Tag Archives: Steve Poizner

Uncategorized

Poizner Turns Up The Heat on Whitman

1 Comment

Steve Poizner is rich. Just not as rich as Meg Whitman. So, instead of buying as much media time as money can buy, he’s attacking her for not running away from the public.

From Poizner’s perspective, Whitman is running towards the center, and he’s hoping to gather the Republican base.  But the troubling thing is that if you are to listen to what Whitman is saying, you would have no clue which direction she would take the state.  And frankly, her ads don’t help very much either.  So far all we know is that she wants to lay off 40,000 state workers, but has no plan on how to maintain services or actually fix the budget issues.

Oh, and right, she would toss the environment to the mercy of the corporations, because regulating for environmental protection is too long-sighted. You know, we have to think for the now.

Any way, props to the Poizner campaign, this video is way more slick than I could have cobbled together with my aging MacBook.

Uncategorized

Co-Author of Report Cited by AB 32 Opponents Backs Away From Findings

2 Comments

The move by republicans and polluters to suspend/kill AB 32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth, was dealt a devastating blow on Friday — one of the authors of the much-cited (and much-criticized) Varshney/Tootelian report (VTR), which predicts an economic catastrophe if California implements AB 32, is now backing away from the report’s claims.

Facing yet another round of criticism — this time in a report by Stanford University economist Jim Sweeney that found VTR to be “highly biased…based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis” and overstates the costs of AB 32 “by a factor of at least 10” — Sanjay Varshney has refused to defend his report’s claims. When asked by a reporter for the Sacramento Business Journal to respond to Sweeney’s criticism, Varshney, who is Dean of the Business School at California State University Sacramento, would only say, “I haven’t really kept up with the debate. It will be very difficult for me to comment.” (You need to be a subscriber to see the full article.)

Hardly what you’d call a full-throated defense, or even a boilerplate response about his confidence in both his methods and his conclusions. And Varshney should be well-prepared to address the kind of criticism found in the Stanford report since it echoes criticisms found by other economists, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The main and most obvious criticism of VTR is that it only looks at the projected costs of implementing AB 32 ($24.9 billion) while purposefully omitting any of the savings that AB 32 would generate ($40.4 billion) — a net savings of $15.5 billion.  

It is a methodology that literally makes no sense. How can you account for the cost of buying a more fuel-efficient car, then not account for the money drivers would save at the pump by driving a more fuel-efficient car? How can you include the cost of building a home so it uses no net energy, then not include the savings for a family living in that home who no longer has to pay energy bills? Yet that is exactly what VTR does, a methodology the Stanford report calls “highly biased and has no credibility.”

Virtually all of VTR’s conclusions are based on this decision to look only at costs without savings, which the Stanford report estimates causes the results of VTR to be inaccurate by a factor of ten or greater. The authors of VTR try to justify their methodology by claiming that the estimated savings generated by AB 32 are “too speculative to consider at this time,” an explanation the Stanford report says has “little credibility” since VTR has no problem citing the costs of implementing AB 32, many of which are also speculative. And, as said before, it makes no sense to include the cost of increasing energy efficiency without including the savings from using energy more efficiently. The Stanford report goes on to highlight more errors and flawed methodology used in VTR, like claiming that saving $30/month by driving a new fuel-efficient car amounts to a $30/month increase in gas costs for those who stick with their current cars. It’s no wonder economists Christopher Thornberg and Jon Haveman of Beacon Economics called VTR “one of the worst examples of schlock science we’ve ever seen.”

Yet VTR — for which Varshney and Dennis Tootelian were paid $54,000 by the California Small Business Roundtable — is virtually the only evidence that AB 32 opponents give for their doomsday predictions that AB 32 will ruin California’s economy, cost the state a whopping 1.1 million jobs (more than have been lost as a result of the current recession) and raise consumer prices. Republican Meg Whitman has mentioned its findings as a reason why she has promised to suspend AB 32 if she is elected governor, as has a representative for her republican opponent, Steve Poizner. VTR has also been cited by numerous newspapers, including the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who heralded its findings as proof that there would be no “free green lunch” in California if AB 32 is implemented.

The fact that candidates like Poizner and Whitman (along with anti-AB 32 groups like the AB 32 Implementation Group) would put so much stake in a fatally flawed report that makes no secret of its most glaring failure is telling. But what are AB 32 opponents to do now when even one of VTR’s principal authors won’t defend its findings? Will they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a petition drive calling for the suspension of AB 32 when their main justification for suspending it — the conclusions of the VTR report — no longer applies? And considering the numerous studies that have found that AB 32 would create jobs, position California as a leader in the growing green/clean energy economy, reduce costs for businesses and consumers, and improve the health of Californians while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, what justification can AB 32 opponents give for defending a status quo that enriches the state’s worst polluters?  

Jerry Brown

Arnold and Westly Did It, Why Not eMeg?

I’m a bit of a cynic, and don’t typically fall for the populist rhetoric. Populist action? Yes. Rhetoric? Not as much. I’m all about taking banks to the woodshed, but don’t waste my time talking about it, just do it.

And the tax returns issue is something of a blend of the two. It’s more than mere rhetoric, as the state does have some interest in knowing just exactly how much you are earning, and where it is coming from.  These things tend to sway policy makers. Releasing tax returns has sort of become a standard of the least you can get away with. You have to do at least that much.  Arnold Schwarzenegger has released his tax records for election purposes, as has Steve Westly, Whitman’s colleague at eBay.

But Whitman, she won’t really say if she is going to do that:

“We will obviously comport with all the filing requirements for the state of California when you run for governor, and I may release my tax returns,” Whitman said in an interview at the Luxe Hotel in Bel Air. “We’ll see. But I’ll do it on my own timetable and not in response to the unions that are fronting for Jerry Brown.”

State campaign rules require candidates to disclose certain general financial interests prior to elections, but tax returns are not among them. Still, many wealthy candidates, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller Steve Westly, released their returns in past races. (LA Times blog)

Nice little distraction technique by tossing some red meat to the base and running in the other direction.  Of course, Level the Playing Field has been applying some pressure in this area, such as sending a letter to former Gov. Pete Wilson (PDF) asking him to either call on Whitman to release her returns or resign from Whitman’s campaign. (Wilson used to use the tax returns issue when he was running.) However, conservatives (including Poizner) have discussed the issue. Poizner says that he definitely will release his returns in order to create the “most open and accessible campaign.”

So what is it that Whitman has to hide? Where is it that her money is coming and going to? And why is she trying to hide that information?  Thing is, in the age of the internet, what wants to get out, will get out.  Whitman can either try to hide her record, and get surprised by it later, or she can just open up now.  Still, I’m not holding my breath for openness from the woman who is trying to buy her way into the governor’s office.

Jerry Brown

CA-GOV: Whitman’s Unlimited Resources Matter, Climbs Closer to Brown

6 Comments

Field Poll released its polling data on the governor’s race (PDF), and it is about what you would expect. PhotobucketWhitman leading Poizner, Brown leading both.  But the numbers themselves are worthy of note. First, with Campbell out of the race, Poizner’s made it out of the single digits!

Of course, he’s only made it out of single digits with the help of Tom Campbell’s exit. And Campbell’s support seems to have pretty evenly split between Whitman and Poizner. With or without Campbell in the race, Poizner has a long way to go to catch Whitman.

And that’s made tougher by the fact that Whitman just dropped another $20 million in the race, likely breaking the all-time record for self-funding. This brings her total to $39 million, but is only the beginning. She has said in the past that she could imagine spending $150 million in the race, much of that coming from her own bank account.

PhotobucketAnd while it has pretty much buried Poizner’s petty self-spending, there’s a long way to go to run Jerry Brown under.  Brown holds sizable leads over both Whitman (10%) and Poizner (17%).

However, both these figures are down markedly from the last poll in October, when Brown held a 21% lead over Whitman. Of course, this should be expected as Whitman is running media up and down the state, and you know, campaigning.

If you want to see something that should send a shiver up and down any progressive’s spine, watch this Whitman campaign video. It’s not remarkable so much for the content, I mean, campaigns frequently try to appeal to women. Rather, it is the overwhelming campaign organization that they tangentially discuss. They have paid field staff up and down the state. They have several communications staff. In short, they have an enviable campaign operation that is prepared to wage a campaign for the the 21st century.

This is what you can do when you know you have pretty much unlimited resources.  Jerry Brown is doing fine on the fundraising front. He’s raised a lot of cash, and his burn rate is stunningly low. Yet, when you are going against a candidate with no real spending restraints, how much money is enough? And when does the campaign begin?

Environment

Poizner Gets Tough on the Environment

3 Comments

Steve Poizner appeared on the John and Ken show (you know, the heads on a  pike guys). He was there to show that he was one with the Tea Party people, and was going to slash and burn through the state government.  He spent a lot of time on how he’s slashed the Department of Insurance. He, it’s easy if you just let the insurance companies watch themselves right? Who needs regulators?

Anyway, he was then asked for contrasts between himself and the Meg Whitman.  Here’s a transcript of a portion of his response.

STEVE POIZNER: Well you figure her out, because on one hand she tries to come across tough on the environment because she knows she’s on the spot now in the Republican primary, on the other hand, in 2007 and 2008 she gave $300,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund. Now Google the Environmental Defense Fund, they’re suing farmers over the Delta Smelt? You ask her, how can she do that? How can she actually endorse and campaign for Barbara Boxer in 2006? Now, how come she didn’t vote most of her life?

Emphasis mine.  Go back and read that again. Poizner is saying that Whitman is “playing” tough on the environment, while he, in fact, really is “tough on the environment.”  What does that mean? Has there been anything more terrifying come out of a candidates lips with respect to the environment than this?  

Does this mean that Poizner himself will go around kicking down trees and digging holes in the search for oil in state parks? Or will he just allow corporations free reign of the state?

Whatever the meaning, it opens a window into what it would mean to elect either of these candidates. We are not only talking about suspension of AB 32, we’re talking about candidates that are looking for ways that they can crawl over themselves to sell out the environment. It’s not just insulting to environmentalists, it’s downright scary.

Environment

“Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg?” AB 32 Attacks Continue

Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor’s race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).

Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman’s announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called “jobs” initiative” (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.

Poizner’s and Whitman’s attacks on California’s landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: “Smokestack Steve” and “Monoxide Meg.”

It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state’s natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to “Build a Greener Governor” (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.

This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.  

As readers of Calitics probably know, a version of the initiative, AB 118 (Logue) was just rejected on Monday by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

As Ann Notthoff, California advocacy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), described in a piece that appeared this week in the California Progress Report:

“[T]he Assembly Natural Resources Committee rejected AB 118, legislation that would have overturned California’s landmark global warming law that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. Not only would AB 118 have jeopardized public health and the environment, it would have imposed economic harm at a time when California is already struggling to regain our financial footing…”

“This bill, gutted and amended just this week, was part of a statewide campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy. [Assemblyman Dan] Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock and the association founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB 118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general election…”

“Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, would cause economic distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate the economy.”

Foes of AB 32 will continue to strategize a way to kill it – whether it’s by a governor’s executive order, legislation or a ballot initiative. CLCV and environmental partners are fending off these attacks by joining with our allies in labor, public health, consumer protection, and sustainable/progressive business communities to move our state in the right direction, by building a greener governor, a greener legislature, and a greener California. One easy step each of us can take is visit http://www.greengov2010.org/, sign up as an environmental champion and start adding our voices to the debate.

Jerry Brown

CA-Gov: Brown Narrowly Leads Whitman

4 Comments

In a new PPIC poll, Attorney General Jerry Brown narrowly leads Meg Whitman for the governor’s race.

Whitman dominates with 32 percent support among Republican voters, leading former South Bay Rep. Tom Campbell by 20 points and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner by 24 points, according to the Public Policy Institute of California’s first survey on the 2010 governor’s race.

*** *** ***

Brown, a former mayor of Oakland, leads Whitman, who has never run for public office, by just six points, 43 to 37 percent. He holds more robust leads over Campbell, the former state finance director and dean of UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, 46 to 34 percent, and wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur Poizner, 47 to 31 percent.(SF Chronicle)

The numbers are solidifying a bit, as the Republicans get to know their three candidates. The right-wing grassroots activists still aren’t all that excited with their candidates, but a consensus seems to be settling around Meg Whitman.

As for Jerry Brown, I still feel that despite Brown’s protestations, he should have announced his candidacy by now. I understand his desire to just do his job, but in the here and now of campaigning for such a high profile position, a robust campaign operation is nearly mandatory. I have faith that Brown can build a team to win as he starts spending money in the new year, but I would prefer to see a lot more groundwork being laid now. This race is a bit too close for comfort.

UPDATE by Robert: The crosstabs are even more damning about Brown’s weak standing with what should be his base. His favorability among Democrats is 52% favorable, 19% unfavorable, with 29% undecided. That’s actually pretty low for such a high-profile Dem. Among independents it’s much worse: 34-39, with 23% undecided.

Brown also has potentially big problems with younger voters. Voters under age 35 – who, ironically enough, were either born in the year Brown was first elected governor, 1974, or later – have a whopping 69% “no opinion” of the once and future governor.

This all proves the point I’ve been making often this fall, which is that unless Brown can excite progressives and younger voters, he is going to have an extremely difficult time winning this election. The canoe theory appears to have sprung a leak.

Uncategorized

A Battle of Wits on Strategy in the GOP Primary

In recent days, there’s been quite the hubub over in the Republican primary for governor.  Meg Whitman has been spending money like it’s going out of style, which it most definitely is not. She’s bought some pricey raido time, especially in the SoCal market. Meanwhile, Steve Poizner has been conserving his stash.  A few days ago, Team Poinzer wrote a letter on FlashReport explaining that decision. CalBuzz has been doing some looking into the decisions on both sides of the fight, and seems to like the Whitman strategy

Prime example: Whitman’s multi-million dollar investment in an ongoing, low-profile if costly, radio campaign – designed to boost her name ID and three-point platform of creating jobs, cutting spending and fixing education — has been a shrewd bit of communications strategy. (CalBuzz)

Of course their source for this opinion is “one of the best in the business, Bill Carrick.” For those of you who don’t recall that name, he’s the guy that did those awesome Phil Angelides ads. So, you know, for this opinion, caveat emptor.

That being said, the CalBuzz piece has a greater point about Whitman building a sense of inevitability within the GOP for Whitman.  While that might be true within the Sacto bubble and the OC politirati, there is still a lot of time left in the race, and most people won’t engange until the calendar flips over.  But, given the fact that Poizner hasn’t seemed to mind opening up his wallet for other elections early and often, why not put a couple hundred K into some sort of targeted ad buy now? Is he trying to limit his own investment in the race, or is he really intent on going big in the New year?

Either way, it seems that Poizner doesn’t plan on putting the kind of money into the race that Whitman seems willing to pay to win the race. At least the media companies can expect a big few months as they go toe to toe.

Uncategorized

Prioritizing Cheap Water over Education

4 Comments

The folks in Fresno are concerned about the water bond. Very concerned. They need to get it passed so that they can reap the massive windfall they’ll get in undervalued water. So, today the Fresno Bee news blog is working on pegging down the candidates for governor.

Of course, this being the Fresno Bee, they are looking first to the two moneyed Republican competitors. First, they got Whitman on record on Thursday supporting the bond.  Today, they question Poizner’s fealty to the farmers. He might be a closet fan of the evil fisherman!

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner said more water storage is critical for California’s long-term economic future. But as he campaigned today in Fresno, Poizner remained noncommittal about an $11 billion water bond measure on the ballot for next November. (Fresno Bee)

Of course, the article divides support of new dams into questions of whether you want to “help farmers” or not. When, for Republicans anyway, the real question is do you believe the taxpayers should be paying for this water project. As it is currently outlined, the water plan will vastly increase the percentage of costs paid from the general fund, from around 3-5% to 20-40%.  

If we are going to ignore other infrastructure, and slash education funding, I think whether farmers should be getting subsidized water is an important question for the state.  As it stands right now, this water bond puts the Westlands farmers, and their Sean Hannity temper tantrums above higher education and in-home support services.

Uncategorized

Poizner Opposes the Survival of the Delta Smelt

3 Comments

I’m not sure how else you can take this latest web video from the Poizner campaign.

In the video, a mechanical fish sings “I will survive” with some narration about Meg Whitman’s foundation, which gave almost all of its donations to environmental causes. In most sane groups, that would be a good thing, but in the Republican Party? Of course not.

The whole video is beyond troubling. It explicitly advocates for the extinction of a species. No mitigating factors, no explanation that there even the most pro-farmer scientists and water experts believe there can be ways around killing the smelt. Heck, the farmers themselves want to build a peripheral canal, which would be at least somewhat better than just running the pumps 24/7.

And of course, no consideration of the fishermen who make their living based on the water that the farmers are trying to use to grow cotton where it just shouldn’t be grown. No mention of the fact that some of the cheap water is being sold to residential water districts by farmers at a premium, and the farmers then leave their fields to lie fallow.

No, this is simply about a bloodthirsty attempt to eliminate a species because it is politically expedient.  I wonder if the residents of Rapa Nui (aka Easter Island) made videos about wanting to cut down the last of the trees on the island in the name of progress.

At any rate, Meg Whitman Secretly Agrees with Us! W00t!