There was once a day when the word “pension” inspired not jealousy, but pride for having done hard work to earn it.  Yet these days, pension seems to be a dirty word, while “golden parachute” seems to be all the rage.  Take our two candidates for governor.

Meg Whitman has been trying to pin the infamous “double-dipping” tag on Jerry Brown.  Brown’s service in state government in addition to his tenure as Mayor of Oakland would offer him two different methods of a pension. Outrageous cries the Whitman campaign, he’s probably taking billions of money from public coffers. I should know, I looted eBay on the way out the door. And all that.

However, it seems Whitman speaks from too much personal experience and not enough actual knowledge of the situation.  Brown released his pension records, and he is due slightly under $80,000 per year when he retires. (With his selected option of keeping his wife on as a survivor.)

As for Ms. Whitman, let’s go back to that looting of eBay.  Her exit from eBay can be best described as a gentle nudge by the Board after some controversy with rising fees (taxes?!) and some issues on the stock front.  She stuck around at eBay on the Board for a few years after she left, and it was during the time immediately after she left the CEO gig that her successor laid off 10% of eBay’s workers.  Meanwhile, Whitman was receiving a fat golden parachute.

But, you see, Whitman earned that! Right? Right?  

So, to summarize, it is great, nee awesome, to raise fees on small businesses so you can get a phat golden parachute. But to work for 25 years as a public servant to get a modest pension?  Outrageous!

Why is Brown’s pension even an issue? Or is this one of those Karl Rove jujitsu moves where she’s attacking where she’s weak?  Fact is, that Whitman carted off a billion dollars worth of loot from small businesses trying to create jobs.  Do as I say, not as I do, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not have a statewide role in the Jerry Brown for Governor campaign — and I certainly do not speak for it!  I do volunteer for the campaign, though, as one of the people out in the local areas.  I’m trying to make sure that people in the grassroots can find each other, help whip up the campaign’s visibility and enthusiasm, and get out the message.

In that role, I’ve gotten some feedback: a lot of people, including young people who weren’t paying close attention to politics from 1974-1982 (not yet existing, after all), don’t yet know much about Jerry Brown.

The good news about that is that it’s a problem we can fix!

Now, the campaign is putting out a lot of information, and it’s working the Facebook page, but they keep telling us volunteers that we have a lot of latitude in how we organize our communities.

And that’s when I thought of all of you.  I think that you can help Brown win, from your own computers.

I stress: what I’m doing here is a wildcat, grassroots effort — which I construe to include the netroots.  The campaign doesn’t know in advance that I’m doing this; my understanding is that I don’t have to ask their permission.  So this is the initiative of one volunteer-activist who is trying to elect Brown, not of the overall campaign.

In the various campaigns on which I’ve worked, I’ve generally been (with varying success) an evangelist for the netroots.  People here are smart, you’re good writers, a lot of you have the time and energy to do research and write up something amazing, and most of you are yearning to contribute where you can.  While the state campaign will do its own messaging, I think that the netroots can offer a separate creative channel that may produce materials that dazzles even them.

So, I want to see what you all can do.  I’m “commissioning your work” at the median Jerry Brown Campaign salary of $0.00 (rounded down).  If what you produce is good, I will try to get it into as many hands as possible.  (I’ve already found that the campaign is responsive to good ideas from outside of its central command — and as a grassroots organizer with lots of latitude as to how to manage my area I’m making part of my task getting good ideas and work product from the netroots and trying to get the best of it into the right hands.

I make no promises as to how your work will be received by the campaign, but if it looks good I will do my best to ensure that it will be received.  That’s not an offer you can get from just anywhere!  And, of course, you can do this from anywhere, whether or not you’re in California.

Here are some things on which I’d like your help:

(1) Introducing people to Jerry Brown

The campaign has some materials introducing voters to Brown.  I’d like to see what you can come up with.  In particular, I’m interested in single-page flyers to help introduce Brown to students, to ethnic and racial minority communities, etc.  The man has a pretty great record, especially on environmental issues and human rights!  He’s got strong issues on education, labor, and fundamental economic fairness.  These would be positive pieces, talking solely about Jerry Brown rather than his opponent, the two-faced, lying, autocratic plutocrat Meg Whitman.  (Whoops!  Well, at least I can back up all of those words!)

(2) Collecting and consolidating netroots knowledge of Meg Whitman

Brown’s advantages and disadvantages in running against Whitman are well-known.  There’s only one major disadvantage: she has already spent around $110 million on the campaign; going past $150 million is a given and it would not be shocking if she went over $200 million.  Brown’s advantages are that he has a good record and he doesn’t have to pay people to like him.  But there’s another great advantage that we can help take advantage of, if we play our cards right:

Meg Whitman is an abominable candidate!

She hides from the press, she ducks debates, she doesn’t want anything to do with real people who are hurting from policies she supports.  But more than that, she lies and misrepresents and contradicts herself in ways that people can keep track of!  So that is what I’m asking you, collectively, to do: help keep track of Meg’s awfulness — both her gaffes and her awful policies — in a place where everyone can see it, write about it, organize it, bear it in mind, and spread the word about it.

We actually have a tool for that, one that gets used too infrequently: DKosopedia.  You’ll need to create an account and then you can weigh in and help keep a tally of Meg’s atrocities — past, present, and promised.  I’ve set up the “Meg Whitman page” here; once you’re there you write and edit it just like Wikipedia.  I’d like this to become a major resource for those opposed to Meg Whitman!  Wouldn’t you?  (Then sign up and start using it!)

(3) Help make more accessible Jerry Brown’s strong record as AG.

Calling my fellow lawyers and those interested in Law!  Jerry Brown has been a good Attorney General, especially compared to any conceivable Republican, and we need to get out that word!  I’d like to have a one-page flyer spelling out Brown’s accomplishments on behalf of consumers, the environment, civil rights, and more.  If you’d like to take notes by adding to Brown’s DKosopedia page, please do — it’s a great place to gather information!

(4) Brainstorming on visibility

Much of what we volunteers in local areas are supposed to do is to maintain the campaign’s visibility with the creative deployment of volunteers.  I’ve got some ideas about that; chances are that all of you have better ones.  Let’s hear them!  Extra points for activities that would be lots of fun.

I think that four tasks like that should be enough for a first diary asking for this sort of help.  But if you have more that you’d like to say about how to beat Meg’s Millions, speak up!

Here’s what I am not going to do in this diary, though: I’m not going to debate Brown’s record, whether he’s progressive or moderate enough, etc.  There’s a time for that — and the last three months of the election isn’t it!  So, please, contribute what positive suggestions about how to reach people.  I want to be able to show people from the campaign that the netroots is as creative and brilliant as I say it is.

I look forward to seeing what you’ve got!

Note: As I say in the diary, this election really is that important.  Whitman would be a disaster for the state.  You can contribute to Jerry’s campaign at the Calitics ActBlue Page.

If you’ve read this blog much, you’ll have seen Robert’s excellent writing on the flawed economic vision that Meg Whitman is espousing.  Her stated goal of cutting 40,000 jobs is unrealistic, at best, and at worst could push the state economy into an even deeper recession.  Heck, even the Governor questions whether that number is at all possible, saying something to the effect of that it was all a big campaign pledge with no real meaning behind it.  Let’s be honest, if Arnold is calling your campaign cynically out of touch, well, dang, you are that and then some.

But beyond that mere gamesmanship of that 40,000 number, her fundamental principles of her economic plan are just plain flawed. Sure, she can dress them up in a pretty magazine with glossy pages. But the stinker remains the stinker.   Or, as a panel of economists wrote in a new Center for American Progress Action Fund report (PDF) highlighted in the LA Times today:

In short, Whitman’s diagnosis of the California economy is deeply flawed and her “solutions” would be deeply damaging. Her approach to economic policy, which she calls “my kind of supply-side economics,” is wrong for California. As we document, the economic “studies” she draws upon are unscientific and an unsound basis for policy. If implemented, her policy proposals are likely to have negative effects on jobs and economic growth and to deepen the state’s budget crisis.

Just as Meg’s glossy magazine is a worthwhile read, even if only to get an idea of how the other side thinks, this brief report should be universally read by progressives.  Jerry Brown has articulated a vision that seeks to grow the economy through innovation, but in and out of government, while Whitman wants to simply burn the whole place down.

The report calls out the gaping wholes in her plan, which she has been touting as some sort of panacea.  But, the math just doesn’t add up. She wants to cut $15 Billion in spending while decreasing taxes. Yet the deficit stands at about $20 Billion, so how in the world does she think that this math adds up?  This isn’t one of those corporate gigs where you can just toss a billion here, a billion there.

Furthermore, when you talk about shaving $15Billion off a $86 Billion budget, you aren’t talking about easy fixes.  You are talking about ending services that save lives, and slashing education in ways that will continue to decrease our state’s ability to compete in the new knowledge based economy.  The cuts that have been made already are shocking enough, to further imply that cuts alone are the solution belies a thorough misunderstanding of the California budget.

So thorough is her misunderstanding that the simplest review of facts can put the lie to her statements.  First of all, you simply don’t just cut 40,000 workers without a major impact on government’s ability to function.  While she may beleive all the right-wing hooey about “waste, fraud, and abuse”, the fact is that goverment workers work just as hard as other workers, and there is no real evidence to show that waste is any higher in government than the corporate world. (Like, for example, go try asking a state worker if he or she has ever had some of the lavish lunches or private jets that Whitman got at eBay.)

Or another area, she argues that the state government is bloated, but the numbers just don’t bear that out.

In 2008, the most recent year available, California’s government employment per capita was 28 percent below the U.S. average, ranking 48th among the states, and California state employment per capita has not increased since the early 1980s.

So, is it all really as simple as Arnold has pointed out? She’s just saying this stuff to get elected, and that she’ll lurch towards sanity after November? Perhaps, but there are no sure bets, and Whitman is simply too dangerous to be complacent.  Jerry Brown’s victory is imperative for the state’s continued vitality.

UPDATE by Robert: It’s as clear as day: Whitmanomics doesn’t work for California. We already have 12% unemployment – over 21% if you go by the U6 measure. The absolute last thing we need is more unemployment, and the main thing we DO need is more investment in working people and the infrastructure that supports them. Whitman instead will continue a pirate economics of robbing the middle class blind.

Tom McClintock is certainly not one known to hold his tongue for any reason, but he’s let it all hang out with his feelings about the GOP nominee for Governor, Meg Whitman.

McClintock went on, “If it comes down to a choice between Arnold Schwarzenegger’s third term with Meg Whitman, or Jerry Brown’s third term with Jerry Brown, anyway you cut it, it’s going to be a long four years.” (SacBee)

I can’t say I really blame him, but this is all rather public. And he doesn describe the situation rather fairly.  The best the GOP, or the state really, can hope for from Meg Whitman is four more years of Arnold Schwarzenegger-style governance.  And really, it’s hard to think of any ways that Meg is either more capable or more knowledgeable about the problems than our current Governor.  

On a side note, if somebody asked me ten years ago whether I thought I would ever write the sentence above (about a CEO of a major corporation not being more knowledgeable than a former action movie star), I would have laughed.  But such is the situation that we find ourselves in.

As for the second clause of McClintock’s analysis, well, Jerry Brown would be Jerry Brown part III.  Now, while he had to spend much of his second term trying to patch together a system of governance that could last a few years in the wake of Prop 13, his record is really rather positive.  Sure, that Prop 13 is a bit of a downer, but he managed to somehow build a system that lasted nearly 25 years before it really broke under the weight of the super majority requirements.

But, all in all, I’m with Tom. Why would California want another term of Arnold Schwarzenegger?