You would think that Californians had learned their lesson by now.
Remember Darrell Issa? Issa, who ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, but lost his party's nomination to Matt Fong, the California Treasurer. In that race, Issa spent $12 million of his own money and, after losing, went on to get elected to the House in 2000. Issa actually stands to become the head of the House Government Operations Committee if Republicans take control of the Congress in he next election.
Issa, you may recall, gave Californians Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor. Issa contributed $1.6 million toward the recall of Gray Davis and presumed he would be his party's nominee to replace Davis. Then, following the recall of Davis, the party tapped Issa on the shoulder and said, "Your work is done." Schwarzenegger became governor. And California, like the rest of the country, sank into even worse economic shape than when Davis was in office.
Now, California Republicans want you to refocus. The man who had no governmental experience whatsoever, yet who went on to become the chief executive, was really a highly successful movie actor with little aptitude for the job. That may not have been the best idea. What California needs now is a businessman. Or businesswoman. Enter Meg Whitman.
Beyond being another figure in a business success story who now believes that power is her next entitlement and governing is the next challenging hobby, Whitman, like Schwarzenegger, has no government experience. That is problematic for two reasons. One is that California is a remarkably diverse state. Its near hemispheric political divide between its northern and southern constituencies makes politics in the state capitol very complicated. In these economic times, to send another candidate to Sacramento who simply mouths that "Government needs to be run like a business" would be disastrous.
The second issue is Whitman's opponent. In my opinion, Jerry Brown is one of the most visionary and dedicated public servants I have ever encountered during my life time. Smart, tough, experienced, committed, Brown wasn't making a fortune for himself these past four decades. He was serving the people of California. The attack ad that Whitman shows of Bill Clinton laying into Brown is unfair, inaccurate and repugnant. Primary races can be bloodier than the general election and Brown versus Clinton exemplifies that. But Clinton is guilty of a bit of hyperbole when he states that Brown spent down California's surplus while in office. The most casual examination of the record shows that, in classic California fashion, a loss of property tax revenues forced Brown to spend a good deal of the state's surplus, but not all of it. Californians, with their preposterous property tax laws, never seem to recognize that a loss of revenue to the counties and/or cities usually spells undue pressure on the state to find that money elsewhere. Even Schwarzenegger, the fitness role model, was reduced to selling state park land to make up for huge gaps in his budget. Clinton in full attack mode is a sight to behold, but not one Californians should base this race on.
In their websites and in their official statements, both Whitman and Brown say the usual things about jobs, taxes and education. But it is in the area of jobs from clean energy technologies and in pension reform that Brown holds the clearest edge. California has, through necessity, been a leader in environmental policy-making. Spend any time in California and see how many hybrid cars are on the road. How many wind turbines are in operation. How much photo-voltaic equipment is already in place. Brown knows that this is just the beginning. Where Whitman and other business types believe that markets themselves will lead us where we need to go, Brown knows that government must lead. The push to bring as much of the American power grid into the renewable market must come from government. The money we spent on Iraq alone might well have begun to solve this problem once and for all.
Whitman the businesswoman lacks the political skill to bring the pension issue into the 21st century. Unions and pensioners must be brought to the table for talks that recognize them as entitled on one hand yet partners with taxpayers on the other. Brown will do that. And he must before the pension problem in California crushes the government into insolvency.
All governments need to be run in a more business-like manner and now more than ever. But government should never literally be run like a business. Business is about cold numbers, strict adherence to bottom lines and the ascent of those with the greatest skills and advantages. Governing requires a humanism that we find largely absent in the business world of today. It calls for skills that the business world often overlooks or shuns. Governing requires the ability not to follow spreadsheets and marketing advice but to weigh all of the relevant information and decide what is best for all of California in both the long and short term.
There is no one better for that job than Jerry Brown.
------
A post script regarding the New York governor's race. Voter dissatisfaction is real and valid. But Palladino versus Cuomo is a nearly impossible distortion of that reality. The difference between Carl Palladino and Andrew Cuomo, in terms of effectiveness, talent and experience, is the between a water pistol and a fire hose. A pea shooter and a cannon. When Eliot Spitzer was elected, a great man became governor. That man faltered and was replaced by an interim governor who has struggled. Now, New Yorkers can return another brilliant, hard-working public servant to the governor's office by electing Andrew Cuomo.
Wonk Room is covering the Clinton Global Initiative. This is a cross-post by Brad Johnson.
President Bill Clinton believes the “number one thing” to restore the American economy is clean, efficient energy. In a blogger roundtable at the beginning of his Clinton Global Initiative in New York City, Clinton told us his “favorite ideas” for making the green economy a political and economic reality:
One: Federal loan guarantees for building energy efficiency retrofits
Two: Renewable energy initiatives in economically depressed cities
Three: Green jobs programs for poor Americans
Clinton, relaxed and slim, held court with a dazzling mastery of policy details, wit, and storytelling.
Citing a Center for American Progress report on the promise of energy efficiency, Clinton described his desire for the federal government to kickstart private financing of energy retrofits, much as the Clinton Foundation had done for the Empire State Building:
The Center for American Progress says we can get half the way home to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 by efficiency alone. Unemployment in construction is 25 percent. We can’t go out and build new houses. And there are very few office buildings that need to be built. So what I think we should do is to have a lot more Empire State Buildings. We should retrofit every public school, every college and university building every hospital, every auditorium in this country, and every office building unencumbered by debt.
Clinton believes the reason that this investment hasn’t already happened is that “spooked” banks don’t want to make loans that could collapse. His solution is to establish a federal loan guarantee program, which he believes could create one million jobs with only $15 billion in federal investment:
Give them a federal guarantee like the SBA guarantee, and you only have to set aside $1 for every $10 you loan. Still very conservative, because we know the historic failure rate is one percent, not ten percent. It might not cost the taxpayers anything.
Here’s the multiple: every billion-dollar investment in retrofits gives you 7000 jobs. Homes 8000. Wind energy 3300 if you build and assemble the windmills where you put them up. Solar 1900, coal 870, nuclear a little over 900. This is not close. If you want to put America back to work, give a loan guarantee, get banks start making loans.
Set aside $15 billion for guarantees, you get $150 billion in bank lending, you get a million jobs.
His other policy ideas are about making the clean energy economy real for the American people, rich and poor:
My second candidate: pick places that are both distressed and full of potential for energy independence. My number one candidate is Nevada, where the sun shine and the wind blows. And you’ve got all those real expensive hotels there with roofs that could be filled with solar panels. And you have all the hills around that could be filled with windmills.
I would say take a few places like that and go straight out and make them energy independent and document how many jobs have been created, and then everybody will want to do that.
My third candidate is prove it works for poor people. One of our best commitments is designed to provide after school jobs and summer jobs for poor kids in Harlem, upper Manhattan Washington heights by paying them to go in and retrofit a lot of these old buildings, whitewashing the black roofs.
If you did those three things so that every day you were proving over and over again to all the naysayers that it was good economics to build a clean energy future, you can build a consensus necessary to do what has to be done. You could beat the special interest groups.
He admitted that the key problem with this vision is that it requires a change from how the energy sector traditionally makes money:
If you make a deal for a nuclear power plant or a coal-fired power plant and you knowingly deprive all these jobs increase greenhouse gas emissions or you increase other risk or you increase huge costs — with nuclear, it’s always more expensive — the only real reason they do it is because they’ve always done it that way, and it is so much simpler. If you’re running the utility, there’s one contractor that’s going to build that plant, there’s one supplier of the fuel, and then you go to one PUC and they give you permission to make the ratepayers pay for it at a profit. It’s simple because it’s centralized.
The new energy economy is more decentralized, but it’s less expensive, more job intensive, and parenthetically will save the planet.
“That’s what I think we have to do,” Clinton concluded. “You’ve got to prove this is good economics. And it is! The number one thing we could do for America is change the way we produce and consume energy.”
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail! – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM I predicted this morning that No Pressure - Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign - would prove a disastrous own goal for the ...
ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat
Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...
Denver Broncos <b>News</b> - Horse Tracks - 10/02/10 - Mile High Report
Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee .... Horse Tracks!
bench craft company rip off
bench craft company rip off
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail! – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM I predicted this morning that No Pressure - Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign - would prove a disastrous own goal for the ...
ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat
Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...
Denver Broncos <b>News</b> - Horse Tracks - 10/02/10 - Mile High Report
Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee .... Horse Tracks!
bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off
You would think that Californians had learned their lesson by now.
Remember Darrell Issa? Issa, who ran against Barbara Boxer in 1998, but lost his party's nomination to Matt Fong, the California Treasurer. In that race, Issa spent $12 million of his own money and, after losing, went on to get elected to the House in 2000. Issa actually stands to become the head of the House Government Operations Committee if Republicans take control of the Congress in he next election.
Issa, you may recall, gave Californians Arnold Schwarzenegger as their governor. Issa contributed $1.6 million toward the recall of Gray Davis and presumed he would be his party's nominee to replace Davis. Then, following the recall of Davis, the party tapped Issa on the shoulder and said, "Your work is done." Schwarzenegger became governor. And California, like the rest of the country, sank into even worse economic shape than when Davis was in office.
Now, California Republicans want you to refocus. The man who had no governmental experience whatsoever, yet who went on to become the chief executive, was really a highly successful movie actor with little aptitude for the job. That may not have been the best idea. What California needs now is a businessman. Or businesswoman. Enter Meg Whitman.
Beyond being another figure in a business success story who now believes that power is her next entitlement and governing is the next challenging hobby, Whitman, like Schwarzenegger, has no government experience. That is problematic for two reasons. One is that California is a remarkably diverse state. Its near hemispheric political divide between its northern and southern constituencies makes politics in the state capitol very complicated. In these economic times, to send another candidate to Sacramento who simply mouths that "Government needs to be run like a business" would be disastrous.
The second issue is Whitman's opponent. In my opinion, Jerry Brown is one of the most visionary and dedicated public servants I have ever encountered during my life time. Smart, tough, experienced, committed, Brown wasn't making a fortune for himself these past four decades. He was serving the people of California. The attack ad that Whitman shows of Bill Clinton laying into Brown is unfair, inaccurate and repugnant. Primary races can be bloodier than the general election and Brown versus Clinton exemplifies that. But Clinton is guilty of a bit of hyperbole when he states that Brown spent down California's surplus while in office. The most casual examination of the record shows that, in classic California fashion, a loss of property tax revenues forced Brown to spend a good deal of the state's surplus, but not all of it. Californians, with their preposterous property tax laws, never seem to recognize that a loss of revenue to the counties and/or cities usually spells undue pressure on the state to find that money elsewhere. Even Schwarzenegger, the fitness role model, was reduced to selling state park land to make up for huge gaps in his budget. Clinton in full attack mode is a sight to behold, but not one Californians should base this race on.
In their websites and in their official statements, both Whitman and Brown say the usual things about jobs, taxes and education. But it is in the area of jobs from clean energy technologies and in pension reform that Brown holds the clearest edge. California has, through necessity, been a leader in environmental policy-making. Spend any time in California and see how many hybrid cars are on the road. How many wind turbines are in operation. How much photo-voltaic equipment is already in place. Brown knows that this is just the beginning. Where Whitman and other business types believe that markets themselves will lead us where we need to go, Brown knows that government must lead. The push to bring as much of the American power grid into the renewable market must come from government. The money we spent on Iraq alone might well have begun to solve this problem once and for all.
Whitman the businesswoman lacks the political skill to bring the pension issue into the 21st century. Unions and pensioners must be brought to the table for talks that recognize them as entitled on one hand yet partners with taxpayers on the other. Brown will do that. And he must before the pension problem in California crushes the government into insolvency.
All governments need to be run in a more business-like manner and now more than ever. But government should never literally be run like a business. Business is about cold numbers, strict adherence to bottom lines and the ascent of those with the greatest skills and advantages. Governing requires a humanism that we find largely absent in the business world of today. It calls for skills that the business world often overlooks or shuns. Governing requires the ability not to follow spreadsheets and marketing advice but to weigh all of the relevant information and decide what is best for all of California in both the long and short term.
There is no one better for that job than Jerry Brown.
------
A post script regarding the New York governor's race. Voter dissatisfaction is real and valid. But Palladino versus Cuomo is a nearly impossible distortion of that reality. The difference between Carl Palladino and Andrew Cuomo, in terms of effectiveness, talent and experience, is the between a water pistol and a fire hose. A pea shooter and a cannon. When Eliot Spitzer was elected, a great man became governor. That man faltered and was replaced by an interim governor who has struggled. Now, New Yorkers can return another brilliant, hard-working public servant to the governor's office by electing Andrew Cuomo.
Wonk Room is covering the Clinton Global Initiative. This is a cross-post by Brad Johnson.
President Bill Clinton believes the “number one thing” to restore the American economy is clean, efficient energy. In a blogger roundtable at the beginning of his Clinton Global Initiative in New York City, Clinton told us his “favorite ideas” for making the green economy a political and economic reality:
One: Federal loan guarantees for building energy efficiency retrofits
Two: Renewable energy initiatives in economically depressed cities
Three: Green jobs programs for poor Americans
Clinton, relaxed and slim, held court with a dazzling mastery of policy details, wit, and storytelling.
Citing a Center for American Progress report on the promise of energy efficiency, Clinton described his desire for the federal government to kickstart private financing of energy retrofits, much as the Clinton Foundation had done for the Empire State Building:
The Center for American Progress says we can get half the way home to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 by efficiency alone. Unemployment in construction is 25 percent. We can’t go out and build new houses. And there are very few office buildings that need to be built. So what I think we should do is to have a lot more Empire State Buildings. We should retrofit every public school, every college and university building every hospital, every auditorium in this country, and every office building unencumbered by debt.
Clinton believes the reason that this investment hasn’t already happened is that “spooked” banks don’t want to make loans that could collapse. His solution is to establish a federal loan guarantee program, which he believes could create one million jobs with only $15 billion in federal investment:
Give them a federal guarantee like the SBA guarantee, and you only have to set aside $1 for every $10 you loan. Still very conservative, because we know the historic failure rate is one percent, not ten percent. It might not cost the taxpayers anything.
Here’s the multiple: every billion-dollar investment in retrofits gives you 7000 jobs. Homes 8000. Wind energy 3300 if you build and assemble the windmills where you put them up. Solar 1900, coal 870, nuclear a little over 900. This is not close. If you want to put America back to work, give a loan guarantee, get banks start making loans.
Set aside $15 billion for guarantees, you get $150 billion in bank lending, you get a million jobs.
His other policy ideas are about making the clean energy economy real for the American people, rich and poor:
My second candidate: pick places that are both distressed and full of potential for energy independence. My number one candidate is Nevada, where the sun shine and the wind blows. And you’ve got all those real expensive hotels there with roofs that could be filled with solar panels. And you have all the hills around that could be filled with windmills.
I would say take a few places like that and go straight out and make them energy independent and document how many jobs have been created, and then everybody will want to do that.
My third candidate is prove it works for poor people. One of our best commitments is designed to provide after school jobs and summer jobs for poor kids in Harlem, upper Manhattan Washington heights by paying them to go in and retrofit a lot of these old buildings, whitewashing the black roofs.
If you did those three things so that every day you were proving over and over again to all the naysayers that it was good economics to build a clean energy future, you can build a consensus necessary to do what has to be done. You could beat the special interest groups.
He admitted that the key problem with this vision is that it requires a change from how the energy sector traditionally makes money:
If you make a deal for a nuclear power plant or a coal-fired power plant and you knowingly deprive all these jobs increase greenhouse gas emissions or you increase other risk or you increase huge costs — with nuclear, it’s always more expensive — the only real reason they do it is because they’ve always done it that way, and it is so much simpler. If you’re running the utility, there’s one contractor that’s going to build that plant, there’s one supplier of the fuel, and then you go to one PUC and they give you permission to make the ratepayers pay for it at a profit. It’s simple because it’s centralized.
The new energy economy is more decentralized, but it’s less expensive, more job intensive, and parenthetically will save the planet.
“That’s what I think we have to do,” Clinton concluded. “You’ve got to prove this is good economics. And it is! The number one thing we could do for America is change the way we produce and consume energy.”
bench craft company rip off
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail! – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM I predicted this morning that No Pressure - Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign - would prove a disastrous own goal for the ...
ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat
Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...
Denver Broncos <b>News</b> - Horse Tracks - 10/02/10 - Mile High Report
Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee .... Horse Tracks!
bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail! – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM I predicted this morning that No Pressure - Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign - would prove a disastrous own goal for the ...
ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat
Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...
Denver Broncos <b>News</b> - Horse Tracks - 10/02/10 - Mile High Report
Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee .... Horse Tracks!
bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off
Eco-fascism jumps the shark: massive, epic fail! – Telegraph Blogs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM I predicted this morning that No Pressure - Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign - would prove a disastrous own goal for the ...
ScribbleLive plans to reinvent the <b>news</b> article | VentureBeat
Anthony is VentureBeat's assistant editor, as well as its reporter on media, advertising, and social networks. Before joining VentureBeat in ...
Denver Broncos <b>News</b> - Horse Tracks - 10/02/10 - Mile High Report
Your Daily Cup of Orange and Blue Coffee .... Horse Tracks!
bench craft company rip off bench craft company rip off
No comments:
Post a Comment