State of California

As the campaigns in California were nearing an end, I ran a story on the Field Poll showing both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer moving from close races to a big leads.  I pay particular attention to the Field Poll because it has long been regarded as the best of the statewide polls.

I spent a good amount of time in graduate school studying polling and following the debates over the proper way to poll.  I recall in the middle part of the decade there was a long debate among pollsters about what factors should be weighed and what factors should be measured.  In particular was the question of party indentification.

For much of the last decade, California has been ungovernable – beset by partisan polarization and hamstrung by a political system designed in another era.  The state was led by an inexperienced and at times temperamental Governor, and legislative leaders apparently never quite knew what they were going to get.

The result was not necessarily the record deficits we have seen, as those came more naturally from a collapsed economy.  The political stalemate, however, meant there was never a real or workable solution.

Democrats were licking in their wounds on Tuesday night, but frankly it could have been worse – a lot worse.  Republicans took the House, but Democrats have narrowly held the Senate.  The worst of the Tea Party candidates in Delaware and Nevada went down to defeat.  Even in Alaska the Tea Party candidate finished behind the write-in.

It was a different story in California.  The AP and most networks called it early for Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer, and then watched nervously as the Senate Race remained tight until late, with Fiorina at one point holding a very narrow lead.  But the exit polls were right and the projections held.

Democratic voters reading this ought to brace themselves for a rough night that is likely to rival 1994, if not exceed it.  Angry voters across the nation are poised to sweep out the incumbents yet again in large numbers – this time to the benefit of the GOP.

However, as I suggested last week, Californians ought to build that moat because the wave is not going to hit here.  Recent polling suggests that, while it may be true that Republicans will turn out in large numbers across the country and Democrats will stay home, there is little evidence that will happen in California.

Landmark global warming rules are set to start in January 1, 2012 under new rules released last Friday by state air regulators which would put roughly 600 of California’s major polluters, from oil refineries to power plants to factories, under mandatory limitations on the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.

The California Air Resources Board released guidelines that would establish a new cap and trade market that would allow polluting facilities to trade pollution credits to offset global warming.  For instance, tree planting could cover up to eight percent of their emissions limits.

Another proposition that perhaps has not received enough attention is Proposition 26, which would require supermajority voter approval for raising state and local fees by recategorizing them as taxes. This would set up supermajority voter-approval hurdles for what are now regulatory and impact fees that can be adopted by simple majorities of the State Legislature, city councils and boards of supervisors.

As written, Proposition 26 would recategorize many local government fees and charges as taxes, subjecting them to the approval requirements of special taxes, including two-thirds supermajority voter approval. With some limited exceptions, a tax would include any charge that provides benefits or privileges to those not charged.

Californians may want to a build a mote around the state, protecting it from the tidal wave that is about to hit the rest of the country.  Fueled by anger and frustration over a lingering economic downturn and a dysfunctional government, voters around the country are ready to turn out the incumbent party.  However, that does not appear likely in California.

The Field Poll this week shows Jerry Brown, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, opening up a 10-point lead over his Republican opponent Meg Whitman.

US Attorney General Eric Holder and and Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), have inserted themselves into the debate on Prop 19, arguing that they would not only enforce marijuana laws in California but that the Department of Justice would sue to overturn Proposition 19 should it be approved next month by California voters.

It was a move inspired by the possibility that the measure would pass, although recent polls now show it modestly behind as the election next week rapidly approaches.

It was last June when the voters of California sent a loud and clear message that they would not be fooled by a deceptive ballot measure backed by tens of millions from PG&E in order to help PG&E corner the market on energy, under the guise of democratic protections that in most cases already exist.

Apparently big Texas oil -Texas-based Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation along with Kansas-based Koch Industries (Kansas apparently does not generate the same fear as Texas oil) – did not get that memo however, as they sponsored Proposition 23.  This time they sought to use the economy as a wedge to get Californians to suspend the ambitious AB 32, which has stringent requirements for carbon emission reductions.

The Associated Press this morning is reporting on the latest Public Policy Institute of California polling on the California’s Governor’s race.  The PPIC poll, released late yesterday, shows that former Governor Brown now holds an 8-point lead over Meg Whitman,  44 percent to her 36 percent among likely voters.

In addition, they found that Senator Barbara Boxer continues to hold a small lead of five percentage points over her challenger.

The other week Tom Torlakson, who is running for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, really had some thoughtful things to say about education.  One the things he said that stuck in my mind had to do with teachers.

“We owe a lot to teachers.  I’m fed up with the blame game, pointing fingers, blaming teachers, the teachers are the problem,” he said.  “Teachers aren’t the problem, teachers are the solution.”

The US Attorney General has now weighed in, to join local law enforcement in opposing the legalization of marijuana. 

The Justice Department has strongly opposed Proposition 19, and has been pressured by local law enforcement to take a more active stance against the California ballot proposition.

Marijuana legalization has always formed a good nexus for me – tying in my libertarian streak of wanting the government not to involve itself in private lives of individuals (I part ways on economic issues) with my sense of support for fiscal restraint.

A number of years ago, I remember reading an article on Ron Dellums, back before he was Oakland’s Mayor, when he was a powerful figure on Capitol Hill.  He was the defense cutting guru, and in order to make the case for wasted money in defense, he had to become an expert on defense systems.  The reason he chose this area, however, is unusual.  He chose it because he wanted to find money to free up for social programs, which was his priority.

It was not Jerry Brown’s finest moment of the campaign or in the debate, but it is the moment that everyone is talking about, even though it will not do a thing to fix the problems of California.

At issue, an inadvertent recording of a Brown strategy session in which an unidentified person suggests portraying Whitman as a “whore” for creating a loophole in her pension plan to appeal to public safety unions that were endorsing her in the governor’s race.

The good news is that we have a budget.  The bad news is that it is a budget that no one is happy with.  The worst news is that it is a complete and total fraud.

All it does is push tough decisions into the future.  It papers over most of the $19 billion deficit with clever accounting.  It assumes billions from the federal government that will never materialize.  And it relies on loans and numerous bookkeeping maneuvers to defer payments to schools.

As California debates as to whether to legalize marijuana, Govenor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law SB 1449 that will now reduce possession of an ounce or less of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, with a maximum punishment of a $100 fine.

Even as a misdemeanor, possession of up to an ounce of pot was still punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time. But offenders also faced arrest, a possible court appearance and a criminal record.

The debate on Tuesday might have been the only chance Californians will have to look at both candidates for Attorney General, as it was their only scheduled debate.  While Steve Cooley said after the debate he hopes they can schedule another one, perhaps at a law school near San Diego, that decision is out of his hands.

That is a shame because the debate was held during the noon hour, meaning working people could not view the event, and the Office of Attorney General figures to be hugely important as we go forward.  Not only will we have to deal with serious reforms in the legal system, but also go into areas such as environmental law where, traditionally, the AG’s Office has not gone.

California’s Attorney General candidates met for their first and perhaps only debate on Tuesday at the UC Davis Law School.  It was north versus south, liberal versus conservative, as LA District Attorney, Republican Steve Cooley, faced off against San Francisco District Attorney, Democrat Kamala Harris.

Throughout the debate, Steve Cooley would often refuse to take a position on anything, offering instead that he would defend what the voters supported, whereas Kamala Harris argued that the AG is not simply a position that blindly follows the will of the voters, but rather has a leadership role as well.

Assemblymember Tom Torlakson, candidate for the State Superintendent of Public Instruction told a good-sized crowd at the Palm Court Hotel on Monday night in Davis that he is a teacher and therefore fundamentally an optimist, despite the challenging fiscal and economic times.

“I’m asking this question to group after group, why are we here?  Why are you here?  It’s because, despite the double-digit unemployment, despite the horrible foreclosures, despite the cutbacks that are gripping and destructive to education, fundamentally aren’t we all optimists? We’re here because we believe that we can be a force for change, individually linking arms with like-minded citizens, we can turn things around in the right direction.”