Who Wants to Be Governor of the Failed State of California?

One Republican candidate who wants to be California's next governor is Steve Poizner, whose economic prescriptions for healing the state's fiscal maladies are like a quack doctor who "bleeds" his patient by attaching leeches. Poizner's PR people came up with a catchy "10-10-10" slogan. He throws up three arbitrary numbers to brand his economic "plan" that only someone who has either fallen off a turnip truck or has been in a coma for the past thirty years could believe has any chance of "success."

Poizner claims he can cut taxes, reduce the state budget across the board by 10 percent (an idea that even Governor Ronald Reagan abandoned forty-two years ago), squeeze out $3.85 billion over two years by cracking down on government "waste" (as if that hasn't been tried already), while at the same time putting away $10 billion for a "rainy-day fund." How he'll manage this feat is by taking another swat at failed "supply-side" economics. Poizner claims, as Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski et al. did in the early 1980s, that tax cuts for the richest, most undeserving people in California will create more revenue for the state's coffers instead of exacerbating an already devastating structural budget deficit. It's magic!

Poizner's latest call for additional tax cuts came after he already proposed cuts in personal income and corporate taxes, and (of course) reducing the capital gains tax by 50 percent. Poizner's brain-dead proposals are worse than "voodoo" economics. He's telling California voters he can spin straw into gold. It's nothing but a hodgepodge of failed fiscal gimmicks that were discredited when President Ronald Reagan, following the exact same recipe, tripled the national debt. I know we smoke a lot of weed out here in California but we're not that stoned to buy a re-run of that hallucination.

Not to be outdone, the billionaire CEO candidate Meg Whitman, through her spokesman Tucker Bounds -- (yes, the same guy who claimed Sarah Palin had "national security" experience because she was "commander-in-chief" of the Alaska National Guard) -- proposes permanently slashing at least $15 billion from the state budget, and laying off 40,000 public employees -- in addition to massive tax cuts for her rich friends.

The "moderate" Republican in the race is the perennial candidate Tom Campbell, a politician -- like Mitt Romney -- who sends voters reaching for their remotes every time his face appears on television. Campbell promises to cut state spending by $12.65 billion (he wants to come across slightly less extreme than Whitman and Poizner). But the hallmark of his "centrist" economic plan is for state workers, who have already suffered a 14 percent pay cut from Schwarzenegger's "furloughs," to give back to the state another part of their hard-earned salaries.

The Poizner-Whitman-Campbell triumvirate's plans are nothing more than re-branded "trickle-down" economics they wish to heartlessly push through even though California's unemployment rate is over 12.2 percent. Poizner, Whitman, and Campbell have one thing in common: Each of them see no value whatsoever in California's public institutions. They believe that by impoverishing public employees and strangling the public sector they will somehow make California a more attractive place for businesses to invest. Poizner says he is willing "to do whatever it takes" in order to goad capitalists to "come here and start companies." Good luck.

If the Republican "vision" for California becomes a reality, prospective business investors might face slightly lower state taxes, but they will be greeted by dilapidated roads and schools, a clogged court system, and overworked cops and firefighters. Their employees will have to wade through an army of disabled homeless people and recidivist prisoners. And none of their low-wage workers could ever dream of someday owning a home in California's still inflated housing market

These Republicans might as well be calling for removing the railroad crossing signals throughout the state because the increase in traffic accidents involving trains and cars will generate new business opportunities for ambulance companies and mortuaries.

Right now, despite the claims of columnists like The Sacramento Bee's crusty, cranky, union-hating paleoconservative Dan Walters, the Republicans have de facto control over the state's budget and finances (given the two-thirds rule in the dysfunctional Legislature). Repeat: THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE STATE'S FINANCES.

The state would be better off if it chucked its current Constitution altogether and then turned to a bright group of students from a public middle school to write a new one.

Is it any wonder why the Legislature has a 13 percent approval rating and Schwarzenegger's stands at about 27 percent? This horrific state of affairs raises the obvious question: How can a modern state with 38 million people and a GDP bigger than Brazil's and Russia's be controlled by such a tiny legislative minority of hyper-ideological and incompetent right-wingers? The nation's most populated state is facing a debilitating legitimacy crisis with no end in sight.

And what is Attorney General Jerry Brown's stand on higher education and the other problems confronting the state? Build more prisons? Rather than give voters a clear blueprint for how he would address the multiple crises in California, Brown mostly remains moot. The biggest news story of late to come from Brown's "non-campaign" campaign is that he lined up the endorsement of one of the state's largest unions tied to our colossal prison system. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) recently gave Brown's "exploratory committee" $40,900.

Brown also recently gave Schwarzenegger a boost by endorsing his drearily repetitive and authoritarian tactic of threatening to veto everything unless he gets his way on one or more of his pet projects. Said Brown: "Compromise in the rough-and-tumble legislative process is not achieved by doilies and tea" and "the governor's decision whether to veto legislation is an intrinsic part of the legislative process." Brown's point might be true but do we really want to continue with this kind of partisan brinkmanship? Why not have a governor who works with the Legislature instead of against it? Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is so low does Brown really think it's wise to continue down that same tired old road? What's Brown doing anyway? Waiting for his coronation?

Among the gubernatorial candidates, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom seems to be the only one who is making any kind of effort to inspire young people and who has any faith in the intrinsic value of California's public institutions. He claims to want to find a way to fully fund the CSU, UC, and community college systems. Whether he can succeed is another question -- but at least he sees higher education for what it is: a public investment vital to California's future. Newsom recently submitted a "guest column" for The State Hornet, the student newspaper for CSU, Sacramento. In it he writes: "I stand in support of our fellow Californians adversely affected by cuts to higher education." Newsome continues:

"Pulling over a billion dollars out of colleges and universities across California, has real implications, and we're now just starting to see the unrest that accompanies such drastic cuts. I believe in fully funding the University of California, California State University and community colleges in this state. It will be my top priority upon taking office to roll back these fee increases. Our state's greatest asset is the vast concentration of human potential that's defined us for generations. . . . Let's stop implementing enrollment caps and raising fees. . . . We must begin educating our workforce now. We cannot wait until the economy is rosy again; by then it'll be too late. . . . Our future economic prosperity depends on it."

Some of my colleagues here in the state capital who know far more about California's Byzantine politics than I do tell me that Newsom is already "branded" as the "gay marriage" aficionado, and therefore unelectable. But I counter by saying that just because a bunch of homophobic Mormons from Utah spent millions of dollars to run ads successfully passing Proposition 8 and featured Newsom in some of their ads doesn't mean that he'd be a bad governor. At least Newsom is putting in the hard work of appearing at "town halls" across the state and writing articles for student newspapers.

The simmering anger and resentment that Schwarzenegger and the Republicans (along with the hapless Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass) have unleashed throughout the state by their cold-hearted, Dickensian assault on California's public sector is beginning to create a backlash. Former President Bill Clinton seems to recognize this fact; that's one of the reasons why he endorsed Newsom and came to California to campaign for him. Everyone agrees that California is ungovernable. So why not take a chance on someone like Newsom who might shake things up? Chances are he'll fail like all the rest, and, besides, as the Republicans showed us in 2003, if voters decide they don't like Governor Newsom they can always recall him and install a movie star. How about Sean Penn?

If the miserable status quo continues and the Republicans succeed in their long-term project of turning California into a failed state the time might not be far off when the labor unions of this state are going to have no choice but to call for some kind of General Strike. Organized labor must at some point show these free-market supply-siders that their Republican servants in Sacramento will not be allowed to destroy this state without a fight.

 

Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/N/A

Comments

[clydedogg]

Bill Clinton is backing Newsome partly because Jerry slammed Hillary in his short lived presidential run (it's in his book). Jerry did a pretty god job cleaning up after old Raylgun. With modern communications there is no longer the need to concentrate innovation in one area which used to be California. The entire state has to change to a new reality. It is just an overcrowded difuctional mess. I cashed in and moved to Canada 15 years ago after growing up in CA. Best decision I ever made, and I love my healthcare. For that reason alone I could never go back.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

An interesting race.

[Openeyes]

Agree with your assessment overall, but you're being a bit unfair to Brown. One the one hand, he hasn't come out strongly on a lot of issues, but on the other hand, he hasn't even declared his candidacy yet, so he doesn't have to.

Your quote from him about "rough and tumble politics" was in connection with a legal opinion about whether or not the Governor could be sued for threatening to mass veto legislation unless a water bill was passed. Brown decided (correctly I think) that there was no legal basis for the suit, and was explaining that. It's not fair to claim he personally holds those views, or agrees that is a welcome situation, rather, this was a pronouncement in his official capacity as the Attorney General.

Brown has never been bashful. I'm sure we'll be hearing from him once he declares, as everyone expects him to, and he has a far better chance of winning statewide than Newsome.

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Fair enough Openeyes, your comment is appreciated

[realpolitic]

Republicans want California to become like another Alabama with low business taxes, but no public investment in infrastructure or its people. These southern states that follow these low wage, anti-union, pro-business platforms have some of the poorest, most obese, least educated constituencies in the country. When will conservatives learn that tax cuts for the wealthy only help the wealthy and there is no trickle down effect or perhaps, 30 years after Reagan, we are still waiting for it. Tax cuts do not creat revenues, but enormous deficits. It is time for a different path of investment in people and infrastructure as any business that wants to remain competitive would do.

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

As George W. Bush graphically demonstrated the right wing of the Republican Party cannot govern -- they don't believe in government therefore when in power they tear down the institutions they've been entrusted to take care of -- why should we trust right-wing Republicans to govern the most populated state in the union when we've already seen they cannot govern?

[TRex86]

Without an appreciation of class struggle we continue to get suckered by the extreme right, who have no stake whatsoever in promoting the common good. They are highly paid emissaries of the ruling plutocracy. They don't care if society disintegra­tes--they'­ve got theirs (probably stashed offshore). They want government out of their way: end liberal social programs; end the progressive income tax. They are the Henry Potter's of the modern day, who can't wait for the economic collapse to come so they can buy this country lock, stock and barrel for a dime on the dollar.

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

What has happened -- and I see it everyday here in the lovely city of Sacramento -- is that an extreme Howard Jarvis-Grover Norquist wing of the Republican Party -- a tiny minority in California -- controls the finances of the state -- Repeat: THE REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE FINANCES OF THIS STATE! And they are far more extreme than the kind and gentle Olympia Snowe Republicans -- these guys are extremists.

[mamalisa38]

These Republican's are idiots. Only an idiot would think that you could solve a state budget shortfall by cutting taxes.

[TRex86]

I fled California four years ago. The high cost of living, collapsing infrastructure, and governmental gridlock made it easy to walk away before my real estate equity evaporated. There is no easy solution for the Not-so-Golden State. It has suffered the death of 1000 cuts due to the initiative process and the requirement for budgetary super-majorities, making it captive of the wacko right wing and any special interest with a few hundred thousand bucks to run an initiative campaign
Nonetheless, here are my palliatives to dig out from under while rewriting the State Constitution:
1. Legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it.
2. Release all non-violent prisoners, and close a dozen prisons.
3. Repeal the costly and seldom used death penalty.
4. Repeal three strikes.
5. Repeal prop 13.
6. Renige on the remaining two billion owed to embryo stem cell researchers (let the feds pay for this).
7. Use the huge Congressional delegation to extract big federal funds for infrastructure restoration.
8. Turn Medicaid (Medi-Cal) back to the feds.
9. Get the public option passed so small business can put all their employees on the feds' dime.
10. Take a ten year corporate tax holiday.
11. Repeal the initiative and referendum process.

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

TR, can I nominate you for governor?

[TRex86]

Sure. My Visa is still good there.

[allenosuno]

Dr, Palermo is again right on target. If we don't fix and rescue what took California a long time to build and surrender it to a downward spiral of wrecked infrastructure, uneducated, lawless public, bad conditions for business or higher learning...if we don't stop the fanatics and fight the free fall they've created, we soon will become like the deep South with a populace so ignorant and impoverished that building anything worthwhile has given way to hopeless, grinding poverty and an electorate that supports the very politicians that are most stupid and destructive. We either fight and save a damaged state or we go all the way to the bottom into Third world misery where no business will come in because as the Japanese found, trying to educate their workers and build infrastructure made them uncompetitive in their products. CA will become the new Mississippi or Alabama. It is already over half way there. In fact it is below these states in some areas like medical care and even some of our education system. That is a sad commentary. Either fight or turn the state into a GOP wasteland. Not much time to decide either.

[JoanneRM]

Out With The Old, In With The New. Jerry Brown coined the term "less is more". But that was a long time ago, and he has changed. It isn't his fault; time changes people, and he was the Mayor of Oakland. He never was a Party Man.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is a typical San Francisco politician, only he doesn't take (bribes) gifts of money. Our politicians are more open about their lives, because people don't care that much. That is why he has been so open about his feelings. Newsome can work with the legislature and not make members feel like field slaves. Hear that governor and the rest of you running for governor? Lincoln freed the slaves! He is the best of everyone running.

This governor has been governing with a tight fist around our necks, and that of the legislature. The voters again decided they wanted a movie star for a governor. Enough of our voters have no sense at all for this to happen.

[satyriasis]

Two points of contention I have with your piece. First is that Dan Walters is a great writer. He's fair and has taken on the corrupt public employee unions. Something that is long overdue. Unions are great until they overreach which they have in California. They literally elected their bosses and allies into power who then give them huge perks and benefits, all of which are payed for by California taxpayers. They are as selfish as the radical right which is also a major problem as you've described.

Secondly, you say it's a good idea to work with the legislature. No it's not. They are the problem. These bozos are only concerned with their districts and the special interests groups that got them to power. They don't care one bit about the state as a whole. It's the lack of that kind of big idea thinking which has gotten us into this mess. Whoever is governor I want them to go to war with the legislature.

Lastly, I agree that Gavin Newsome is the best hope for the state.

[Joseph Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

satyriasis - Walters' premise is that the public sector should treat workers as badly as the private sector does -- why pit workers against each other? Why doesn't the wonderful private sector treat its workers better? So if state workers are paid $9 an hour with no benefits this will help the state -- how so? Walters never explains that one. And he's wrong to single out public employee unions as the big villain -- it was not their fault that we now have 12.2 percent unemployment -- Louisiana beckons -- if people don't want to live in California -- then please go away.

[PhilipB]

California as a failed state?
Who would want that? who benefits?
We saw our lights go out before this current republican govenor.
So, who is pulling the switch now?
There is an economic downturn: and a hugh loss of revenue, and yet...
Why would one of the most vibrant regions in the world be brought to its knees?
It makes no sense.

[funinthesun]

A lot of the problems in California can be laid directly at the feet of the California voter who passed Proposition 13 and their insatiable appetite for governing through referendum. I read an article recently that said the Propositions that California voters passsed from 2001 through 2005 are costing the state over $5 Billion this year in mandated funding.
California's love to vote for these feel good propositions but I do not think they take that extra minute to think how all of these goodies are going to be paid for.
We have to rethink the way we tax in California, get rid of this ridiculous propostion and referendum system and make the legislature do it's job.
I agree with Mr. Palermo's points that the Repubs in the race offer no hope to California and only reheated Reaganism.
I'm not sold on Newsom though . I can see the Repubs running endlessly those clips of Newsom announcing gay marriage, " It's coming . You better get used to it....." That clip I believe cost the NO on 8 many, many votes last year and could be Newsom's undoing next year.

[FearlessFreep]

Thank you, Howard Jarvis.

[TahomaCam]

California is a failing state, but that is no reason to give up on it. We need to strive to get California back up and running. We need to create more jobs and raise the next generation to be prepared and ready to help California grow and become a strong country again. Jobs are going to need to be created just like in the rest of the United States. California needs Block grants in order to be able to put money towards projects like road construction or repair. There has to be something that needs fixing especially with all the forest fires. That is also a reason why California has so much debt. Because of all the forest fires over the summer California must spend Billions of dollars in order to repair the damage that was caused. I'm not sure what jobs could be created but I know there are plenty out there and all we need to do is look for them. Most people probably won’t agree with this but taxes will need to be increased to. Just hear me out, in order to get money California is going to need to raise taxes not cut them. The lower the taxes the longer it will take to get California up and running again.