at eMeg‘s statement, and that seems all the more bizarre when you put it together with her statement from yesterday saying that she wants to can 40,000 state workers.  As the governor’s staff has pointed out, you can’t fire that many workers without firing a bunch of prison guards.  And if you plan on increasing the prison population as eMeg seems to be saying here, well forget about cutting state employee roles, you’ll end up hiring another 10,000 prison guards.  And that doesn’t even consider the overtime pay that the guards get in spades.

Jerry Brown, who mentioned that he would consider the position, and SF Mayor Gavin Newsom have stated fairly similar positions. Both want to reduce recidivism (good!) but haven’t stated whether they would support a sentencing commission or any serious reform (bad!).  

On the other hand, Republican Tom Campbell has actually been quite the reasonable guy on this front.  He supported the Senate bill (Good!) and has put out specific, pragmatic policies on this and some other issues, many of which are pretty vanilla milquetoast. Nonetheless, a candidate that is willing to talk about the issue from a logical viewpoint, rather than an emotional reactionary viewpoint, deserves some credit.

Campbell, on the other hand, is bucking the prevailing wisdom in his party. He backed both the Senate version and the final bill although both shorten prison terms of some inmates.

“We have an opportunity to direct a more effective prison system,” Campbell said. “I’d rather approach this pragmatically, through outsourcing of prisoners, developing a triage of parole violators and focusing on more violent offenders in prisons.”

Now, Arnold supported the Senate bill too, and that hardly makes him a great Governor, does it? But, unless our elected leaders are willing to deal with thhis issue out of a place of pragmatic, problem-solving leadership, rather than out of fear of an electoral backlash, we shouldn’t expect too much progress.  

Meg Whitman isn’t quite the punching bag of say, an iCarly. She’s dumped a bucket load of cash into her campaign, and has some actual support coming in as well.

But, she saw the red meat that Steve Poizner was dishing up to the base, and thought she better get in the action once again.  So, in a speech that she’s giving, oh, right about now, she puts a bunch of ground round on a platter and serves it up rare as can be. Joe Garofoli at the Chronicle just posted some choice excerpts from the speech:

As governor, I’ll cut taxes to create jobs. Specifically, I’ll cut taxes on job-creating businesses of every size and implement targeted tax relief to rebuild manufacturing in California. I’ll expand research and development tax credits. I’ll establish tax incentives and credits for companies that train and hire displaced workers. And I’ll establish a cabinet-level position in my administration dedicated to private sector job growth. (SF Gate)

So, R&D credits, huh? Well, her friends in Silicon Valley will love that. How about her friends in the Central Valley who are struggling to pay the health insurance bill and the mortgage? No word on that issue.  But don’t worry, because unlike Poizner, she’s got a plan on how we afford the tax cuts: Slash 40,000 government jobs.

As I committed to in February, if elected I will identify and implement at least $15 billion in permanent spending cuts from the state budget. I’ll eliminate redundant and underperforming government agencies and commissions. And I will reduce the state workforce by at least 40,000 employees. That’s a 17 percent reduction that would reset the workforce to 2004-2005 levels and save the state a projected $3.3 billion annually. (SF Gate)

Right, that’s the ticket.  I know Whitman is a business scholar, so I’ll leave this question to her: How does the state sustain an additional loss of 40,000 jobs without a consequential, and substantial, drop in consumer spending and thus private sector jobs.

The fact is that this plan is even more half-baked than Poizner’s merely ridiculous plan.  This one carries few specifics other than “we can improve IT efficiency.” Yes, that’s true, but the state government isn’t ebay, and you can’t simply apply feedback scores and tell everybody that they just have to trust reputation and then pretend everything is hunky-dory. And you can’t really outsource your labor to slave labor, as eMeg does. Nope, the state actually needs its workforce to accomplish some very important goals.  Things like fighting fires, protecting its citizens, you know, silly stuff.

I’m not even sure I need to attack this plan, as the Governor’s people have already done so. From back in June, here’s Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear criticizing the plan:

Former eBay CEO and Republican candidate Meg Whitman campaigns across California, advocating job cuts to net a 10 percent “head count” reduction in California’s 345,000-person state workforce.

But she got a brushback from Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear, who suggested such across-the-board cuts are all but impossible.

“The governor only has authority over contracts with 100,000 state employees paid through the general fund,” McLear said. “About two-thirds of those are in Corrections. So it’s unclear how you cut 30,000 positions without affecting public safety.”

Aaah, the battle royale between Whitman and Poizner, where nothing really makes sense, but you get style points just for dressing up your utility grade red-meat.