British elections are coming up on May 6, and California's primary election is on June 8. Normally there isn't much cross-contamination between British and American politics, in large part due to the fact that the major parties here and there don't exactly correlate. Britain's Conservatives, for example, are to the left of most U.S. Republicans and even some conservative Democrats on issues such as the environment; the British Labour Party would be considered solidly left-wing by American standards. They're a member of the Socialist International organization; can you imagine U.S. voters electing a party affiliated with a group called Socialist International? Just their name encompasses two of the ideologies Americans tend to hate most!
Oddly enough, however, there is a California-British connection this year. According to the San Francisco Chronicle's Carla Marinucci, Meg Whitman was part of an elite group of business leaders enlisted to "advise" the U.K. Labour government on issues of globalization and trade a few years back. Fascinating.
Or not - realistically, in an increasingly globalized economy, American businesspeople advising the British government, whatever party happens to be in power, doesn't seem that out of the ordinary. But you can bet it will find its way into the Republican primary. Anyone care to take bets on how many more days it will be before Steve Poizner is linking Whitman to "a European political party affiliated with (cue ominous music) international socialists!"?? Let's see, it's Friday now... I wouldn't at all be surprised if StevePo's got those ads on the air by Wednesday. Let the betting begin!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
There’s a very revealing moment in Bob Woodward’s excellent book The Choice, about President Clinton’s 1996 reelection race, in which Clinton mentions to his press secretary, Mike McCurry, that he privately hopes Bob Dole will win the Republican presidential nomination that year. McCurry is confused; sure, Dole is the most sane and rational candidate, but that also gives him the greatest chance of beating Clinton in the general election. Therefore, shouldn’t Clinton favor a kooky right-wing nut like Pat Buchanan, or a monumentally unqualified hack like Steve Forbes? “Dole’s the only one that’s got any capability to do the job,” Clinton (allegedly) said. “Something could happen to me. We could have a major crisis that goes bad on us… and they (the voters) might throw me out on my rear end.”
It was very thoughtful and insightful of Clinton to feel this way, and in hindsight he was correct. Although he fell well short of defeating Clinton, Dole would not have actually been a terrible president; he certainly would have been superior to most of his GOP opponents, or to George W. Bush, for that matter. (Since that election Bob Dole has done Viagra commercials and his craziest opponent, Pat Buchanan, has come out against U.S. participation in World War II; if you had to choose, who would you rather have had in the White House?)
I worry that we’re in a similar situation today, leading up to the 2012 election. The current Republican frontrunner, so declared by the mainstream media and a handful of unreliable preprimary polls, is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. There’s little question that Romney is a conservative, but by the standards of today’s Hannity-Limbaugh-Palin-led GOP, he just might not be conservative enough.
What he is, however, is somewhat qualified to be president – at least by the standards of his likely opponents. He’s a smart businessman, a bit of an intellectual (a rare and risky thing to be in the age of Glenn Beck and Tea Parties), and has demonstrated a degree of independent thinking unheard of in a party that is increasingly demanding strict adherence to right-wing ideological principles. I won’t even get into the comprehensive health care reform he championed and enacted in Massachusetts, and how that’s going to play out in the presidential race; but it’s unquestionably one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation signed by a Republican governor so far this decade.
Romney being a decent human being and a strong candidate (albeit one I still would not support, I must add), I am concerned that Obama and the Democratic Party leadership are going to do everything they can in advance of the Republican primaries to sabotage his chances of winning the nomination, in the hopes that a wingnut like Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour or (God help us all) Ron Paul runs away with it and then goes down in flames in the general election. Obviously, this would be a great strategy if it were guaranteed to work, but it isn’t. What Clinton apparently said in 1996 - "I want to have some confidence in the person I turn the keys over to" - applies doubly today. If Obama were to unfortunately lose in 2012, I would want, as an American, to have some confidence that whomever defeated him wasn't going to wreck the country, Bush-style.
Jonathan Chait has discussed this multiple times on his blog – the possibility that the economy might go into free-fall, or that Obama might get caught up in some personal scandal that, like Clinton, has no bearing on the job he does as president but could cost him votes nonetheless. If either of those things – or any other unforeseen circumstances – occurs, then we, as a country, could potentially be stuck with President Palin or President Paul. Is anybody prepared to take that risk? Are there any center-left Democrats out there like me who seriously disagree that Romney would be an exponentially better president than most of the kooks currently leading his party??
No, the best thing for our country would be for Romney to win the Republican nomination, probably put a token conservative (though hopefully someone more qualified to actually serve than Sarah Palin) on the ticket, and face off in a spirited (but hopefully unsuccessful) race against President Obama. At least that means the voters will have a choice between two candidates who actually know what they’re talking about.
It was very thoughtful and insightful of Clinton to feel this way, and in hindsight he was correct. Although he fell well short of defeating Clinton, Dole would not have actually been a terrible president; he certainly would have been superior to most of his GOP opponents, or to George W. Bush, for that matter. (Since that election Bob Dole has done Viagra commercials and his craziest opponent, Pat Buchanan, has come out against U.S. participation in World War II; if you had to choose, who would you rather have had in the White House?)
I worry that we’re in a similar situation today, leading up to the 2012 election. The current Republican frontrunner, so declared by the mainstream media and a handful of unreliable preprimary polls, is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. There’s little question that Romney is a conservative, but by the standards of today’s Hannity-Limbaugh-Palin-led GOP, he just might not be conservative enough.
What he is, however, is somewhat qualified to be president – at least by the standards of his likely opponents. He’s a smart businessman, a bit of an intellectual (a rare and risky thing to be in the age of Glenn Beck and Tea Parties), and has demonstrated a degree of independent thinking unheard of in a party that is increasingly demanding strict adherence to right-wing ideological principles. I won’t even get into the comprehensive health care reform he championed and enacted in Massachusetts, and how that’s going to play out in the presidential race; but it’s unquestionably one of the most important and influential pieces of legislation signed by a Republican governor so far this decade.
Romney being a decent human being and a strong candidate (albeit one I still would not support, I must add), I am concerned that Obama and the Democratic Party leadership are going to do everything they can in advance of the Republican primaries to sabotage his chances of winning the nomination, in the hopes that a wingnut like Sarah Palin, Haley Barbour or (God help us all) Ron Paul runs away with it and then goes down in flames in the general election. Obviously, this would be a great strategy if it were guaranteed to work, but it isn’t. What Clinton apparently said in 1996 - "I want to have some confidence in the person I turn the keys over to" - applies doubly today. If Obama were to unfortunately lose in 2012, I would want, as an American, to have some confidence that whomever defeated him wasn't going to wreck the country, Bush-style.
Jonathan Chait has discussed this multiple times on his blog – the possibility that the economy might go into free-fall, or that Obama might get caught up in some personal scandal that, like Clinton, has no bearing on the job he does as president but could cost him votes nonetheless. If either of those things – or any other unforeseen circumstances – occurs, then we, as a country, could potentially be stuck with President Palin or President Paul. Is anybody prepared to take that risk? Are there any center-left Democrats out there like me who seriously disagree that Romney would be an exponentially better president than most of the kooks currently leading his party??
No, the best thing for our country would be for Romney to win the Republican nomination, probably put a token conservative (though hopefully someone more qualified to actually serve than Sarah Palin) on the ticket, and face off in a spirited (but hopefully unsuccessful) race against President Obama. At least that means the voters will have a choice between two candidates who actually know what they’re talking about.
In what I’m hoping the State political press will start calling “Three-way-debate-gate,” or maybe “Menage-a-Meg,” GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Meg Whitman has declined, or at least not yet said whether she’ll accept, Democratic candidate Jerry Brown’s invitation for a three-person debate between herself, Brown, and Whitman’s Republican primary opponent Steve Poizner. (Not surprisingly, Poizner has accepted – after all, what’s he got to lose? He’s 49 points down in the polls.)
The general reaction is that Brown’s invitation, offered during this past weekend’s state Democratic convention, was a smart tactical move. For one thing, challenging your opponent(s) to a debate always puts them on the defensive, and establishes you as an aggressive, confident candidate. However, no one really thinks it hurts your opponent if they either refuse to debate, squabble over the proposed rules for the debate, or delay their RSVP indefinitely. Voters just aren’t paying that much attention.
In fact, the thing that would hurt Whitman the most right now would be to accept Brown’s invitation, and debate both of her opponents. For one thing, she’s not as good a public speaker as either of them. I’ve seen Steve Poizner speak in person several times, and he’s a good, if not great, debater. At his worst moments, he comes across as that nerdy kid who got made fun of a lot in high school and developed a bit of a temper for it. At his best moments, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he displays a real knowledge of public policy and government, the kind more politicians wish they had.
As for Brown, few public figures, in California or elsewhere, are as entertaining or enjoyable to listen to. He peppers his speech with references to his past and to his record in government, makes oddball references to obscure European philosophers, and although he hasn’t offered many specific proposals yet, he rarely speaks in the kind of broad generalities Whitman is prone to using. He’s been criticized as something of an eccentric speaker, but absolutely no one would call him boring, or suggest that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Whitman, on the other hand, sort of comes across in speeches as the stereotypical CEO who’s been surrounded by “yes-men” and had everything handed to her for most of her career. It’s not that she’s arrogant or condescending; quite the opposite. In order to sound condescending, you have to at least sound like you know what you’re talking about, and in your humble correspondent’s opinion, Whitman just doesn’t. (Plus, her tendency to begin every single sentence with the phrase "So, what I've said is..." drives me up the wall.) Putting her in a debate with two knowledgeable, entertaining, and (in Brown’s case) likeable opponents would only cost her.
Then there’s the fact that a three-way debate would almost certainly turn into a gang-up on Whitman. Sure, Brown would speak generally about not repeating the failed Republican policies of the Bush-Schwarzenegger years, but he’d concentrate most of his fire on Whitman specifically. Similarly, Poizner would no doubt trade barbs with Brown, on the extreme off-chance that he wins the June primary and has to face Brown in the general election, but it’s a sure bet he’d spend nearly all of his time attacking Whitman. Why would you want to subject yourself to this if you were Meg?
Whitman is the “rising star” of California politics right now, and both Brown and Poizner are just dying to get in some hits. You can bet they’d both go after her (non)voting record; Brown would attack her for proposing a repeal of the capital gains tax, which the Sacramento Bee helpfully reported would benefit Whitman herself, considerably; Poizner would attack her from the right on immigration.
If Whitman has any sense of self-preservation about her, what she’ll do is politely decline Brown’s invitation, noting that it’s both inappropriate and unprecedented for a multiparty debate in advance of the primaries, and invite Poizner to one or two more debates before their June 8 contest. Meanwhile, she should commit in advance to a series of debates with Brown after the primary election. No one really cares how she does against Poizner anymore; he’s all but out of the game at this point. But facing Brown – or facing Brown and Poizner together – could really hurt her, and with poll numbers as high as hers, there’s nowhere for Meg to go but down.
The general reaction is that Brown’s invitation, offered during this past weekend’s state Democratic convention, was a smart tactical move. For one thing, challenging your opponent(s) to a debate always puts them on the defensive, and establishes you as an aggressive, confident candidate. However, no one really thinks it hurts your opponent if they either refuse to debate, squabble over the proposed rules for the debate, or delay their RSVP indefinitely. Voters just aren’t paying that much attention.
In fact, the thing that would hurt Whitman the most right now would be to accept Brown’s invitation, and debate both of her opponents. For one thing, she’s not as good a public speaker as either of them. I’ve seen Steve Poizner speak in person several times, and he’s a good, if not great, debater. At his worst moments, he comes across as that nerdy kid who got made fun of a lot in high school and developed a bit of a temper for it. At his best moments, whether you agree with him or not (and I generally don't), he displays a real knowledge of public policy and government, the kind more politicians wish they had.
As for Brown, few public figures, in California or elsewhere, are as entertaining or enjoyable to listen to. He peppers his speech with references to his past and to his record in government, makes oddball references to obscure European philosophers, and although he hasn’t offered many specific proposals yet, he rarely speaks in the kind of broad generalities Whitman is prone to using. He’s been criticized as something of an eccentric speaker, but absolutely no one would call him boring, or suggest that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Whitman, on the other hand, sort of comes across in speeches as the stereotypical CEO who’s been surrounded by “yes-men” and had everything handed to her for most of her career. It’s not that she’s arrogant or condescending; quite the opposite. In order to sound condescending, you have to at least sound like you know what you’re talking about, and in your humble correspondent’s opinion, Whitman just doesn’t. (Plus, her tendency to begin every single sentence with the phrase "So, what I've said is..." drives me up the wall.) Putting her in a debate with two knowledgeable, entertaining, and (in Brown’s case) likeable opponents would only cost her.
Then there’s the fact that a three-way debate would almost certainly turn into a gang-up on Whitman. Sure, Brown would speak generally about not repeating the failed Republican policies of the Bush-Schwarzenegger years, but he’d concentrate most of his fire on Whitman specifically. Similarly, Poizner would no doubt trade barbs with Brown, on the extreme off-chance that he wins the June primary and has to face Brown in the general election, but it’s a sure bet he’d spend nearly all of his time attacking Whitman. Why would you want to subject yourself to this if you were Meg?
Whitman is the “rising star” of California politics right now, and both Brown and Poizner are just dying to get in some hits. You can bet they’d both go after her (non)voting record; Brown would attack her for proposing a repeal of the capital gains tax, which the Sacramento Bee helpfully reported would benefit Whitman herself, considerably; Poizner would attack her from the right on immigration.
If Whitman has any sense of self-preservation about her, what she’ll do is politely decline Brown’s invitation, noting that it’s both inappropriate and unprecedented for a multiparty debate in advance of the primaries, and invite Poizner to one or two more debates before their June 8 contest. Meanwhile, she should commit in advance to a series of debates with Brown after the primary election. No one really cares how she does against Poizner anymore; he’s all but out of the game at this point. But facing Brown – or facing Brown and Poizner together – could really hurt her, and with poll numbers as high as hers, there’s nowhere for Meg to go but down.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Today’s Tea Party protest at the State Capitol was a pretty mild affair compared to previous ones I’ve seen – there were very few signs advocating, for example, violent revolution against the federal government, or suggesting that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (a view held by a disproportionately large percentage of Tea Partiers), or comparing high-ranking Democrats to Adolf Hitler. Accusing the President and Congress of Marxism, socialism and communism are all still acceptable, of course, but it's good to see the Tea Partiers accept that Nazism might be a stretch.
On the contrary, there were dozens of people walking around with voter-registration and initiative signature petitions, and most of the speakers were exhorting their listeners to get out there and vote, as opposed to, say, urging them to "take up arms" in their battle against everything Obama. I don’t know how many of the TPers trying to overturn California’s landmark climate emissions law knew that they were shilling for powerful Texas oil companies in the process, but kudos to them for at least getting involved. It’s more than you can say for most Americans.
Indeed, there seem to be signs that the Tea Party is becoming less and less insane by the day. Earlier this week, organizers of today’s protest in Pleasanton disinvited Orly Taitz from speaking at their event.
Taitz, for those of you who don’t know, is the nutcase who heads up the Birther movement alleging that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, shouts instead of talking, and is running for California secretary of state. Hey, Orly – when the folks who dress up like Ben Franklin, have no idea that Medicare is a government-run program, and carry around signs portraying Nancy Pelosi as Pinocchio are calling you a weirdo… wow.
Adding insult (read “sanity”) to injury (read “craziness”), two high-profile Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate – Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore – have disavowed Taitz’s theories completely, each one boldly asserting Barack Obama’s legitimacy to be president.
Fiorina, via a spokesperson, had the cojones to own up to her belief that “President Obama is absolutely eligible for the presidency and is a natural-born United States citizen.”
And DeVore, the self-proclaimed “Tea Party candidate” in this race, “strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance.”
This is strong stuff, considering that the Obama-was-born-here view only holds sway with about four in ten Republicans, and a similar number of Tea Partiers.
Maybe the biggest news in this story is that this is actually considered news in today’s America – that a group of conservatives, including two candidates for office, have accepted that the President of the United States was actually born here and that this isn’t all just some clever Kenyan/Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Venezuelan hoax.
Not that this has caught on with all GOP politicos – in the same article linked to above, neither the vice chair of the California Republican Party nor a prominent State Assembly candidate from the East Bay (and current mayor of San Ramon) would say where they believe Obama was born.
Here’s my question, though – do they really believe that crap about us landing on the moon?
On the contrary, there were dozens of people walking around with voter-registration and initiative signature petitions, and most of the speakers were exhorting their listeners to get out there and vote, as opposed to, say, urging them to "take up arms" in their battle against everything Obama. I don’t know how many of the TPers trying to overturn California’s landmark climate emissions law knew that they were shilling for powerful Texas oil companies in the process, but kudos to them for at least getting involved. It’s more than you can say for most Americans.
Indeed, there seem to be signs that the Tea Party is becoming less and less insane by the day. Earlier this week, organizers of today’s protest in Pleasanton disinvited Orly Taitz from speaking at their event.
Taitz, for those of you who don’t know, is the nutcase who heads up the Birther movement alleging that Barack Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, shouts instead of talking, and is running for California secretary of state. Hey, Orly – when the folks who dress up like Ben Franklin, have no idea that Medicare is a government-run program, and carry around signs portraying Nancy Pelosi as Pinocchio are calling you a weirdo… wow.
Adding insult (read “sanity”) to injury (read “craziness”), two high-profile Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate – Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore – have disavowed Taitz’s theories completely, each one boldly asserting Barack Obama’s legitimacy to be president.
Fiorina, via a spokesperson, had the cojones to own up to her belief that “President Obama is absolutely eligible for the presidency and is a natural-born United States citizen.”
And DeVore, the self-proclaimed “Tea Party candidate” in this race, “strongly disapproves of Orly Taitz and the crazy theories she continues to advance.”
This is strong stuff, considering that the Obama-was-born-here view only holds sway with about four in ten Republicans, and a similar number of Tea Partiers.
Maybe the biggest news in this story is that this is actually considered news in today’s America – that a group of conservatives, including two candidates for office, have accepted that the President of the United States was actually born here and that this isn’t all just some clever Kenyan/Russian/Chinese/Iranian/Venezuelan hoax.
Not that this has caught on with all GOP politicos – in the same article linked to above, neither the vice chair of the California Republican Party nor a prominent State Assembly candidate from the East Bay (and current mayor of San Ramon) would say where they believe Obama was born.
Here’s my question, though – do they really believe that crap about us landing on the moon?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sure Enough...
As if to prove my point in yesterday's post about Meg Whitman limiting herself with regards to those "solutions" she's so sure she's got for California, eMeg gave (gasp!) a press conference at the California Republican Party convention today, addressing her ideas for the budget crisis. Among them? No overall spending cuts to education, $4 billion in tax cuts, and reducing state spending by $15 billion over four years through reducing inefficiencies and waste. (All of this info is courtesy of John Myers, at KQED Public Radio.)
Guess what, Meg? Education spending represents 40 percent of the general fund budget; I don't want to cut it any more than anybody else does, but good luck chipping away at a $20 billion shortfall otherwise. Cutting taxes to the tune of $4 billion - about 0.2 percent of state GDP - won't do squat to create jobs or jump-start the economy, but it will drive up the deficit by another $4 billion or so.
And as for those spending cuts - never mind the question of whether there's $15 billion in "waste" in the state budget to begin with (there isn't). Meg, my friend, sit down. The deficit is $20 billion this year alone. And unless the economy rebounds faster than one of my sinus infections, it will probably be in the $10 to $15 billion range, annually, through the middle of this decade. So $15 billion over four years ain't gonna bring us back to black, as Amy Winehouse would put it. (I tried to say "back in black" so as to make an AC/DC reference, but it just doesn't sound right, does it?)
Wait a minute, I've just run some numbers in my head (the best place to do math, I find) - if she's going to cut taxes by $4 billion per year, that comes out to $16 billion over four years. That's a billion dollars more than she's proposing to cut in spending. Which brings us right back to square one, deficit-wise. Actually, square one plus another billion dollars, give or take.
Hey, media - you wanna stop taking this lady seriously already?
Guess what, Meg? Education spending represents 40 percent of the general fund budget; I don't want to cut it any more than anybody else does, but good luck chipping away at a $20 billion shortfall otherwise. Cutting taxes to the tune of $4 billion - about 0.2 percent of state GDP - won't do squat to create jobs or jump-start the economy, but it will drive up the deficit by another $4 billion or so.
And as for those spending cuts - never mind the question of whether there's $15 billion in "waste" in the state budget to begin with (there isn't). Meg, my friend, sit down. The deficit is $20 billion this year alone. And unless the economy rebounds faster than one of my sinus infections, it will probably be in the $10 to $15 billion range, annually, through the middle of this decade. So $15 billion over four years ain't gonna bring us back to black, as Amy Winehouse would put it. (I tried to say "back in black" so as to make an AC/DC reference, but it just doesn't sound right, does it?)
Wait a minute, I've just run some numbers in my head (the best place to do math, I find) - if she's going to cut taxes by $4 billion per year, that comes out to $16 billion over four years. That's a billion dollars more than she's proposing to cut in spending. Which brings us right back to square one, deficit-wise. Actually, square one plus another billion dollars, give or take.
Hey, media - you wanna stop taking this lady seriously already?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Some comments on Meg Whitman, who faithful readers know I don’t much care for. Part of it might be that I’m a state employee, and state employees have been her favorite punching bag throughout most of her campaign. (Immigrants, another favorite scapegoat for conservatives, are thus far being mercifully spared Whitman’s ire, which is more than can be said for her 50-points-down-in-the-polls “opponent” Steve Poizner.)
The notoriously press-shy Whitman – who may have made political history yesterday when she invited a group of reporters to an “open press” event and then told them, once they arrived, that they were no longer welcome – sat down for an interview with San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders. I go back and forth on Saunders; she calls herself a “San Francisco conservative,” which I guess is somehow different from a normal conservative, except that she still seems to believe climate change either isn't happening, or isn't serious enough to do much about. Good on ya.
But to her credit, she got eMeg to sit down and actually talk about the issues. Well, not so much the issues as her biography. According to Saunders, the big question about Whitman is, “Can she govern?” Never mind that there’s already an easy, one-word answer to this question (hint: it’s two letters, starts with “n,” and rhymes with “go”). Saunders falls into that age-old trap of assuming that someone with corporate management experience is somehow capable of running a government. I’m not the first one to say this, and I’m sure I won’t be the last, but it’s important for people to know that running a business and running a government are not the same thing, and someone who is good at one is not necessarily going to be even remotely good at the other.
For one thing, Whitman herself acknowledges that she has “not directly negotiated with unions” in her business experience. That alone ought to disqualify any business leader who’s running for governor of California, whose hundreds of thousands of state employees constitute one of the most powerful interest groups in the history of American politics. If you have no idea how to deal with unions, good luck trying to cut the state workforce by 30,000 jobs.
I was also more than a little dismayed by Whitman’s boast, in her co-written (read: ghostwritten) memoir The Power of Many, that she “can go into virtually any kind of business, analyze the situation and come up with an effective plan to solve problems and achieve goals.” For one thing, coming up with a plan wouldn’t be her job as governor – negotiating a plan with enough of the 120 members of the Legislature for it to pass both houses would be. That’s what Jerry Brown plans to do, anyway.
And as for that “effective plan” eMeg insists she can come up with, it doesn’t help if you purposefully wall off a number of possible solutions – or components of solutions – to the problems your business or government is facing. Pledging to oppose tax increases, promising to increase education spending – these are both costly decisions to make, especially before you’ve even been hired by the company. Can you imagine a candidate for CEO of a corporation that’s bleeding money by the billions proclaiming, before they even take office, “If you elect me CEO of this corporation, I promise I will not raise any of our products’ prices. I also promise to increase Research and Development spending.” No way; any responsible business leader has to consider every possible option “on the table,” as does a responsible political leader.
Then again, Whitman does boast of having thought up “a method to save hours of food preparation time by washing potatoes in dishwashers.” That’s what California really needs; someone who can wash our potatoes quicker. How about when Jerry Brown becomes governor, he appoints Meg Whitman as State Potato Washer? Assuming she agrees not to take a salary. Times are tight, after all.
The notoriously press-shy Whitman – who may have made political history yesterday when she invited a group of reporters to an “open press” event and then told them, once they arrived, that they were no longer welcome – sat down for an interview with San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders. I go back and forth on Saunders; she calls herself a “San Francisco conservative,” which I guess is somehow different from a normal conservative, except that she still seems to believe climate change either isn't happening, or isn't serious enough to do much about. Good on ya.
But to her credit, she got eMeg to sit down and actually talk about the issues. Well, not so much the issues as her biography. According to Saunders, the big question about Whitman is, “Can she govern?” Never mind that there’s already an easy, one-word answer to this question (hint: it’s two letters, starts with “n,” and rhymes with “go”). Saunders falls into that age-old trap of assuming that someone with corporate management experience is somehow capable of running a government. I’m not the first one to say this, and I’m sure I won’t be the last, but it’s important for people to know that running a business and running a government are not the same thing, and someone who is good at one is not necessarily going to be even remotely good at the other.
For one thing, Whitman herself acknowledges that she has “not directly negotiated with unions” in her business experience. That alone ought to disqualify any business leader who’s running for governor of California, whose hundreds of thousands of state employees constitute one of the most powerful interest groups in the history of American politics. If you have no idea how to deal with unions, good luck trying to cut the state workforce by 30,000 jobs.
I was also more than a little dismayed by Whitman’s boast, in her co-written (read: ghostwritten) memoir The Power of Many, that she “can go into virtually any kind of business, analyze the situation and come up with an effective plan to solve problems and achieve goals.” For one thing, coming up with a plan wouldn’t be her job as governor – negotiating a plan with enough of the 120 members of the Legislature for it to pass both houses would be. That’s what Jerry Brown plans to do, anyway.
And as for that “effective plan” eMeg insists she can come up with, it doesn’t help if you purposefully wall off a number of possible solutions – or components of solutions – to the problems your business or government is facing. Pledging to oppose tax increases, promising to increase education spending – these are both costly decisions to make, especially before you’ve even been hired by the company. Can you imagine a candidate for CEO of a corporation that’s bleeding money by the billions proclaiming, before they even take office, “If you elect me CEO of this corporation, I promise I will not raise any of our products’ prices. I also promise to increase Research and Development spending.” No way; any responsible business leader has to consider every possible option “on the table,” as does a responsible political leader.
Then again, Whitman does boast of having thought up “a method to save hours of food preparation time by washing potatoes in dishwashers.” That’s what California really needs; someone who can wash our potatoes quicker. How about when Jerry Brown becomes governor, he appoints Meg Whitman as State Potato Washer? Assuming she agrees not to take a salary. Times are tight, after all.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
These Times We Live In
I know it’s been quite some time since your humble correspondent updated (what? I’ve been sick, gimme a break), and I’ll in the coming days, but this little ditty caught my eye and I just couldn’t resist commenting on it.
So, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you may have heard that a conservative Republican state legislator, Roy Ashburn, recently came out of the closet. After being caught driving drunk in Sacramento. In his state-provided vehicle. Having just left a gay bar. With an unidentified “male companion” in the car. And having spent his entire legislative career voting against every possible law that could grant even a shred of dignity or equality to gays and lesbians.
So, that’s fun. Sort of makes you think of that ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
Never mind Ashburn’s political future. He crossed the aisle to vote for tax increases last year, which means his career in the Republican Party is over, plain and simple. Coming out as an open homosexual isn’t even the nail in the coffin; the coffin’s already met its nail quota, with some left over to spare.
What I’m interested in are the reactions of Ashburn’s constituents. A brave San Francisco Chronicle writer ventured into the heart of his district, in Bakersfield, where I’m sure a Bay Area news reporter feels right at home, to ask everyday folks what they thought of their state senator. Generally, the reaction was favorable, and by “favorable,” I mean that no one particularly seemed to want to tar and feather the man.
Interviewed in a bar, 68-year-old country singer Bad Blake - err, Mel Lawrence - gave Ashburn credit for voting “more or less, along Kern County lines.” Good to hear that voting along Kern County lines means opposing same-sex marriage, civil unions, health benefits for domestic partners, and hate crimes legislation.
In the same bar – I’m guessing over a shot of Jack or a can of Pabst, but the article doesn’t specify – a 29-year-old former marine named Vince Edwards admitted that he was “just prejudiced against gays. I’m just not comfortable with them.”
All I want to know is: what’s Vince going to say to his children and grandchildren in 40 years when gays have full equality everywhere in the United States? Is he going to be the mid-21st-century equivalent of that racist old grandpa every other white family seems to have? Are his children going to read what Dad said in the newspaper (not that future generations are going to have any idea what a newspaper was) with pride? This guy couldn’t even bring himself to (lie and) say that he’s okay with gays, just not with same-sex marriage or adoption, a refrain that seems to pop up a lot in conservative areas. No, he straight up admitted to being prejudiced against them.
I appreciate your service, Vince. But it doesn't excuse your bigotry.
So, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you may have heard that a conservative Republican state legislator, Roy Ashburn, recently came out of the closet. After being caught driving drunk in Sacramento. In his state-provided vehicle. Having just left a gay bar. With an unidentified “male companion” in the car. And having spent his entire legislative career voting against every possible law that could grant even a shred of dignity or equality to gays and lesbians.
So, that’s fun. Sort of makes you think of that ancient Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”
Never mind Ashburn’s political future. He crossed the aisle to vote for tax increases last year, which means his career in the Republican Party is over, plain and simple. Coming out as an open homosexual isn’t even the nail in the coffin; the coffin’s already met its nail quota, with some left over to spare.
What I’m interested in are the reactions of Ashburn’s constituents. A brave San Francisco Chronicle writer ventured into the heart of his district, in Bakersfield, where I’m sure a Bay Area news reporter feels right at home, to ask everyday folks what they thought of their state senator. Generally, the reaction was favorable, and by “favorable,” I mean that no one particularly seemed to want to tar and feather the man.
Interviewed in a bar, 68-year-old country singer Bad Blake - err, Mel Lawrence - gave Ashburn credit for voting “more or less, along Kern County lines.” Good to hear that voting along Kern County lines means opposing same-sex marriage, civil unions, health benefits for domestic partners, and hate crimes legislation.
In the same bar – I’m guessing over a shot of Jack or a can of Pabst, but the article doesn’t specify – a 29-year-old former marine named Vince Edwards admitted that he was “just prejudiced against gays. I’m just not comfortable with them.”
All I want to know is: what’s Vince going to say to his children and grandchildren in 40 years when gays have full equality everywhere in the United States? Is he going to be the mid-21st-century equivalent of that racist old grandpa every other white family seems to have? Are his children going to read what Dad said in the newspaper (not that future generations are going to have any idea what a newspaper was) with pride? This guy couldn’t even bring himself to (lie and) say that he’s okay with gays, just not with same-sex marriage or adoption, a refrain that seems to pop up a lot in conservative areas. No, he straight up admitted to being prejudiced against them.
I appreciate your service, Vince. But it doesn't excuse your bigotry.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wondering what happens if healthcare reform doesn’t pass?
At this point no one knows what the future of healthcare reform is. On the one hand, the President seems as committed as ever to passing a bill, however imperfect, and preferably soon; on the other hand, the President’s advisers insist that reform “can wait a while,” which surely represents the death knell for any meaningful bill. Either way, the price of not acting is pretty high.
The Urban Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have run some numbers on what healthcare in America will look like by the end of this decade if the status quo is maintained. (And make no mistake, the Republicans obstructing the bill in Congress prefer the status quo to any reform proposals currently on the table. If they take back either House of Congress in 2010, or the presidency in 2012, healthcare reform will be completely and utterly dead.) Their findings, and more, are discussed at length in an excellent piece by David Wessel in, of all places, The Wall Street Journal. Here’s what they project:
- The percentage of national GDP (a.k.a. national wealth) spent on healthcare will jump from 17.3 percent in 2009 to 19.3 percent in 2019. So that’s an extra two dollars for every hundred spent that we, as a society, will be spending on healthcare within the next ten years. In case those numbers need to be driven home, think of however much you spend on healthcare now. Then add to that amount $2 for every $100 you earn.
- The percentage of uninsured people will rise from 18.4 percent to 20.1 percent of the population. Yes, one in five citizens of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the history of the world will be without health insurance, and most of that increase will come from middle-class adults, not poor people or children (or seniors).
- That’s because the poor (especially children) and seniors have public options (familiar phrase, eh?) like Medicaid and Medicare. The percentage of poor people and children receiving public healthcare will rise from 16.5 to 18.3 percent. Even more frightening – the total amount the federal government spends on Medicare and Medicaid combined will increase from about $725 billion to $950 billion by 2014. That’s a 30 percent increase in less than five years, and we, the taxpayers, will be on the hook for that. Remember that Republicans hate voting for taxes, so that extra $225 billion or so will likely just be added to the deficit if the GOP controls Congress and/or the White House. (Also remember that that increase is only between now and 2014; it will keep going up, probably at faster rates, after 2014 if the status quo is maintained.)
I don’t need to tell you, Dear Reader, that the reform proposals put forward by the Democrats in Congress (take your pick between either House’s version, since either one is preferable to the scenario I’ve just outlined above) would bring down the rapidly rising cost of healthcare, cover somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the uninsured (click that link and then select "Coverage"), and reduce the federal deficit by over $100 billion (click on "Cost" and then "Net decrease in the Deficit") over the next decade. No, I doubt I need to tell you any of those things, but someone sure as hell needs to tell the Democrats in Congress.
Ezra Klein has a great piece in his blog (which I recommend everybody read on a daily basis) on how the problem lies not with the Democrats’ ability to pass healthcare reform – reconciliation, overcoming a filibuster, etc. – but with their will to do it. I’ll let Ezra have the last word on this one, since he’s better at this than I am:
If 51 Democratic senators and 218 Democratic congresspeople are dead-serious about passing a bill, they can, and will, pass a bill. ... Democrats can pass this if they want to. The project now is not learning the Senate rules but steeling Democratic spines. … This is the closest this country has ever gotten to passing a universal health-care bill, and a critical mass of congressional Democrats have chosen this as the moment to freeze up. They need to be slapped back to reality.
Let the slapping begin.
The Urban Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have run some numbers on what healthcare in America will look like by the end of this decade if the status quo is maintained. (And make no mistake, the Republicans obstructing the bill in Congress prefer the status quo to any reform proposals currently on the table. If they take back either House of Congress in 2010, or the presidency in 2012, healthcare reform will be completely and utterly dead.) Their findings, and more, are discussed at length in an excellent piece by David Wessel in, of all places, The Wall Street Journal. Here’s what they project:
- The percentage of national GDP (a.k.a. national wealth) spent on healthcare will jump from 17.3 percent in 2009 to 19.3 percent in 2019. So that’s an extra two dollars for every hundred spent that we, as a society, will be spending on healthcare within the next ten years. In case those numbers need to be driven home, think of however much you spend on healthcare now. Then add to that amount $2 for every $100 you earn.
- The percentage of uninsured people will rise from 18.4 percent to 20.1 percent of the population. Yes, one in five citizens of the wealthiest, most powerful country in the history of the world will be without health insurance, and most of that increase will come from middle-class adults, not poor people or children (or seniors).
- That’s because the poor (especially children) and seniors have public options (familiar phrase, eh?) like Medicaid and Medicare. The percentage of poor people and children receiving public healthcare will rise from 16.5 to 18.3 percent. Even more frightening – the total amount the federal government spends on Medicare and Medicaid combined will increase from about $725 billion to $950 billion by 2014. That’s a 30 percent increase in less than five years, and we, the taxpayers, will be on the hook for that. Remember that Republicans hate voting for taxes, so that extra $225 billion or so will likely just be added to the deficit if the GOP controls Congress and/or the White House. (Also remember that that increase is only between now and 2014; it will keep going up, probably at faster rates, after 2014 if the status quo is maintained.)
I don’t need to tell you, Dear Reader, that the reform proposals put forward by the Democrats in Congress (take your pick between either House’s version, since either one is preferable to the scenario I’ve just outlined above) would bring down the rapidly rising cost of healthcare, cover somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the uninsured (click that link and then select "Coverage"), and reduce the federal deficit by over $100 billion (click on "Cost" and then "Net decrease in the Deficit") over the next decade. No, I doubt I need to tell you any of those things, but someone sure as hell needs to tell the Democrats in Congress.
Ezra Klein has a great piece in his blog (which I recommend everybody read on a daily basis) on how the problem lies not with the Democrats’ ability to pass healthcare reform – reconciliation, overcoming a filibuster, etc. – but with their will to do it. I’ll let Ezra have the last word on this one, since he’s better at this than I am:
If 51 Democratic senators and 218 Democratic congresspeople are dead-serious about passing a bill, they can, and will, pass a bill. ... Democrats can pass this if they want to. The project now is not learning the Senate rules but steeling Democratic spines. … This is the closest this country has ever gotten to passing a universal health-care bill, and a critical mass of congressional Democrats have chosen this as the moment to freeze up. They need to be slapped back to reality.
Let the slapping begin.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I like Gavin Newsom. His forceful stand on behalf of equal rights in 2004 remains one of the most courageous things I've ever seen a politician do. This is the guy who earned the wrath of millions of Californians and Americans by introducing us to the radical idea that two men or two women could marry one another and live happily ever after, pissing off even his city's former mayor, and California's most popular political figure, Dianne Feinstein. So why did he act like such a spineless wimp during his debut appearance on The O'Reilly Factor the other night? Bill O'Reilly crudely insulted the City of San Francisco and inaccurately blamed the entire phenomenon of budget deficits solely on liberal policies, and Newsom... pretty much sat there and took it. (The clip is available here.)
What, I wonder, was Mayor Gavin thinking when he let Bill-O claim that California's $20 billion budget shortfall is attributable exclusively to the actions of the Democratic-controlled State Legislature? Watch the clip. When Newsom feebly protests that California has had a Republican governor for the last six years, O'Reilly shuts him down by claiming that Arnold Schwarzenegger "doesn't have any say over what the Legislature does." Never mind that Bill's statement is shockingly false; the Governor submits the annual budget and signs it into law, and has the line-item veto power that allows him to strike out individual spending items he disagrees with. Gavin doesn't correct Bill on this, nor does he point out that, in his first month as Governor, Schwarzenegger blew a permanent $4.2 billion hole in the state budget by overturning Gray Davis's Vehicle License Fee increase. How about the $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks Schwarzenegger signed into law as part of the 2008-09 budgets? Nada from Newsom, yet again.
As for the larger issue, O'Reilly's claim that "liberal governance simply doesn't work," and causes huge deficits, Newsom would have been well within the bounds of logic and reason to point out that, up until 2009, the largest deficits in American history had all been signed into law by conservative Republican presidents - Reagan and both Bushes, to be exact. Those deficits, he might have added, were caused by massive increases in defense spending and large tax cuts skewed overwhelmingly to wealthy taxpayers and corporations - both of which are policies supported by conservatives, not liberals.
Even more shocking was Gavin's meek response to Bill's degrading and purely emotion-based attacks on San Francisco, a lovely city which has twice elected Newsom. In response to O'Reilly's ranting about "panhandlers everywhere," Mayor Gavin correctly points out that the city has over 10,000 fewer homeless people living on the street than it did when he was elected six years ago, thanks to initiatives like Care Not Cash. Still, though, he lets Bill-O continue to rant. Not once does he forcefully interrupt O'Reilly to say, "Look, Bill, you're not backing up these statements with evidence. I'm giving you indisputable facts about what San Francisco has done to improve its homeless problem under my leadership, and you're making wild claims that are not supported by the numbers. I mean, have you even been to San Francisco lately?" With all due respect to Bill O'Reilly (oh wait - there is no respect due to this scumbag, that's right), I have been to the City plenty these past several years, and when I go there now I notice far fewer homeless people than I did when I grew up in the Bay Area.
No, instead Newsom insists on kissing up to O'Reilly, even pathetically pandering at the interview's outset by claiming to watch The O'Reilly Factor "every night." Really, Mr. Mayor? What do you hope to accomplish by acting this way? Bill O'Reilly is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for civil discourse and responsible journalism by shouting down and intimidating his opponents, or sometimes just making up lies out of thin air. (My personal favorite was when he cited economic statistics about a boycott of France from a publication called "The Paris Business Review" - which does not exist. At all. Anywhere.)
If Gavin Newsom hopes to have a real political future in California (and an item in today's San Francisco Chronicle hints that he may jump into this year's race for Lieutenant Governor), I'd advise him to rethink his media strategy a bit. It's not that he needs to shun or disavow the right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox "News" altogether, as some Democrats and liberals do. But he shouldn't suck up to it, either. He's better than that.
What, I wonder, was Mayor Gavin thinking when he let Bill-O claim that California's $20 billion budget shortfall is attributable exclusively to the actions of the Democratic-controlled State Legislature? Watch the clip. When Newsom feebly protests that California has had a Republican governor for the last six years, O'Reilly shuts him down by claiming that Arnold Schwarzenegger "doesn't have any say over what the Legislature does." Never mind that Bill's statement is shockingly false; the Governor submits the annual budget and signs it into law, and has the line-item veto power that allows him to strike out individual spending items he disagrees with. Gavin doesn't correct Bill on this, nor does he point out that, in his first month as Governor, Schwarzenegger blew a permanent $4.2 billion hole in the state budget by overturning Gray Davis's Vehicle License Fee increase. How about the $1.7 billion in corporate tax breaks Schwarzenegger signed into law as part of the 2008-09 budgets? Nada from Newsom, yet again.
As for the larger issue, O'Reilly's claim that "liberal governance simply doesn't work," and causes huge deficits, Newsom would have been well within the bounds of logic and reason to point out that, up until 2009, the largest deficits in American history had all been signed into law by conservative Republican presidents - Reagan and both Bushes, to be exact. Those deficits, he might have added, were caused by massive increases in defense spending and large tax cuts skewed overwhelmingly to wealthy taxpayers and corporations - both of which are policies supported by conservatives, not liberals.
Even more shocking was Gavin's meek response to Bill's degrading and purely emotion-based attacks on San Francisco, a lovely city which has twice elected Newsom. In response to O'Reilly's ranting about "panhandlers everywhere," Mayor Gavin correctly points out that the city has over 10,000 fewer homeless people living on the street than it did when he was elected six years ago, thanks to initiatives like Care Not Cash. Still, though, he lets Bill-O continue to rant. Not once does he forcefully interrupt O'Reilly to say, "Look, Bill, you're not backing up these statements with evidence. I'm giving you indisputable facts about what San Francisco has done to improve its homeless problem under my leadership, and you're making wild claims that are not supported by the numbers. I mean, have you even been to San Francisco lately?" With all due respect to Bill O'Reilly (oh wait - there is no respect due to this scumbag, that's right), I have been to the City plenty these past several years, and when I go there now I notice far fewer homeless people than I did when I grew up in the Bay Area.
No, instead Newsom insists on kissing up to O'Reilly, even pathetically pandering at the interview's outset by claiming to watch The O'Reilly Factor "every night." Really, Mr. Mayor? What do you hope to accomplish by acting this way? Bill O'Reilly is a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for civil discourse and responsible journalism by shouting down and intimidating his opponents, or sometimes just making up lies out of thin air. (My personal favorite was when he cited economic statistics about a boycott of France from a publication called "The Paris Business Review" - which does not exist. At all. Anywhere.)
If Gavin Newsom hopes to have a real political future in California (and an item in today's San Francisco Chronicle hints that he may jump into this year's race for Lieutenant Governor), I'd advise him to rethink his media strategy a bit. It's not that he needs to shun or disavow the right-wing propaganda machine that is Fox "News" altogether, as some Democrats and liberals do. But he shouldn't suck up to it, either. He's better than that.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Sigh.
I had a beautifully written, articulate, gripping post written about how I hoped Congresswoman Jackie Speier wouldn't run for State Attorney General, as she was considering doing... and then she decided not to run. Thus negating my entire post. And depriving you, my readership, of several witty, insightful paragraphs. In a way, I'm even more upset with her now than I was when she was just considering running. (Just kidding!)
Well, what I was going to say (and which Jackie Speier apparently agrees with me on) is that as long as Congress is full of faux-Democrats like Chris Dodd and Melissa Bean threatening to block financial reform, rather than protecting the consumers and middle-class families who have been hurt the most by predatory lenders, credit card companies, and big banks, we need as many real progressives in there as possible sticking up for working Americans. And Speier has a record of doing just that. So good for her.
Well, what I was going to say (and which Jackie Speier apparently agrees with me on) is that as long as Congress is full of faux-Democrats like Chris Dodd and Melissa Bean threatening to block financial reform, rather than protecting the consumers and middle-class families who have been hurt the most by predatory lenders, credit card companies, and big banks, we need as many real progressives in there as possible sticking up for working Americans. And Speier has a record of doing just that. So good for her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)