I like our mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa. We have a very special relationship. I met him only once, but because I was seated with important people he didn't know that I'm not; and so exercising discretion, in at least this part of his life, he grasped my hand firmly in his two strong hands, gazed deeply into my eyes, as if no one else were in the room, and told me how sincerely pleased he was to meet me. Wow! Was he good! Imagine then my sense of bewilderment and betrayal when he never called and never wrote. Sigh. But what a guy. He never sleeps. He is at every banquet, school fair, retirement party and public event in Los Angeles. I'm sure my 8 year-old and 5 year-old grandsons were thrilled by his appearance at their elementary school fair on Saturday. When does he have time to work, to sleep, to think things through?

The great philosophical question before us is this: Are politicians born out of touch with reality and the public or do they become that way? This is variation of the "Nature versus Nurture" debate. What seems indisputable however is that politicians quickly display a degree of separation from our concerns, needs and realities.

We are witnessing our mayor proposing all kinds of increases on fees and fines. It will cost more to park. The fine for the expired meter will naturally also cost more. At the very same time our government is putting us at great economic peril and opening us up to a multi-million dollar fine by not paying the $81 million now due into our pension fund. The cost of this delay will be $15 million in the first year and accrue from there. Smart?

The garbage fees already recently raised will go up again. We recently received notice that a new company was being contracted to do our garbage pick up. Will they be sending three trucks as well? What are the ecological costs of three trucks instead of one doing our pick up? Does the increased pollutants in the air really balance the savings of trashing separation? Is the trash in fact remaining separate or is it being merged at the dump--as some have reported? We deserve to know. The new company will be replacing our black, blue and green trash receptacles. What will this cost? Who will pay? Ah, that we do know already. We will pay.

The libraries will close on Sundays, while other services will also be cut back. Money for police and fire departments will not be cut. However, we should at least ask how much of the increase in police budget will be used to pay for legal costs and civil judgments against the department? Are we paying for more protection or are we paying for a lack of professionalism and effective discipline? As we remember the May Day Melee of last year, we do need to know the true costs of policing and how much of our money goes to the beat cop and how much to cop beatings.

Most egregious and offensive of all the new "revenue enhancement" schemes is the special "congestion pricing" of our present carpool lanes. Since we no longer talk about taxes but revenue enhancements and fees, we are not supposed to notice that more is being extracted from our wallets--often for things we have already paid for.

The carpool lane itself turns out to be a misnomer. Designed to reward the socially acceptable behavior of carpooling, it was co-opted to reward those who could afford to buy a new hybrid. Then, as people actually complied, they started limiting the decals for carpool use by single drivers. Bait. Switch. Deny. Re-Purpose.

Now they are trying to takeover, slowly at first as a test project, the carpool lanes and turn them into revenue enhancers under the guise of "congestion fees."

Now there is no question that there is congestion. Just trying to breath un-conditioned air while driving congests me and creates a hacking cough and high-pitched wheeze. The traffic is also congested. How to handle it? Well, do what they did in London and charge people to enter the city. (Although I think they'd do better to charge people to leave. Many would pay any amount.) This way the rich can drive and the poor can take the train or metro. This way the wealthy will drive in comfort and the poor will waste $4 plus per gallon gasoline idling in the traffic jams. Hmmm. The rich will speed along while we have for the first time in history the "idling poor." This is as nasty a piece of Social-Darwinian social engineering as I have ever seen. You see, in London they have mass transit: trains, metros and several kinds of taxis. In Los Angeles we have, uh, well, not so much rapid transit. We do have freeways however.

Now they are desperately trying to take the free out of freeway. They began by building dedicated toll roads. Now they are trying to confiscate our already existing freeways and hold them hostage for money.

Aside from being elitist and unfairly benefiting the wealthy and punishing the poor, aside from doing nothing to truly solve our congestion problems, this has a still deeper flaw. Look at the gasoline tax you already pay. You and I have already paid for these roads--and we were probably fools for allowing the carpool lane precedent to begin the erosion of our rights.

I know the city and county need money. But we are not idiots. We see the fees and fines and are not happy. They want more money for less service. We can say No. We can ask them if our government really needs the staff and bureaucracy for each Council member and Supervisor? We can demand to know if they can justify being driven in city-owned and county-owned cars? Do the police need one person at a desk (sworn and unsworn) to support one officer in the field? Maybe the answer is Yes. Prove it.

None of these increased fees and fines, cut services and repossessed lanes is for any greater purpose than raising money. They are so much better at raising money than saving it. Maybe if Mayor Villaraigosa would do his own driving and pay for his own gas, he'd come to understand the plight of the growing poor and the shrinking middle class. Maybe. Mr. Mayor, be in touch.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In today's Daily News, we take the side of every Homer against plans in Sacramento to hike the beer tax:

"BEER," Homer Simpson once ruminated, "now there's a temporary solution."

The wisdom of Homer Simpson, it seems, has found its way up to Sacramento. A freshman lawmaker hopes to ease the state's budget crunch by jacking up the state's tax on brew by a stunning 1,400 percent.

Assemblyman Jim Beall, D-San Jose, proposes raising the tax on beer from two cents per can or bottle to 30 cents. As even Homer Simpson can calculate, that would amount to $1.80 a six-pack.

A temporary solution, indeed.

Continue reading "Mr. Homer Simpson Goes to Sacramento" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the mayor of a city that prides itself on its supposed commitment to human rights and its love of free speech, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's attempt to spare the Butchers of Beijing a little embarrassment is downright pathetic.

Thousands of Americans, including FF's own Bridget Johnson, were in San Fran today to protest the passing of the Olympic torch, which was en route to Beijing for the summer games. Internationally, these protests have been the cause of much well-deserved shame and humiliation for China's thugocracy, which had imagined the Olympics would be the regime's global coming-out party.

But the protest was spoiled, thanks to Mayor Newsom, who had city officials lie about the route the torch would take, so that it could follow another, protest-free path.

Which is, to be sure, exactly what the tyrants in China wanted -- a controversy-free photo-op to inflict on their own people and show to the world. Maybe that's why, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, many of the "pro-torch demonstrators" who were there today "carried red Chinese flags and said they were bused in by the Chinese consulate and other pro-China groups."

And now no less than the mayor has given Beijing a hand. Nice job, Gav.

One wonders if Newsom would have extended such courtesies to any other potential SF protests. Do you think if, oh, the pope or the president were passing through down, the mayor would have gladly lied to spare them some bad publicity?

No, I'm not calling Newsom a Communist. But a good many Americans -- politicians in both parties, and most of the corporate world -- have turned a blind eye to the despotic regime's horrendous practices because, quite frankly, there's too much money to be made there. (Thus the International Olympic Committee's bizarre choice of Beijing in the first place.) Companies like Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft, which refuse to block even the most horrific porn in the name of "free speech" here, gladly squelch any sort of political dissidence in Red China. Newsom, who hopes to be governor some day, knows better than anyone what interests he can -- and can't -- afford to offend if he wants to cultivate big-ticket campaign contributors.

But by sparing Beijing some shame, Newsom has earned plenty for himself. Check out this quote from SF Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin:

"Gavin Newsom runs San Francisco the way the premier of China runs his country - secrecy, lies, misinformation, lack of transparency and manipulating the populace. He misled supporters and opponents of the run. People brought their families and their children, and (mayoral officials) hatched a cynical plan to please the Bush State Department and the Chinese government because of the incredible influence of money.

"He did it so China can report they had a great torch run. It's the worst kind of government - government by deceit and misinformation."

Ah, maybe that's why Gavin is being a useful idiot for the Butchers of Beijing -- he admires their governing style.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 5:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I guarantee there is some meat on the chicken."

That was Arnold Schwarzenegger's characteristically colorful response to a question from the Daily News editorial board today about whether the state can dredge up more revenues by closing "loopholes" in the tax code. By "meat on the chicken," Schwarzenegger means cash -- he's sure there's more of it, somewhere, for Sacramento to scoop up.

But doesn't Arnold oppose tax hikes? Hasn't that been his signature position, the one resolute stance that makes him palatable to the state's increasingly irritated Republicans?

Well, it was ...

"I would never begin negotiations by saying this (or that) is is off the table," Schwarzenegger now says, implying that in budget talks with legislative Democrats, new taxes will certainly be considered. Indeed, "There will be so many things on the table it will be like we're in the candy store."

Still, Arnold knows better than to actually say he supports tax hikes. When asked the question directly, Schwarzenegger interrupted and remarked only that he's willing to close those aforementioned "loopholes."

But the meatiest of all the "loopholes," at least according to State Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, is the home-mortgage deduction -- which is anything but a giveaway as far as middle-class homeowners are concerned. Eliminating it would be nothing but a tax hike for millions of Californians. And when pressed, Schwarzenegger specifically declined to say the home-mortgage deduction was off-limits.

Which is to say, tax hikes for everyone will soon be on the table at the Sacramento Candy Shoppe. And Arnold's days as an anti-tax warrior are numbered ...

** UPDATE ** -- 3:55 PM -- Just got off the phone with gubernatorial aide Matt Davidson, who wanted to clarify Schwarzenegger's position: "The governor does not believe the home-mortgage deduction is a loophole, but is open to debating all ideas at the table with leaders to solve the '08-09 budget deficit."

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a meeting with the Daily News editorial board this morning, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made his previously ambiguous position on granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants clear: It's not going to happen. Not under his watch.

Upon taking office nearly five years ago, Schwarzenegger promptly overturned a similar law that Gray Davis had signed into effect. Then -- and when the measure has come up in subsequent years -- Schwarzenegger said he was open to giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but cited technical reasons for why he couldn't do so just yet. Throughout most of that time, he said California couldn't act until the federal government offered some clarifications on the Real ID Act.

Well, that objection vanished back in October, when New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer -- yes, that Gov. Spitzer -- struck a deal with the feds to offer Real ID-compliant licenses to illegal immigrants in the Empire State (not to be confused with the Emperors Club).

We all know how that turned out. New Yorkers revolted, Spitzer got hammered, and he ended up pulling the plug on the proposal. The fiasco devastated his approval ratings, which no doubt was a big part of why he lacked the political capital to withstand his hooker scandal.

No wonder, then, that Arnold -- who has long tried to dodge the issue anyway -- will have nothing to do with it now. When asked whether he would support licenses for illegal immigrants since Real ID is no longer an obstacle, he said, "It doesn't look good."

And why?

"Because the people of California hate it, and I represent the people."

There you have it.

Schwarzenegger also observed that this issue -- along with the budget and the car tax -- led to the undoing of Davis, and he wasn't going to repeat that mistake.

So, like other local politicians who know better than to touch this political hot potato, he called on Washington to clean up its immigration mess, and praised not only John McCain, but also George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama for their commitment to comprehensive immigration reform.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I also ask you to work with me on another environmental first. I propose that California be the first in the world to develop a low carbon fuel standard that leads us away from fossil fuels."

That is, of course, the same governor who takes a private jet, almost daily, to and from Sacramento, burning more fossil fuels that a slew of normal commuters over the course of their lifetimes. So how does Arnold justify imposing tougher green burdens on the rest of us when he does so little to reduce his own massive carbon footprint? This is how he answered that question yesterday:

To me it's very important that I serve the people of California, but also at the same time that I serve my family. And so in order to do both I fly two or three times a week up here to Sacramento and fly back again so I can be at night with my family, can do the homework with the kids, can spend time with my wife and everything, which is extremely important. I promised that to them and I promised to the people of California I would take care of the job. And that's what I do. That's why I fly up to Sacramento and all over the state.

In other words, I've got my own good, personal reasons for releasing enough greenhouse gases to choke Al Gore.

Which, no doubt, is true. But here's the thing -- we all have our reasons.

I have good reasons for driving a big family car (a minivan) -- namely three kids (and a fourth on the way) whose state-mandated car seats wouldn't fit in a Prius. I've also got good reasons for a 90-mile round-trip commute -- namely, it's what I need to do to be able to afford a home where we can feel comfortable raising our children.

That's the point. Other than, oh, the occasional millionaire with a garage full of Hummers (not to single out anyone in particular, mind you), we all have good reasons for doing what we need to do to get around this crazy state. And Arnold's plan for higher fuel-efficiency standards on cars will impose a real hardship on middle-class families struggling to get by and get around. (Private jets, of course, are exempt from the higher fuel-efficiency standards.)

While I'm willing to make some sacrifices if the health of our planet depends on it, there's something infuriating about a governor calling on ordinary people who live on tight budgets to make such sacrifices when he's unwilling to make any himself. Like telecommuting, or saving some of that jet-fuel dough and buying his family a house in Sac'to. (And please don't tell me this "carbon offset" nonsense counts.)

Surely if Arnold thinks that saving the earth requires us to make some tough choices, he can lead by example.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

With the state desperate to scare up new reveneus, various California officials, including the governor, talk about finding ways to milk more money out of the lottery. (Read: Separate foolish people from their wages.) The latest is State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Fresno, who wants to loosen the law so lotto officials can market their product more aggressively.

Nothing unusual there. What's funny, though, is who's risen up in opposition to this plan. No, it's not the anti-gambling puritans but ... California's gaming tribes.

You know, the same tribes who, oh, a month ago, were blasting racetrack owners for opposing an expansion of gambling that just so happened to benefit their interests. The same tribes that spent millions on TV ads telling us that 17,000 new slot machines would be California's fiscal salvation. The same tribes that have claimed gambling has saved their people from poverty.

Well, times have changed. Now Howard Dickstein, who represents several tribes with casinos across the state, says:

"I know there's a lot of desperation at the Capitol, but trying to rely on gambling is not the answer."

Oh, so now they tell us.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lotteries make a lot of hay by promising the easily fooled the world in return for next to nothing. And so, it turns out, does Arnold Schwarzenegger.

For months, the governor has proposed "privatizing" (which would certainly mean massively expanding) the state lottery to pay for health care, balancing the budget, etc. He frequently claims the state could make $37 billion off of this gambit -- an astonishing figure, given that not even the 17,000 new slot machines voters approved under Props. 94-7 are expected to generate that much revenue for the state over 20 years.

In other words, free money -- California makes a bundle by doing nothing. Kind of like playing the lottery. But like the lottery, the promised payout here is wildly inflated, and there are far more losers than winners.

The AP took a look at Wall Street's estimates of the state lottery's worth, and found that Arnold was using the most optimistic -- and unrealistic -- numbers, while ignoring the other estimates:

The governor is employing the rosiest of projections from Lehman Brothers, which pegged the value of California's lottery between $16.1 billion and $37 billion over 40 years.

Other Wall Street investment banks — Bear Stearns, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley — were more conservative. Most estimated the value of a long-term lease at between $7 billion and $29 billion with smaller upfront payments, usually less than $9 billion.

What's more, to make that money, Californians would have to be willing to get their government -- or its contractor proxy -- much deeper into the gambling business:

The Wall Street analysts say the state would have to give a private lottery operator freedom to sell tickets over cell phones and PDAs, in malls, on college campuses, at bus stations and through ATM machines. Ticket sales would have to more than double, to $234 per person.

There's the rub: You want the big bucks, you've got to let Sacramento hire charlattans who will try to fleece every gambling addict, fool, poor person, and college student into parting with his money. And even then, the bucks won't be anywhere near as big as Arnold says they will.

That's a far cry from something for nothing.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I give up. I have to confess to my conservative friends that they were right; I was wrong, and I have seen the light. Government is not the answer. It is the problem and capable of such remarkable stupidity that were I to pitch the following true scenario to Comedy Central, they’d laugh me out of the writers’ room.

We will all agree, left and right, liberal and conservative, that we have a health care problem. All of us local folks know that King Drew Hospital was a disaster with people stacked up in the hallways, lying on the floors and dying in the parking lot. Part of the reason was almost certainly the culture of the hospital, but some of the pain, suffering and death was caused by the amount of traffic. There were just too many people to be served efficiently or even decently.

Many poor people, often without private health care providers or insurance, used the hospital and its ER for everyday health care. This made the problem of triage, of serving the most critical folks in order of need, especially challenging. The hospital was failing.

So what was our local government’s answer to overcrowding and having people waiting for five hours to see a doctor? Well, you know the answer. It was to close the ER. A brilliant strategy. To paraphrase the famous mantra from Field of Dreams, “If you close it, they won’t come.” It follows logically as day the night that if they don’t come, then no lines. Therefore, if no lines, then no one dies in a closed waiting room.

This has been so successful with King Drew that their mortality rate has fallen to, well, zero. Buoyed by their success, the Feds are back into it again. They have just served notice to UCLA Harbor that their wait times are also unacceptably long and are threatening (Yes, you guessed right. Believe it or not!) to pull their accreditation and close them up, just like King Drew.

The logic is impeccable. The answer to overcrowding and long wait times is to close the hospitals. This also cuts down on mal practice and medical error. After all, if you don’t give them any treatment, they won’t get any mal treatment. If you don’t see them, they won’t be misdiagnosed. If they are not mistreated or misdiagnosed they won’t sue. We are saving lives and money all at the same time. We could end our medical care crisis in a minute if we just eliminated doctors and hospitals and didn’t see sick people.

Who comes up with this cruel, stupidly conceived and ill-considered absurdity? The answer, I fear, is government both local and federal. Not willing to leave bad enough alone, yesterday our local geniuses issued a plan to close our public health clinics. They hope that by closing publically run clinics they can get the non-profit private medical providers to step in. They believe the private sector will be happy to do it cheaper. They can hope. The private sector is already not thrilled with how Medicare, Medical and other government agencies pay. I’m sure they’ll be eager to assume a larger part.

However, what is certain is that by closing the clinics they will drive more poor and underserved to the ERs for ordinary health care. This will increase the wait times to see doctors, increase the financial losses of the ERs, drive more of the private providers out and increase the number of poor who die in waiting rooms, on floors and in parking lots. It’s brilliant. It is our government at work.

My problem in swearing off government being the answer is that if public agencies can’t help and the private sector won’t, I guess the poor will just have to go somewhere out of sight and die.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

One of the more insidious tactics of the Clinton presidential campaign has been to get surrogates to say outrageous things about Barack Obama -- that way, the noxious ideas can make it into circulation, but Hillary bears no direct responsibility for them. Remember when Jean Shaheen brought up the specter of Obama's past drug use, or any of Bill Clinton's nasty-grams from a few weeks ago?

Now comes the latest cheap shot by way of Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, a longtime and prominent Clinton backer. His comment: Obama can't win because he's black.

Oh, Rendell has the good sense not to word things quite that bluntly. According to the governor, the problem isn't that Obama's black, but that, well, so many Americans are white. Closet racists, most every one of them. "You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate," Rendell told the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

See, most white folks, especially the "conservative" ones, aren't enlightened like Rendell; they'd never elect a black man. Which is why, if you follow the logic, Democrats need to elect Hillary -- because a black Democratic candidate would produce a Republican president.

Nice, huh? We get to discredit Obama on the basis of his race, while impugning white voters at the same time.

Rendell's not the first to come up with this theory. I've had multiple white Democratic friends tell me the same thing. They like Obama -- really, they do -- but they can't vote for him because so many other white people are racists.

And who knows, they could be right. But so far, the only people I've met who say they wouldn't vote for Obama on the account of his race are white liberals who claim that they could vote for a black man, but won't, because so many other whites can't.

I don't for a moment think these white liberals are racist, but unwittingly, they're perpetuating racism if -- even for what may seem like noble reasons -- they vote against Obama because of his race.

And for all their concerns about rampant American bigotry, they may be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Obama loses because white liberals who thought he couldn't win refuse to vote for him, they will later on, no doubt, point to his defeat as proof that the country is too racist to elect a black man. When in reality, the only whites who weren't ready to elect a black man were the very liberals who claim to be the most racially tolerant.

Rendell is, predictably, already backpedaling from his comments, and if the usual pattern holds up, the Clinton campaign will never even acknowledge them. But that's OK, they've served their purpose: Putting the thought into the heads of many a Democratic voter that casting a ballot for a black man would be a huge mistake.

Here's a crazy idea: What if people just voted for the candidate they liked the most, regardless of race or political calculation? After all, from the looks of things, that's what most people are already doing -- Hillary Clinton be damned.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Winner: Steve Poizner, the Republican insurance commissioner who spent $2.5 million of his own dough successfully fighting Proposition 93, the dishonest term-limits initiative designed to keep Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata in office for a few more years.

By leading the fight against 93, Poizner has made himself the (gazillionaire) David who slew the Goliath of special interests aligned to support the measure. It wasn't easy. Early polls, aided by deceptive ballot language (thanks a bunch, Jerry Brown) had Prop. 93 way ahead. In October, 49 percent of those asked said they would Prop. 93, while just 31 percent said they were opposed.

Poizner had everything going against him: All the special interests, the governor and top legislative leaders, and a misleading ballot. Yet he still managed to defeat Prop. 93 -- and give a strong boost to his own political future at the same time.

And that takes us to the biggest loser of the day -- Nunez, the architect and principal beneficiary of the measure. Nunez used every tool at his disposal, even shaking down his own underlings in the Assembly for contributions. But neither all that money nor a slew of sleazy ads could do the trick for him.

Now, termed out of the office he worked so hard to keep, Nunez has no choice but to -- shudder! -- go find gainful employment.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I’m with Mariel in having a certain semi-detached bemusement about the Republicans (Belicheck like (sorry Chris) ) stealing the Democrats signals and forming the traditional circular firing squad. Listening to Rush diss McCain as a liberal is pretty funny. Having him smear in a truly homophobic slur Sen. Lindsey Graham is even more ridiculous.

Now great sport that he is, Romney is qvetching that McCain played a dirty trick by throwing his support to Huckabee in the West Virginia caucus. No hardball for Romney—might muss his hair.

McCain will probably carry the day based on character. I do understand why movement conservatives find him flawed; he is not a great team player and doesn’t follow party line. He does have an independent streak. It’s called integrity, and it can indeed be annoying.

On the other hand, it is really hard for me to fathom why the conservatives trust in Romney. His political philosophy is such a moving target that it is hard to hold him in ones sights long enough either to approve or disapprove. He has governed as liberal, run for Senate as a super liberal, moved to the right of Rudy as a born again conservative and now seems to be moderating.

He might make a wonderful president. It’s really hard to know. He doe not make a credible candidate. So, how smart are the hard line conservatives for believing in him and trusting him to be more constant than McCain? In my view, not very.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

How difficult can it be to register people to vote and design ballots that don’t confuse people of normal intelligence? Harder, apparently, than one would think.

There are at least two pressing problems facing many voters today in California (not counting any perceived deficiencies among the candidates themselves). It seems that voters who thought that by registering as Independents they would in fact be considered as independents were wrong. Many actually ended up in the American Independent Party—a small but airly far right party invented to promote the candidacy of the late segregationist Governor George Wallace. Many folks are finding out today that they are not independent at all but affiliated with a party that does not represent their views at all—or represents them even more imperfectly than either the Republicans or Democrats.

As Rumsfeld remarked “democracy is messy.” This is how I had Buchanon voting relatives in Florida in 2000. Many of these people who actually needed to check the box, Decline to State in order to be considered as Independents. So they ended up not being able to get a Democratic ballot and therefore could not vote for either Clinton or Obama.

But, as they say on TV, that’s not all. Even those who managed to check Decline to State when they registered and got the proper mauve ballot had to then check an extra box in order for their presidential vote to count. If they failed to select Democrat, their vote will be annulled. Why, they might have wondered, if I’m an independent do I have to check Democrat? Good question. It has now been reported that many of these Decline to State people were given actual Democratic ballots by mistake. Their votes will be counted. Go know.

Of course, all of this will be litigated and will, by the time it is resolved, be moot. What a mess.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The headline shouts that in a "shocking poll" Obama has caught, passed and now leads Hillary in California by 13%. This is bad journalism and crazy bad analysis. It is also what we will be seeing and hearing all day and into the night from every news organization.

The number will not hold up because however much Obama may be surging, the early voters missed the trendlines and tides. According to some other questionable numbers, over 60% of expected Republican voters have already voted. Over 40% of Dems have already voted. If you believe this (which I don't completely) the current polls are nonsense.

Set your crap detectors on high and look at all reports in light of what the media are trying to do, not manipulate the outcome, but grab eyes and attention.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Really, I think you only need two -- Fabian Nunez and Don Perata. But the good folks over at the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights actually came up with a full list of 93. Some highlights:

3. Termed out politicians created an extra third election in 2008, wasting $80-$90 million, so they can run for office again ...
7. Perata is under investigation by the FBI...
28. Speaker spent $2,562 in campaign funds at Louis Vuitton, in Paris
29. And used campaign money to buy $5,149 worth of French wine
30. Then "sold" wine to Democratic Party to cover it up ...
32. Speaker Núñez has given total direct donations of $1.09 million to Yes on 93 campaign

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jonathan positively nails it when he writes, "Willing suspension of disbelief seems to be necessary in politics." It sure does. Yet what's amazing is how much we -- meaning all of us voters -- are willing to suspend our disbelief. We all back our candidates, well aware of the shallowness of their platforms and their naked pandering, but accept it. OUR guy or girl, we reason, is different from the rest. Really.

This morning I exchanged e-mails with a friend who is a longtime, passionate John McCain backer. As much she hated to admit it, she couldn't help but concede that McCain has blatantly and repeatedly distorted Mitt Romney's position on Iraq. This was hard for her to accept, because it didn't square with the image of McCain she had embraced -- Mr. Straight-talker, the super-honorable patriot who plays fair and by the rules. McCain, in her book, was always the victim of dirty tricks, never the perpetrator.

Except there he was, lying about Romney's position on Iraq. And also claiming -- absurdly -- that if president, he wouldn't sign into law the very immigration bill he authored just a few months earlier. So much for straight talk.

But I don't mean to single out McCain. I've written about my own disappointment with my own candidate, Mike Huckabee, when I realized that, yes, he was a politician, too. We've seen countless Democrats and liberals in recent days (including Jonathan and Rob) say they were shocked to see the Clintons play mean-spirited hardball with Barack Obama. (Trust me, conservatives and Republicans weren't the least bit surprised.) Likewise, plenty of conservatives have been astonished to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity viciously beating up on their preferred candidates -- liberals would tell you they could have seen it coming for miles.

You see, we drink the Kool-Aid not just about politicians, but about pundits, institutions, causes -- anything that we deem to be on "our side" and thus incapable of malfeasance or shallowness.

But there's no cause so good as not to attract bad people to it. Politicians are human, and flawed, just like the rest of us. And sadly, in our hyper-competitive political system, no one seems to make it to the upper echelons of presidential campaigning without making some serious concessions along the way. We have to spit out the Kool-Aid, own up to all the candidates' deficiencies, and then decide whose we can most live with.

There is no perfect candidate. And beware of the pundit who tells you there is.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Poor John McCain, After winning Florida, and picking up Rudy Giuliani's endorsement, everything seemed to be going his way. But now, a serious setback -- Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing him (rimshot).

All kidding aside, I do wonder if the Arnold endorsement isn't what it used to be. With Schwarzenegger ringing up a Gray Davis-sized deficit, his aura has certainly taken a hit. This is gimme material for the attack dogs in the Romney campaign. Heck, I'll do their job for them ...

Chris channels his inner-campaign consultant. Behold the TV spot:

TWINS

Two big spenders.
One agenda.

John McCain says Arnold Schwarzenegger has been "a fantastic governor." But what's so fantastic about a $14 billion deficit? About shutting down state parks? About releasing 20,000 felons from prison early?

And Schwarzenegger says that McCain would be a great choice for president. Of course, Arnold also thinks Fabian Nunez and Don Perata are great choices for California' s legislature -- that's why he just endorsed Prop. 93, which is designed to keep these ethically-challenged lifetime politicians in power even longer.

If California's budget and Prop. 93 tell us anything about Schwarzenegger's judgment, California Republicans might want to be skeptical of his latest endorsement.

Maybe Arnold's just jealous of Romney -- after all Mitt was able to pass health-care reform ...

Oooh, what a rush! Campaign snark is so easy, so fun! For the record, although I'm a Huckabee guy, I'm sympathetic to McCain in what increasingly appears to becoming a two-man Romney-McCain race. So the above press release shouldn't be seen as a reflection of my actual preference in Tuesday's vote. I just wanted to show how easily the Arnold endorsement could be turned against McCain -- and I couldn't resist the chance to play campaign spinmeister for a few minutes.

Now if I only I could get paid like one ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A confident Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama shrugged off the buzz that he’d crash and burn with Latino voters, “Not in Illinois, they all voted for me.” But not so fast; there was this retort from a reader, yeah, but you ran against Alan Keyes. Keyes, being the luckless and hapless Eleventh hour Republican political sacrificial lamb who Obama annihilated in his smash victory for the U.S. Senate in 2004. But this time around, Obama faces a far bigger opponent than Keyes could ever hope to be, or even for that matter archrival Hillary Clinton. It’s the ‘Nevada Phenomenon’. It poses a far bigger danger to Obama’s White House drive than even the much debated ‘Bradley Effect’.

The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angeles. mayor Tom Bradley who lost his bid for California governor to a white opponent in 1986, though Bradley had big leads in polls. Many white voters told pollsters and interviewers that they had no problem voting for an African-American, but once in the privacy of the voting booth voted for his white opponent.

The ‘Nevada Phenomenon’ by contrast has nothing to do with the supposed penchant for white voters to deceive pollsters and interviewers on race. In the South Carolina primary white voters went in reverse. The polls had Obama winning only ten percent of the white vote but in his smash win he more than double that percent. The ‘Nevada Phenomenon’ instead is the mix of wariness, fear, indifference and even hostility of the majority of Latino voters toward a black candidate.

It is more troublesome and intractable than potential white voter resistance to Obama. Even though in South Carolina and other Deep South primary states Obama lags behind Clinton among white voters, he’s still likely to get a respectable percent of white votes. That’s not true with Latino voters. Obama’s poll popularity with Latinos hasn’t budged very much despite his heightened name identification, media boost, energizing change pitch and personal charisma.. And if the history of black candidates, even popular well known and victorious candidates that ran for office and bombed with Latino voters is any indication, Obama won’t do much better than they did.

The Super Tuesday primaries on February 5 will be a big test for him with Latino voters. Their numbers have soared in the key primary states of New Jersey, New York, Florida and his home state, Illinois. So much so that the black vote, even assuming that he will grab a far bigger share of that vote than Clinton, and split the white vote, will not insure an Obama victory. The Latino vote looms as the X factor for him. Unlike the subtle, much harder to finger ‘Bradley Effect’, the ‘Nevada Phenomenon’ is an open challenge to any black candidate that needs Latino votes to win. Obama is now the black candidate that faces that challenge, and danger.

Posted by Earl Ofari Hutchinson at 6:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Another bad idea bites the dust, as California drops its plans to control the temperatures in our homes via remote control. Guess that means Sacramento's "if it's yellow let it mellow" monitor is going to have be shelved for a while, too ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My favorite thing about the Michigan primary, as reported by CNN:

Romney had 39 percent of the vote compared with Arizona Sen. John McCain's 30 percent. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had 16 percent of the vote, followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul with 6 percent. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson had 4 percent, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani trailed with 3 percent.

That's right, Rudy Giuliani came in sixth place -- behind not just the Big 3 of Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, but behind even Fred Thompson. Funnier still, Rudy came in behind Ron Paul -- for the second time!

Yes, I know, Giuliani is counting on a few big states to bail him out, and maybe they will. But at least from the vantage of this big state, things are looking bleak for "America's Mayor." The latest California poll shows Rudy in third place with just 14 percent -- and that's down from 25 percent in October and 35 percent in August.

Remember when everyone believed the GOP had to nominate Rudy because "he can win"? Me neither.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, we knew the earlier presidential primary would elevate California's importance in this year's elections, and now we're seeing the fruits. The California Nurses Association has been running this radio spot, ostensibly aimed at the Schwarzenegger-Nunez health plan, that just so happens to feature ... Barack Obama.

That's clever. The ad serves two purposes at the same time -- opposing the health-care reform and boosting the Illinois senator's presidential bid, yet the former purpose inoculates it from federal campaign-finance regulations. This way, the union can effectively make unlimited contributions to the Obama campaign. Smart.

Meanwhile, Obama has received the endorsement of State Sen. "One Bill" Gil Cedillo. Which is curious, seeing that Cedillo's singular concern is getting driver's licenses for illegal immigrants -- a policy Obama (says he) opposes. You'd think Cedillo would have backed Hillary, who supports the licenses, at least when she doesn't oppose them.

All the while, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is flitting around the state and the nation campaigning for Hillary. I guess the Clinton campaign figures between Hillary's appeal to put-upon women and Antonio's appeal to cheating men, they've got all their bases covered.

That's politics -- and we're about to get a massive dose of it.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Today we set in motion events that will require far more difficult and painful decisions starting just five months from now in what is likely to be a much worse economy. I am afraid that with this vote, for the second time in a decade, this state is being driven to another Gray Davis-sized fiscal crisis that this vote makes inevitable for exactly the same reasons: Lack of restraint in good times combined with a lack of discipline in bad times."

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In today's Daily News, Geri Jenkins of the California Nurses Association takes a page from John Edwards, and uses the death of Nataline Sarkisyan to make the case for socialized medicine:

Every politician who thinks the solution to our health-care crisis is to mandate everyone purchase insurance products should stop and think about Nataline Sarkisyan. Her family was "covered" and "insured." And it didn't matter. They were denied care in the interest of Cigna profits. They deserved health care but got Cigna-care.

The California Senate, which will consider the Schwarzenegger-Nuñez bill later this month, has a variety of serious issues to consider, including the uncertain funding for the bill at a time when the state is facing a $14 billion deficit and the administration is already talking about cuts in current health programs.

Still it's important to know there is an alternative bill, one that has already passed the Senate, and will be considered in the Assembly in the coming months: Senate Bill 840, authored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles. It's similar to the system that exists in every other industrialized country and looks a lot like what we have with Medicare, only expanded and improved and covering everyone.

Under SB 840, doctors - not insurance companies - decide what medical treatment patients need. The profit motive to delay or deny is eliminated.

Isn't that the health-care system Nataline deserved and that all Californians should have?

Well, maybe, but it's not the health-care system SB 840 would deliver. Jenkins operates under the myth of the free lunch -- the erroneous belief that when a "single payer" (read every taxpayer in the state) is paying for health care, health care becomes unlimited, and every patient gets whatever treatment his or her doctor recommends.

But real-life socialized medicine doesn't work that way. Instead of insurance companies deciding who gets what care, government boards do it. (Indeed, when devising her national health plan, Hillary Clinton convened a whole panel of philosophers to discuss how best to ration medical treatment.) And in the place of the profit motive, we get the politics motive, the ideology motive, the special-interest motive, the inept bureaucracy motive, and the who-has-the-best-connections motive.

One can argue, I suppose, that this is an improvement over what we have now, but let's not pretend that scarcity, tough choices, and harsh denials would cease to exist under the socialized model. Far from it. In "every other industrialized country," there are also guidelines as to which treatments get covered, and which ones get denied, regardless of what the physician recommends. There are also often major shortages and long waits for basic medical treatment.

Horrific and tragic though the Nataline Sarkisyan story is, there's no guarantee that under a socialized system her liver transplant would have been approved. And even if it were, she likely wouldn't have survived the long wait for a surgeon.

When it comes to health care, there are no easy answers -- and there are always trade-offs.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh, how I love these ads for the No on Prop. 93 campaign -- not just because they smack down this bogus initiative, but because they also smack down its self-serving architects -- Fabian Nunez and Don Perata -- at the same time. And I love that no one can seem to say Nunez's name without uttering the phrase "Louis Vuitton."

These spots are a work of beauty, I tell you. The best few million Steve Poizner ever spent ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

California's politicians love sin taxes, and why not? They're a convenient way to raise money by imposing the cost on a small group of unpopular people -- like smokers or drunks. That's why the politicos are always looking for new ways to raise "sin" taxes or create new ones, such as surcharges on gas-guzzling cars, or sugary sodas, or bullets. But if we really want to sin-tax our way to fiscal solvency, here's a novel idea: Why don't we impose a sin tax on ... sin?

You laugh, but they're doing it in Texas. Effective January 1 -- unless opponents can get the courts to intervene -- Austin is going to start collecting a $5 per-customer tax on nudie bars.

Think about how much money this plan could make here, in the smut capital of the world. Not only do we have scores of nudie bars, but this is also the home of the pornography industry, what with Larry Flynt Publications, the major porn studios, and innumerable smaller operations. What if the state put a $5 tax on every nudie-bar patron, a $1 surcharge on every DVD, a quarter on every magazine? Plus add in a 10 percent income-tax surcharge for all virtual "adult" businesses, like web pornographers and phone-sex operators.

Continue reading "A Skin-Tax Sin Tax?" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On the off chance there was any doubt, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proved that living large on someone else's dime is a truly bipartisan affair. As we observe in today's Daily News editorial, this puts Arnold in the same class as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez; only Arnold's practices appear to be even more ethically questionable:

For his part, Nunez simply dips into campaign funds to enjoy the best in dining, accommodations and shopping. It may be a little unseemly, but at least in his case, we know who's paying the bills.

With Schwarzenegger, things aren't so clear.

The Governor's Office depends on a secretive nonprofit - the California State Protocol Foundation, which operates under the auspices of the California Chamber of Commerce - to foot the bill for foreign travel, including Learjets and luxury hotels. But even though the foundation has given the governor and his staff what amounts to $1.6million in travel-related gifts, we don't exactly who has given what.

That's because the administration claims these aren't gifts to Schwarzenegger per se, but to his "office." And as such, they don't need to be listed on the conflict-of-interest reports that journalists routinely scrutinize.

This might be an indication as to why Arnold has been such a bust as a reformer. It's hard to "blow up boxes" after you've come to realize how comfortable they are.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Reading a variety of recent OpEds, letters and editorials in various publications, including the DN, it has become clear that campaign financing is an issue that lurks just under the surface of the 2008 elections.

I think it is a matter that should be easily resolved.

The reason campaign donations are so important is that it they are defacto votes. More money = more ads = more votes, in a crude calculus.

Which is to say, everyone who donates votes. Every PAC. Every corporation. Every party. Everyone from out of state. They all dictate who gets elected in your jurisdictions.

So, I say: ban them. Do away with most donations.

It's a remarkably simple concept, if you think about it. Just ban most donations. Why should a farmer from Kansas or Fortune 500 CEO effect who runs for congress in my district?

Candidates should be limited to accepting donations from United States Citizens who reside in their district. Period. We can make a reasonable limit on the size of donations - say, $2500. That's more than most folks (certainly I) could afford. But it is small enough overall that candidates will still appreciate every $20 from every old lady who takes the time to write a check.

Corporations and unions and special interests could still have their input. But, they would be limited to endorsing candidates and advising their members, customers and share holders for whom to vote and donate. No more dispensing $10,000 to both presidential candidates. No more presenting one face to the public but spreading largesse in another.

The endorsement of the NRA or ACLU would probably become even more valuable. But the money would no longer come from dues or PAC contributions. It would eminate from voters' belief in the candidate.

A shift to this system would require battling back all kinds of special interests. They will line up to preserve their monopoly on politicians' attention. The political campaign industry, with highly paid, high gloss consultants will also run around screaming. They will argue that "it takes $2 million to run for the State Assembly, there's no way you can raise that in small increments."

Yes, that's right. Well, half right. There's no way to raise that kind of money in small increments, but it doesn't take $ 2 million to run for the Assembly.

When the free flow of money dries up, politicians will be forced toi campaign within their means.

This would be excellent practice for them before they head to City Hall, Sacramento or DC. Spend only what you got, and be careful about squeezing for more.

The legendary Jess Unruh coined the axiom that "money is the mothers' milk of politics."

It's time that candidates were reminded just who momma is.

Posted by Robert C.J. Parry at 5:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We in the U.S. are always wary about potential invasions of privacy. The Patriot Act, despite getting the vote of nearly every politician in Washington, is universally decried by nearly every politician in (or out of) Washington. Civil-liberties groups fret over the possibility of the NSA tapping into phone calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists overseas. We can't go a week without some hand-wringing news story about how our employers are monitoring our e-mail, or how Google's super-computers are keeping track of our surfing habits. Some folks don't even like using club cards at the local grocery store -- you never know what Ralphs could do with that information.

So I'm wondering why here, in this ever-progressive bastion of civil-liberties vigilance, no one seems to sweat about an annual, incredibly invasive bit of government information-gathering.

I've just completed Metro's annual "Commuter Transportation Survey Form" -- under duress from my employer, which is legally required to get these things from 90 percent of all its workers. The form forces me to chart where I begin each day, when and where I go to work, and how. It wants to know my work schedule, my vacation and sick time, if I carpool or telecommute.

Why this is any bureaucrat's business is beyond me. And while this may all seem innocuous, certainly such information could be abused if it fell into the wrong hands. Personally, I find much more troubling the thought of someone keeping records of when and for how long I leave my home than the possibility that the FBI might want to know what books I took out of the library.

Yet in a state where some won't even consent to putting gender on an ID card, this little bit of government intrusion into our private lives is treated as some civic duty. Somewhere out there our government maintains a stalker/burglar's dream database, but hey, that's OK, because somehow all this will encourage carpooling.

Who knew that Big Brother also came in shades of green?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It surprises no one, except for California's political leaders in Sacramento, that the state now faces a $10 billion deficit. This was entirely predictable only four months ago, when the legislature and governor signed off on an optimistic budget that assumed tax revenues would remain as high as ever -- even though the housing market was already plainly in decline.

For all his boasting about "blowing up boxes." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the uber-reformer, is looking ever more like the man he replaced -- Gray Davis. As we decribe in today's Daily News editorial, it's Grayja-vu: Arnold and Davis II:

In hindsight, it's only fitting that Arnold Schwarzenegger swept into office by recalling Gray Davis. Because the way things are going these days, we find ourselves recalling Davis all the time.

Davis, you might, er, recall, was given the boot for allowing California to run up a massive budget deficit. Under his watch, Sacramento locked itself into outrageous spending patterns based on the assumption that the dot-com boom would last forever.

It didn't, Gray got dumped, and along came Arnold, who has proved to be little more than a Davis sequel.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Tuesday, I broke down why California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's plan to fund universal health care made for bad policy, but good politics. But now I'm wondering if I need to rethink my position: It's probably bad politics, too.

The reason for my second thoughts is the drubbing that another cigarette tax-hiking measure took this week. Measure 50 would have bumped the cigarette tax in Oregon (a state every bit as "blue" as California) up to just over $2 -- the amount Nunez is recommending for California. The measure failed, 60 percent to 40 percent.

That's because voters were able to see through the policy shortcomings of this approach, thanks to a big-bucks "no" campaign funded by the tobacco industry. And if big tobacco mobilized in Oregon, you can be sure it would mobilize here, too. Just last year, the industry spent $58 million in California defeating Proposition 86, the proposed $2.60-per-pack tax that would have funded emergency-room operations.

So to add to my list of reasons Nunez's plan is flawed, add this big one: It probably wouldn't pass.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Don't mean to join Mariel in a Steve Poizner lovefest, but it's hard not to be impressed with the battle our plucky insurance commissioner has gladly take on for himself.

A few weeks back, there was some speculation that Poizner -- who hopes to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in 2011 -- was looking for a campaign issue to create some buzz and excitement about himself. Back then, the thought was that he would try to increase access to auto insurance -- a bad idea, because it would have inevitably touched upon the third rail of immigration.

But in the meantime Poizner has come up with a far better cause. Rather than craft a popular ballot proposition that will excite voters, he's decided to fight an unpopular one that will enrage them.

Poizner has agreed to head up the campaign to stop Proposition 93 -- the anti-term limits initiative that state legislators crafted in a desperate attempt to remain in power. And not only will he be the "no" campaign's spokesman, he'll also put in an initial $1.5 million of his own money -- and perhaps more as the campaign winds on -- to defeat Fabian Nunez and Don Perata's job-protection scheme.

This is huge. Although Proposition 93 is the sort of politician-friendly legislation that usually offends voters, Sacramento has carefully labored to disguise its true purpose. Dishonest ballot language makes the measure look like it would strengthen term limits, when in it would really undermine them. If that sounds familiar, it's because Los Angeles' elected leaders pulled the same trick last year when they duped voters into approving Measure R.

Like Measure R, Proposition 93 was not only crafted to deceive, but it's also backed by a big-money campaign funded by every special interest imaginable. Nunez and Perata must have figured this would be easy. All they had to do was sow confusion through an expensive ad campaign -- expecting to face a nominal, penniless opposition -- and, voila, they would get to keep their offices for a few more years.

Now their victory is far from assured. If Poizner pours enough money into the "no" campaign, he'll be able to expose Proposition 93 for what it is. And the more the public knows about this measure, the more it's likely to oppose it.

Already, the failure of the legislature to accomplish much of anything this year has soured voters to 93 -- as has news about Nunez's lavish lifestyle, shady political relationships, and sketchy "charitable" endeavors. According to the latest Field Poll, support for Proposition 93 has dropped 10 points since August, falling below the majority necessary to win approval.

Give Poizner credit: He's shrewd, choosing just the right issue at just the right time, with high prospects for victory. He's also gutsy. By taking on Proposition 93, he makes himself persona non grata among all his peers in Sacramento. (Schwarzenegger, by contrast, has diplomatically yet to offer any position on the initiative.)

But isn't that what being a populist is all about -- standing strong against a self-serving establishment in support of the people? Here's what Poizner has to say about the pro-93 camp: "Instead of focusing on the issues Californians care about, like education, health care, jobs and the economy, these politicians are more concerned with protecting their political backsides."

Take that, Fabian and Don! Steve Poizner is about to become a California populist hero -- at the expense of your political careers.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

He might be from that other valley up in the Bay Area, but Insurance Commissioner is acting the Valley boy. He clearly sees a way to make a name for himself -- by opposing nearly all the pols in Sacramento. According to this Sacramento Bee story, Poizner is going to lead the opposition to the February term limit initiative using some of his own personal fortune.

California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner announced Tuesday that he will lead the opposition to the term limits measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, including spending an initial $1.5 million of his own money.

Poizner, a Republican who spent millions of his own money to win election as insurance commissioner in 2006, made the announcement across the street from the Capitol.

Poizner's cash infusion and opposition to the term limits measure, known as Proposition 93, comes on the same day that the No on 93 campaign reported a $1.5 million contribution from U.S. Term Limits, a Virginia-based national term limits advocacy group.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hard-pressed to raise the billions it would take to finance a statewide universal health benefit, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez has retreated to that liberal favorite -- the cigarette tax. Legislative Democrats' newest health plan would raise taxes on smokes to $2 a pack. This is good politics, bad policy.

It's good politics because smokers make up a small, disliked minority for whom no one feels much sympathy. Oh sure, there are plenty of other groups engaged in risky behavior that carries a public health cost -- fatties, the sexually promiscuous, motorcyclists, football players, pornographers and speeders, to name just a few -- but too many of us fall into at least one of these categories. The politicians would have a hard time raising taxes on most other dangerous activities because the opposition would be too large and too fierce.

Smokers, on the other hand, make for an an easy target. There aren't many of them any more, and besides, they're a state-designated pariah -- one of a few groups of people we can still judge with impunity in this, our tolerant and non-judgmental society.

Besides, if we make cigarettes too expensive, people will quit smoking, right?

Well, perhaps, but you can rest assured that's not what Nunez has in mind. After all, if too many Californians quit smoking, there would be no cigarette-tax revenues to fund universal health care. That's why whenever government contemplates a hike in tobacco taxes, officials always choose exactly the amount that will produce the highest revenues -- not the most quitters.

Long-term, what happens when the state enacts an expensive entitlement that requires sizable portions of the population to engage in unhealthy behavior to pay for it? Will Sacramento want to rein in its anti-smoking education efforts? More likely, when there are no longer enough smokers around to pay the bills (they have a tendency to die off), the state will be desperate to come up with the funds elsewhere. And that will be a challenge, to say the least, given that Sacramento already struggles to balance its books. (Indeed, check out this sound clip, in which Nunez laments about how bad the state's budget situation is.)

What's funny is that throughout the legislature's health-care wrangling, the Democratic leadership has opposed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan because it ostensibly imposes too great a burden on the "poor" (broadly defined). But it's the poor who make up a disproportionate portion of smokers, and thus the poor who would carry a disproportionate share of the burden under Nunez's plan. (The poor would also have a much harder time shelling out an extra $2 a pack than, say, Nunez and his high-living pals.)

But somebody has to pay for free health care, darnit, and taxing smokers has always worked before.

So keep on smoking. And if you don't smoke, start. Your health depends on it.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Got another defensive press release from California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's office today, this one from a tax expert purporting to show that Nunez's money-laundering racket charitable efforts are on the up and up:

"Clearly, Speaker Nunez is involved in community charity events, as are virtually all political figures at the local, state or national level. The real question is whether the events truly benefited the children and the community. If the facts bear that out, then the IRS is unlikely to have a concern."

--Marcus S. Owens
Caplin & Drysdale
Washington, DC

Translation: "If Nunez's efforts were legal, then he didn't break the law!"

Sounds pretty equivocal to me ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apropos of, oh, nothing in particular, the office of California's own Public Official of the Year, Fabian Nunez, has released the following statement:

"As a community leader, I partner with dozens of charities in my district to enrich the lives of those in need. The only ones benefiting from these charitable contributions are the kids in my district."

So there you have it. That's why operations such as Zenith Insurance Co., AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc., the California Hospital Assn. (which also indirectly pays the salary of Nunez's wife) , the state prison guards union, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Blue Cross of California have all given money to events with names like "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Toy Drive," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Soccerfest 2006," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Inaugural Legislative Youth Conference" and "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Sacramento Student Summit."

Whatever you say, boss!

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Apparently when he's not busy calling guests down on "The Price Is Right," Drew Carey moonlights for the libertarian Reason Foundation, for which he has produced the following video in support of "medical" marijuana. (Local nerds take note: The video includes appearances from Sheriff Lee Baca's own personal flak, Steve Whitmore!)

What's funny about this video is that, once again, seriously ill people are trotted out in what is really just an effort to legalize pot wholesale. (The Reason libertarians would be happy to legalize all drugs for everyone, but of course the video makes no mention of that.) We are just shown sick, suffering people, and are told that these are the beneficiaries of "medicinal" marijuana.

But then we are taken into a marijuana bar, where we see the stuff doled on in a manner that's decidedly non-medicinal, with pot goodies and with the herb sold under brand names like "Friday Night Special." But really, this is just for sick people. It's medicine, we swear.

I write this, by the way, as someone who supports legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, and maybe even recreational ones, too. But I'm disgusted with how disingenuously this debate has played out, with the dopers using cancer patients as Trojan horses.

The dopers duped California, and it worked -- they got de-facto legalization. But in so doing, they squandered whatever credibility they ever once had.

(* "Let's Make a Dope Deal" is a classic Cheech & Chong bit. Listen to it here.)

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This will come as no surprise to avid readers of Governing Magazine -- both of them -- but the wonky periodical has named California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez a public official of the year. It praises him for his deal-making, his pragmatism, and his all-around swell ways.

Of course, the magazine makes no mention of Nunez's penchant for living the high life on the special interests' dime, or the conflict of interest that is his wife's employment with a front group for the California Hospitals Association. Chances are, the editors put this one to bed well before these scandals broke -- that, or they think personal enrichment is just part of "governing" at its best.

One wonders whom the folks at Governing will choose to honor next. Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Teenagers of California now have the perfect excuse to give next time they're busted for smoking pot: "It's not a drug -- it's just a leaf! The governor says so!"

Then, they can point to this story on Fox News:

Arnold Schwarzenegger told the British edition of GQ magazine that he had not taken drugs. The former bodybuilder and Hollywood star has acknowledged using marijuana in the 1970s and was shown smoking a joint in the 1977 documentary "Pumping Iron."

"That is not a drug. It's a leaf," Schwarzenegger told GQ.

"My drug was pumping iron, trust me," he added.

So does that mean Arnold wants to legalize marijuana ... or ban weight-lifting?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As you know, the state Legislature is currently in special session, the purpose of which is for lawmakers to do the lawmaking they failed to do when they were in regular session. For this, they are paid handsome per diems, because doing the people's work is expensive.

Now you might think the purpose of this special session is to solve our water crisis and improve access to health care. If so, you are wrong. By all indications, little progress is being made on those two fronts. But great progress is being made in the area of giving pay raises to state bureaucrats.

That's right, the Assembly has used this special session to grant a 6 percent pay raise to all its staff. Plus, the politicians have magnanimously agreed to pick up a higher share of these employees' pension costs because, well hey, they're a generous bunch.

The session may be special, but what's going on is more of the same.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Or, killing the traffic to save it.

I don't really have anything to say about the 405-101 improvements other than, finally. But I find these ubiquitous snapshots of assorted politicians and politically adjacent playas in L.A. mugging for posterity somehow amusing. That's Gov. Arnold with MAV and Chamber o' Commerce Chairman David Fleming -- standing in the middle of Camarillo Street in Sherman Oaks to talk about improving traffic. I wonder how long traffic on the overpass was stopped so that all the pretty pols could have their self-congratulatory moment.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Sacramento Bee has this entertaining expose about what many of your tax dollars are buying in Sacramento -- namely, countless edits to Wikipedia.

The Bee reports that state Department of Justice "computers were used to alter Wikipedia entries about submarines, battleships and vintage airplanes roughly 1,100 times." The Bee calculates that "If the anonymous aviation buff spent 10 minutes on average per edit, that's more than four 40-hour weeks over three years." Another state worker "edited encyclopedia entries about pornography stars," complete with "profane accounts of their sexual skills."

Then, of course, there are the political aides who have tried to make their bosses' entries look better on the online encyclopedia:

Someone from the state Legislature thought it was a good idea to remove a reference to state Sen. Leland Yee's 1992 booking in Hawaii on suspicion of shoplifting.

Another of the Legislature's computer users prettied up a section on Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, citing his penchant for creating budgets that are "lean but not mean" and deleting a summary of his conflicts with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I'm not sure if this does more to diminish my confidence in Wikipedia or in California state government -- although both are pretty low.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's not easy living like Fabian Nunez. The high-priced travel, the deluxe accommodations, the five-star dining. It takes copious campaign contributions. And it also apparently takes a wife who's paid a six-figure salary from a key special-interest group. As The Sacramento Bee reports:

Shortly after Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez became a point man in the fight to expand health care for the uninsured, his wife accepted a lucrative job with close ties to hospitals that have a massive financial stake in such reform.

Maria Robles was hired as president of the nonprofit Californians for Patient Care in January, one month after Núñez introduced a bill declaring his intent to provide "affordable, quality health care coverage" to all Californians....

The group is not legally required to report its donors, and Robles declined to do so voluntarily. But by all accounts, the Sacramento nonprofit agency has close ties to the California Hospital Association.

C. Duane Dauner, president of the association ... said he doesn't know precisely what percentage of Californians for Patient Care's funding has come from his group.

"But we've given a substantial amount of it," said Dauner, whose association represents 450 hospitals and health systems.

The California Nurses Association, in a bulletin for members, characterized Californians for Patient Care two years ago as a "hospital industry front group."

Of course the California Hospital Association would be funneling money to Robles even if she weren't the speaker's wife, right? No conflict of interest here.

Now get out of the way. Mr. Man of the People has some shopping to do at Louis Vuitton in Paris ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Under one of the myriad bills Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law last week, it is now illegal in the state of California for teens to go to suntan salons without their parents' consent. Because, you know, kids can't be trusted with such pressing questions such as "HT60, HT54, or HT42?"

Of course, it is still legal in California for minors to obtain an abortion without so much as notifying their parents, let alone getting parental consent. Go figure.

Meanwhile, new research suggests that abortion parental-involvement laws reduce instances of sexually transmitted diseases among teens. Californians might want to take note, seeing that one in five of our young people has an STD.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Congratulations to Gov. Schwarzenegger for signing a bill today banning the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California State Teachers' Retirement System from investing in companies that do business in Iran. Hopefully Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's performance at Columbia University would have shown everyone how mad the regime in the Islamic Republic is, but the pension funds still opposed the bill. Too bad, because somewhere you've got to draw a line in the sand and take a stand for what's humane and right. And Arnold did that. Yay to Arnold!

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

... and California Attorney General Jerry Brown is all over it. Got this press release in my inbox:

News & Alerts

California Attorney General Brown To Make Statement Concerning Search Warrants Executed Today in Connection With The Death of Anna Nicole Smith

News Advisory For Planning Purposes
October 12, 2007

07-067
For Immediate Release
(916) 324-5500

What: California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will provide information about search warrants executed today by the California Department of Justice in connection with the death of Anna Nicole Smith.

Who: California Attorney General Brown and California Department of Justice officials.

When: Friday October 12, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. Pacific. Please allow 15 minutes to clear building security.

Where: Ronald Reagan State Building 5th Floor Press Conference Room. 300 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230.

Not sure what the California angle on this could be, seeing that Smith died in Florida. But nothing creates a stire like the words "Anna Nicole Smith." What self-respecting politician wouldn't call a press conference?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Generally, I'm of the opinion that there are plenty of anti-smoking laws on the books, and we hardly need any more. But I'll make an exception in the case of SB 7, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law yesterday.

This new law bars parents from smoking in their cars if a child is present, and that seems only reasonable. Unlike, say, bans on smoking at beaches or parks -- which do little to nothing to improve public health -- this is a law that could make a difference. A car is a small, enclosed place, and when it fills up with smoke, the children inside have no choice but to inhale. If it were up to me, the law might have included an exception in cases where the car's windows are open, but either way, it serves an important and worthy purpose.

The law's author, State Sen. Jenny Oropeza, made a good case for her bill in a Daily News op-ed last week. Her piece included these particularly noble sentiments:

"It only makes sense that a greater level of protection should be given to our most vulnerable and defenseless -- California's children."

"(T)he safety of a child must come first. In the same mind-set as government-required seat belts or mandating child safety seats, sometimes it is necessary for laws to protect the defenseless."

Those are beautiful words, Senator. But for the life of me, I can't see how you square them with your 100 percent approval rating from Planned Parenthood.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It took 52 days for the California legislature to approve a budget, and now it's taken just shy of that -- 50 days by my reckoning -- for said budget to fall flat. The Sacramento Bee reports:

Based on major tax receipts collected in the first two months of the new fiscal year, California could face a $8.6 billion operating deficit or more in 2008-09 if the state's economy and soft housing market continue at the current pace. That would be 40 percent higher than the $6.1 billion gap officials anticipated in August.

"It's fair to say the revenue situation is not going to be as good as we had hoped," Finance Director Mike Genest said in a recent interview. "It's likely the $6.1 billion (projected operating deficit) will be higher."

The key word here is "hoped." This was a budget based on hoped-for, but unrealistic, expecations in light of a cooling economy and the housing-market bust.

The budget -- all $145 billion of it -- reflects the continued boom in spending since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger booted Gray Davis and his piddly $100 billion budget four years ago. It also now seems to reflect a return to Davis-era deficits.

But at least Schwarzenegger hasn't increased taxes -- yet.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Over the years, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has earned itself a reputation as the legal bastion of San Francisco looniness, and its latest decision will do nothing to change that.

On Tuesday, the court decided that Alberto Quintero-Salazar -- a Mexican national and legal resident of the U.S. -- could not be deported on the basis of a sex crime he committed in 1998, namely illegal intercourse between an adult over 21 and a youth under 16. According to the court, adults taking sexual advantage of minors (so long as they have the "consent" that minors are legally unable to provide) does not constitute the "vile, base or depraved" conduct that can subject legal U.S. residents to deportation.

From the San Francisco Chronicle's report:

The appeals court said a legal resident can be deported for committing a crime of "moral turpitude," defined as a vile, base or depraved offense that violates society's moral standards. That definition doesn't fit the charge against Quintero, the court said.

Really? This comes as quite as a surprise. Because when a slew of Catholic priests were found to have committed essentially the same crime -- "consensual" sex with teenagers -- society seemed quite appropriately outraged. Indeed, the sexual abuse of minors was, I thought, about as clear an example of "moral turpitude" as there could be, an obvious violation of society's moral standards -- except, it seems, in San Francisco.

More from the Chronicle:

The state law he admitted violating prohibits sexual conduct that "may be unwise and socially unacceptable to many, but it is not inherently base, vile or depraved," Judge Sidney Thomas said in the majority opinion. He noted that some conduct banned by the law would be legal if the adult and minor were married, and would also be legal in states where the age of consent to intercourse is younger than 16.

Oh yes, the "but it wouldn't be illegal if it were legal!" defense. I believe the technical term for this is "asinine tautology."

And finally, there's this nugget:

He also said the purpose of the law was not to enforce society's moral code but to reduce teenage pregnancies.

So much for the idea that the purpose of the law is to protect minors, to spare them from risks both emotional and physical for which they are unprepared. But apparently that's not much of a concern among the Ninth Circuit, which is busy enforcing a moral code of its own.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We all know California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, likes to live large. But it turns out he doesn't much like to talk about it. Watch at about 1:09 into the video below to see how his goons treat reporters who ask about his lavish ways.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez wants to keep it real, he likes to talk it up with some of the regular working stiffs. Usually, it goes something like this:

"Hey, shoe-shine boy -- you missed a spot!" (rim shot)

That gratuitous joke at Nunez's expense was inspired by this story, about how Mr. Man of the People likes to live high on the hog -- using campaign funds, of course -- when he's traveling the world to do the business of his Los Angeles constituents:

As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Nunez, has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to fine hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers.

It is not clear how these activities have related to legislative business, as state law requires, because the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures.

The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two "office expenses" two years apart at Louis Vuitton in Paris; and $1,795 for a "meeting" at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.

Nunez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.

Other expenses are closer to home. These include a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro ...

Now, if there are wealthy people out there willing to pay for Nunez's lavish tastes, and if this is how Nunez chooses to spend their money, I don't begrudge them. Hey, it's their money, and while ethically questionable, it's all surely legal.

But I do take umbrage when limousine liberals like Nunez act as though they -- because they're all in favor of taking other people's money to spend on programs that rarely work -- are somehow the authentic voice of the working man. And, of course, those of us who disagree -- even if our lifestyles are rather modest compared to theirs -- are presumed to be greedy for thinking we can spend our income more wisely than the government can.

Go ahead, Fabian, enjoy the fancy trips to Europe; you've "earned" them. Just spare us the class-warfare shtick, OK?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I saw this photo of SF Mayor Gavin Newsom visually caressing the chichis on this woman on Wonkette.com today, I just knew we had to have it for FriendlyFire's latest Caption this post. So here it is. Give it your best shot.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Gov. Arnold went to the United Nations this mornings and talked about how he "feels great affection for the peoples of the world." Plus , how California is shaming the feds by speeding along with greeness while they are still trying to figure out whether you can recycle colored paper. But of course, he did it in Arnold-style, with his folksy Austrian-accented way and getting in a mention to his entertainment days.

Mr. Secretary, Mr. President distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I have come to feel great affection for the peoples of the world because they have always been so welcoming to me-whether as a bodybuilder, a movie star or a private citizen.

Hee-hee. He said peoples.

Posted by Mariel Garza at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Being the good bastion of nanny-state progressivism that it is, the city of Santa Cruz has banned smoking in public parks. But, being the good bastion of dope-smoking hipness that it is also, Santa Cruz supports medical marijuana. This creates a problem on Sat., Sept. 29, when the city hosts a medical-pot festival in San Lorenzo Park. How can you have a medi-pot fest if no one can light up?

Not a problem. The Santa Cruz City Council has voted to rescind the no-smoking-in-parks ban for the day! Hey, what's a little second-hand smoke as long as it's good stuff?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)