Archive for January 2010
Here’s one reason the New York Times’ decision to move to a paid model for its Web site is a loss for political junkies: you won’t get to see fun reads like this one, an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The interview is actually a column by Maureen Dowd, but it’s as much Arnold riffing on the current state of politics as it is Mo Dowd doing some actual insightful writing.
Dowd’s hook: what does Arnold think, now that Uncle Ted’s Senate seat has been lost to the tea-baggers?
As always, the Governator doesn’t disappoint.
He says President Obama erred by letting Congress drive the healthcare debate.
Democrats, meanwhile, are “in a major panic mode” and “going in the dead bed”.
He compares Obama’s last-minute campaign visit to Massachusetts to the Dems’ efforts to defeat the 2003 recall by trotting out Bill Clinton and other Democratic big-hitters.
No personal shots — like a comment on the President’s skinny legs — but the stogie-puffing guv doesn’t hide his deep dislike of Obamacare in a screen of smoke.
And Arnold saves the best for last, for the hometown audience.
When asked if he’d be upset if a Democrat replaced him next January, he replies: “I think the best person should win, whatever party that it.” Good news for Jerry Brown. Gotta irritate Meg Whitman.
And so goes the Governator’s dance of the seven veils: will he formally endorse a would-be successor . . . in doing so, will he cross party lines?
One angle that Ms. Dowd didn’t play up, and I thought she should have: Obama, in 2010, is little different from Schwarzenegger in 2005 (the bloom is off the rose, the loyal opposition is energized, the bug guy’s core competency is being questioned); California, in 2010, is where America end up in 2016 (dealing with the disappointment of a supposedly transformative leader who didn’t live up to the media hype).
That was my take, last year, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed discussing how Schwarzenegger didn’t alter the political landscape (now, what seems the same fate for Barack Obama).
It just wouldn’t be a new week of California politics without a little buzz over a possible Dianne Feinstein run for governor.
Nothing terribly exciting here, just a quick weekend post on PoliticsDaily.com pointing out that Senator DiFi actually has weaker numbers than the only Democrat in the race, Attorney General Jerry Brown, when hypothetically matched up against the Republican contenders for governor.
Ok, not all that weaker — but a minor surprise nonetheless given that Feinstein is generally considered to be the only candidate who could jump into the race, at this late point, and possible deny Brown the party’s nomination.
And that’s the key word: late. As in, getting very late in the game to get into the race and beat Jerry to the finish line.
Feinstein 43%, Meg Whitman 42%
Feinstein 43%, Steve Poizner 39%
Brown 43%, Whitman 39%
Brown 45%, Poizner 35%
If you’re in California, and would rather stay indoors than go outside and dodge the raindrops, here’s a more complete look at the polls numbers, courtesy of Rasmussen Reports.
Check out the January-September comparison to see which, if any, of the candidates are on an upward slope.
Here’s a video Team Campbell sent to supporters earlier this morning.
It’s pretty clear that Campbell, a former House member from the San Jose area twice rated the most frugal man in Congress by the National Taxpayers’ Union Foundation, wants to make “spendthrift” the buzzword in this contest. Or so he told his fan base:
“I initially made the decision to run for Governor because I believe that my level of record of public service (especially on the state budget), and my willingness to present specific, pragmatic solutions to our most pressing problems would enable me to help chart a better course for our state.”
“Every day brings more evidence of the need for fiscal restraint in Washington, and the huge danger to our country from printing money. Truly, in my lifetime, I have never seen the growth of federal government spending more out of control. The consequences will be both inflation in the very near future, affecting us all, but retirees especially, and a tremendous burden on the next generation that will have to pay back what has been borrowed. The federal deficit has more than tripled in a single year. That’s suicidal for our country.”
And, finally, this dig at Dame Barbara.
“You won’t have to wonder what I’ll be like when I get to Congress. I’ve been in Congress. So has Senator Boxer. One of us spent money your kids haven’t earned yet. One of us did not.”
We won’t know the true effect of Campbell’s shift until we see some actual poll numbers. In the meantime, I’d like a suggest a few winners and losers.
Winner: Carly Fiorina’s Fundraisers. With a second perceived Silicon Valley moderate in the race (Fiorina doesn’t care for the label, but the media continue to affix it to her), the former HP CEO will need serious money in a hurry to mount the kind of media campaign that will gain her separation from her two more cash-strapped opponents. What better news for fundraisers, who get a cut of the $$ they bring into a campaign?
Loser: Tom Campbell’s Sterling Reputation. To know Tom Campbell is to appreciate one of the true honest gentlemen in politics. He always says what he means, and means what he says. While respecting Campbell’s desire to serve California, there’s something about the switch that’s just a little . . . well, political. If excessive government spending is what ails us, why not run instead for State Controller, where Campbell could have brough real fiscal change to Sacramento?
Winner: Steve Poizner’s Strategy. Going negative against an opponent is a risky proposition when there’s a third candidate in the race. Voters turned off by negative back-and-forths between two rivals can easily opt for the one non-mudslinger. It’s what got Gray Davis through the Democratic gubernatorial primary in 1998. Without Campbell lurking around as a potential beneficiary in a Republican pie-fight, the choice should be easier for Team Poizner to begin the attack on GOP frontrunner Meg Whitman.
Loser: Smug Pundits. Any genius can predict the winner in a two-person race. It’s called flipping a coin. A three-candidate race is a different animal. Do Campbell and Fiorina split centrist votes? Or does Campbell cut into Chuck DeVore’s base of tea-bagging anti-stimulus conservatives and libertarians? Let’s wait until we have some poll numbers to crunch — tat, and how the candidates interact at their debates.
Barbara Boxer. Duh. She’s sitting on a $6 million war chest and, theoretically at least, won’t have to spend a dime of it trying to take on her GOP rivals (as Gray Davis did in 2002, targeting Richard Riordan) if they’re caught up in an intramural squabble. It’s the Napoloeonic theory of primaries: don’t engage on the other side if the other side is in the process of destroying itself. Boxer is the Flying Dutchman of California politics — a Washington-based ghost ship that returns to California every six years. Yet, somehow, it’s always a course to victory.
Loser: Fixing California’s Budget. It’s easy to imagine a Governor Campbell going to the mattresses to bring some common-sense reform to how the state spends its money — even it cost him a second term on office. That likely won’t happen now.
From this morning’s San Bernardino Sun, an interesting claim that legalizing undocumented immigrants would be a boost to California’s economy.
The claim isn’t the Sun’s actually, but the work of USC’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, which figures that the Golden State eventually could reap up to $16 billion if an estimated 12 million illegal aliens were brought into the mainstream (Social Security and Medicare contributions, plus higher income figured into the calculation).
Here’s a link to the report.
The argument isn’t a familiar one, but the timing is worth noting.
1) On the national level, the White House is making noise about an immigration reform push once the dust settles from the Obamacare debate.
Yes, Governor Schwarzenegger also is talking about illegal immigration — and wouldn’t it be a clever move if Arnold sided with the Obama Administration and put some pressure on the Republicans in Congress . . . provided the feds send a multibillion-dollar reimbursement check to Sacramento.
The odds of that happening: slim to none.
2) Back in California, it’s another example of green being the new “black” — that is, politicians and policymakers using promises of enhanced revenue as a means of breathing new life into a controversial ideas.
1) Marijuana legalization, approved yesterday by a State Assembly Committee in a 4-3 vote, no longer is merely a discussion about the leafy green as a harmless vice or a gateway to more lethal drugs.
The new spin: slap on a $50 tax for each ounce sold to adults, and California stands to gain $1.3 billion.
You can expect more such talk as the bill makes its way through the Legislature, and a ballot measure comes up for consideration.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, promotes the idea of new oil leases in California waters as a gateway to $16 billion — or, as DeVore says, “enough to fill more than three-quarters” of the state’s current budget deficit.
Schwarzenegger also talks oil cash. His spin: use the $$ to keep state parks open.
Last year, the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute predicted a $700 million boost to California’s wedding industry and $65 million for the state’s coffers from the new wave of ceremonies in the summer of 2008.
There’s nothing wrong with selling that or other ideas on their economic merits. But it does remind me of the old adage about the definition of a cynic: someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
As far as British journalism is concerned, there’s much to admire about the Telegraph UK newsgroup. Personally, I have a link to its obituary page on my list of favorites — beautifully written biographies and, for a military history buff like myself, lots of wonderful stories about Britain’s WWII generation.
Less admirable is the paper’s decision to take another run at ranking America’s top-100 liberals and conservatives.
The Telegraph did the same before the 2008 presidential election. Let’s just say, now as then, the view from across the “pond” could benefit from a little lens-cleaning.
For example, back in October 2007 Rudy Giuliani was the number-one conservative; Rush Limbaugh ranked fifth, one spot behind Newt Gingrich. On the left, the top dog was Bill Clinton — he of the triangulating presidency (NAFTA, welfare reform, defense of marriage). Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s controversial campaign guru, ranked third — two ahead of Barack Obama.
The Telegraph just published nos. 81-100 on both sides. Let the second-guessing begin. Jesse Jackson is a mere 97th. I’d argue he has far more clout than no. 84: disgraced former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer (sure, Spitzer may mount a comeback, but an unhappy Jackson could cause Obama headaches in 2012).
On the right, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, hardly a paragon of conservatism, weighs in at no. 93. His challenger for Florida’s hotly contested GOP Senate primary — state lawmaker Marco Rubio — is no. 81. Still other “conservatives” — no. 98 Mike Murphy and no. 85 Bill O’Reilly — probably would rather be known as libertarians.
I think the no. 1 choices on both sides are pretty obvious: Obama and Limbaugh. Care to guess the two top-fives?
If you’re more interested in the how’s than the why’s of California tax reform — specifically, how altering the state’s tax codes can reduce California’s federal tax burden — then I suggest you check out this opinion piece by economists Andrew Chang and Justin Adams.
1) The concept is simple: If the state collects taxes in corporate or personal income tax, Californians can deduct it from their federal taxes; if the state collects taxes in the form of sales tax, individuals cannot deduct it from their federal taxes. By subsuming the amount currently collected in state sales tax into either a state income or corporate tax, the state would increase its tax withholdings to Washington.
Not too shabby.
Shameless self-promotion alert!!!
I have an op-ed in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, suggesting some “creative” ways for California to raise some badly needed revenue.
. . . stage a phony war with the U.S. lose, then score some foreign aid . . .
. . . invest in a few Jim Cameron films, and so on.
It’s all in jest. Who said we can’t find a little humor amidst this grim fiscal outlook?