With less than a week until the midterm election, here’s the final installment of my Voter’s Guide for the propositions. I’ll give you my take on the final three propositions and share my reasoning.

Proposition 25: Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation.

Present California law requires that the state legislature submit a budget to the governor each year by June 15. For reasons not pertinent to this discussion, the law also requires a two-thirds majority of both houses for passage of the budget. Proposition 25 will reduce this requirement to a simple majority. It also ensures that legislators will no longer be paid retroactively for monies withheld while the state operates without a budget.

Of issue on this matter is the state legislature’s abysmal record on budget passage. Since 1980, the legislature has met its June 15 deadline only 5 times. And the current fiscal year continues the pattern, marking the ninetieth time in the last 25 years that the state started the fiscal year without a budget.

Proponents of the initiative claim that late budgets cost taxpayers millions of dollars, hurt schools and services, and damage California’s credit rating. They cite the fact that, without an approved budget, teachers must be handed pink slips and small businesses and state workers given IOUs. Projects are also shutdown and services delayed, which adds additional cost increases with restarts and further damages the state’s credit rating.

Proposition opponents assert that Prop-25 is a backdoor means for legislators to spend more money.  They claim that the circumvention of the two-thirds majority will result in politicians raising taxes. They even assert that the measure will somehow “eliminate the right of voters to use the referendum to force a vote and stop taxes disguised as fees.”

A reading of the text of the proposition seems to reveal that the argument against Prop-25 is nothing more than scare tactics designed to get voters to reject the measure. The initiative in no way changes the two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases. In fact, it specifically states that the two-third requirement to raise taxes is to be retained. Likewise, the proposition is devoid of any language to repeal citizen’s rights to vote.

Proposition 25 promises to end the budget gridlock in Sacramento and hold legislators responsible for passing timely budgets. It will retain the existing super-majority requirement for tax increases and dock legislators pay if they fail to perform as directed. This is long awaited reform that brings California into line with the other 47 states that only require a simple majority for budget passage. Voters need to say NO to scare tactics and vote Yes on Prop-25.

Proposition 26: Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote.

This initiative is all about making it more difficult for the legislature to increase revenues. Current California law allows the legislature to raise “fees” with a simple majority vote but requires a two-thirds super majority for tax increases.  Prop-26 will broaden the definition of what constitutes a tax and render many payments that are currently considered fees to be taxes.

The fees affected by the initiative are those that “benefit the public broadly,” which mostly means those used to address health, environment, social and economic concerns. Oil recycling and hazardous waste fees fall into this group, as do certain fees on alcohol retailers.

Proponents of Prop-26 promote the initiative as a means to stop politicians from “enacting hidden taxes.” This claim is based on a blurring of the distinction between taxes and fees and a conclusion that raising fees with a simple majority is equivalent to raising taxes.

While there is a basis of truth in this claim, it fails to recognize that taxes are typically applied in a more broad sense where fees are levied for very specific circumstances. Many of the fees in question are those associated with ensuring that polluters pick up their own tab. One example of this is a so-called Prop-26 “hidden tax” that is levied against oil companies in order to cover the costs of oil spill cleanup. Other examples are fees on polluters for cleanup of hazardous waste and fees on tobacco companies for the adverse affects of tobacco.

The truth is that the major proponents of Prop-26 are the oil, tobacco and alcohol companies who pay the fees in question. These companies, including Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, and Phillip Morris have funded virtually the entire campaign for Prop-26.

Smart voters will not allow these deep-pocketed polluters to pass their tab to the taxpayers. A vote against Prop-26 will ensure that vital health and environmental services are not robbed and that the companies that pollute continue to pay for their own way.

Proposition 27: Eliminates state commission on redistricting.

Prop-27 is the polar opposite of Prop-20. Where 20 seeks to expand the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC) to include control of congressional districts, Prop-27 completely eliminates the Commission and returns authority for the redistricting of both state and federal districts to the state legislature.

So, the decision for California voters is as follows: vote Yes-on-20 and No-on-27, which will put all authority in the CRC; vote No-on-20 and Yes-on-27, placing the state legislature in control, or vote NO on both propositions, thereby maintaining the present split authority.

Prop-27 does include certain provisions that require the legislature to hold public hearings both before and after they create redistricting maps — a measure that could help limit gerrymandering. The initiative also requires that all districts be essentially equivalent in size. These are positive moves, but neither of these measures, nor the small savings in redistricting costs, represents sufficient cause to support the proposition.

As with Prop-20, the decision is really about the best way to address the issues surrounding an ineffective legislature and the predominance of incumbent reelection. And in the end, there’s really no proof that an independent commission will improve this situation in any way. A redistricting bureaucracy that answers to nobody is a recipe for perpetuation of the problem — it’s another Band-Aid that will only create an appearance of change while leaving the broken system intact.

There are far more effective measures that we can take. If we’re serious about effective change and holding politicians accountable, we need to move in the direction of public campaign finance, preferential voting and term limits. The problem isn’t that state legislators serve their own best interest; it’s that California voters allow them to. If you don’t like what the legislature does — you can vote them out. We need structural change in Sacramento, not another bureaucracy. We need to empower the legislature and then hold them accountable — vote YES on Prop-27.

So, there you have it — Dave’s entire $0.02 on the California propositions — paid in full.

Okay, the midterm election is another day closer, and here’s the next installment of my Voter’s Guide. So, if you have the time and are so inclined, you can read on. I’ll give you my position on each issue and also share why I’m voting the way I am.

Of course, if you’re a conservative, you’re not likely to agree with my positions, as I just today reviewed the guides assembled by several Democratic leaning groups, like the Courage Campaign, CREDO and the California Democratic Party (okay, so a little more partisan than just a lean), and it looks like I’ll be voting the party line on all issues for which they’ve taken a position. Perhaps this content could still have some value for conservatives though — as an anti-guide, or maybe just to help understand why somebody might vote along the Democratic line.

Proposition 22: Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.

Under the State Constitution, state and local governments share revenue from certain sources. This arrangement leads, from time to time, to the state affecting the distribution of funds to local agencies. This initiative will apply new limits to the authority of the state over local finances.

Specifically, the measure will limit the state’s access to fuel tax revenues, including temporary borrowing for cash flow purposes; it will also prohibit the redirection of redevelopment funds and eliminate the state’s ability to temporarily shift taxes from cities, counties and special districts to schools. There is also a provision to prohibit the use of Vehicle License Fees to cover state mandated costs.

In a nutshell, this initiative is designed to tie the state government’s hands in matters of the distribution of shared revenues. On the surface, this seems to have some merit. Those promoting the initiative label it a measure to “stop state raids” of local funding. Who wouldn’t be for that?

The problem is found in the detail. First off, Prop-22 attempts to constrain the state at a time when we have a $20 billion budget crisis. And it does so in a manner that prohibits the state from even performing such innocuous maneuvers as temporary borrowing to avoid cash flow issues. It also takes money from schools and codifies into the State Constitution protections for redevelopment agencies.

These measures seem unwise and imprudent in such a time of fiscal crisis. Proponents argue that the money should flow to its originally intended targets, while the opposition would argue that when money is tight, it should flow in order of precedent for the services most needed.

Good organizations are split on this proposition, with cities, most police, and local firefighters in favor, and teachers, nurses, and state firefighters opposed. The truth is that, if passed, the initiative will take significant funds from schools and healthcare and send it to redevelopment agencies and the private developers who rely on their funding. This is just bad policy and deserves to be defeated by an informed electorate.

Proposition 23: Suspends implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB32).

The state enacted AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006. AB32 set a target of reducing the Green House Gas (GHG) to their 1990 levels by 2020. The legislation required the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt the rules required to make this happen. Proposition 23 seeks to suspend the implementation of AB32 until the unemployment rate in California drops to 5.5 percent or below for four consecutive quarters.

Proponents of the initiative promote the measure as a smart move to minimize energy costs and spur job creation. They insist that the move is needed, in spite of pollution concerns, because of the state’s $20 billion budget deficit and high unemployment. They contend that, while Global Warming may be a serious concern, California cannot solve the issue on its own.

What the proponents don’t want to reveal is the fact that since 1970, California has had only three periods when the unemployment rate was below 5.5 percent, and that those periods each lasted only around 2-1/2 years. The fact is that with unemployment currently over 12 percent, it will be a long while before California experiences a full year where unemployment dips below 5.5 percent.

The other thing that Prop-23 supporters don’t want California voters to understand is that main backers of the proposition are Valero and Tesoro oil companies — two Texas firms who are amongst the worst polluters in the state.

This proposition has nothing to do with jobs. These oil companies are simply trying to use the state’s unemployment situation as leverage to rationalize legislation that will only serve to increase pollution and bolster their bottom lines. For them, this is all about maintaining the status quo, about keeping the profits in the coffers of polluters instead of transferring the wealth to a new generation of clean energy companies.

California is on the leading edge of developing a clean energy economy. Millions of jobs will be established as this effort is allowed to move forward. Californians need to reject the self-serving propaganda of these old-world, dirty energy polluters and embrace the future. Clean energy will return America to the forefront of technology, establishing new export industries and putting the planet on a track for a sustainable future, while simultaneously addressing our nation’s security and economic issues associated with dependency on foreign oil.

Prop-23 is a death blow for progress that serves but one purpose — to save the profits of polluters. There is absolutely no reason to vote in favor of this proposition except to support dirty energy and the oil companies behind it. VOTE NO — Please!

Proposition 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability.

The background on this proposition is that the legislature and governor recently made certain agreements that changed the rules for business tax treatment in California. This proposition seeks to repeal these deals and return the tax rules to their previous status.

Prop-24 will repeal deals involving business use of financial losses, the determination of income for multistate businesses, and the ability of businesses to share tax deductions.

With regard to losses, the initiative will repeal the deal that allowed businesses to claim present losses on amended returns for previously filed tax years. It will also return the allowance permitting losses to be carried forward for 20 years back to only 10 years.

On the topic of California taxable income, the measure will eliminate a new rule that allows businesses to be taxed based only on the portion of their sales in California. It will return the process to its former state where business income was based on three factors: the value of the businesses properties in California, its payroll within the state and its sales. It will also, obviously, prevent business from changing the method they choose to use each year.

Finally, the initiative will repeal a deal where businesses within a unitary group of businesses were allowed to share tax credits, and it will return the rules to their former status where only the business that earns a tax credit can use it.

The fiscal impact of Prop-24 amounts to an increase of state revenue of around $1.3 billion by 2012-13. Most of that increase will be channeled to schools under Prop-98.

Proponents of Prop-24 label the measure the “Tax Fairness Act.” Opponents call it the “Jobs Tax.” Therein lies the debate. But oddly enough, Republicans and Democrats alike support Prop-24. Why? Because they understand that giving special tax breaks that apply only to multistate businesses is not only bad governing —  it’s also BAD BUSINESS.

California is in dire economic straits, and making special deals for large, multistate businesses that will greatly reduce tax revenues and require further cuts to essential services is as imprudent as it is unfair. Businesses that are based in California need to pay taxes to California, regardless of where they make their sales — just like other California businesses.

A vote for fairness is in order — vote YES on Prop-24.

So, that’s installment #2. If you’re interested, stay tuned and tomorrow we’ll finish the propositions with installment #3 of Dave’s 2-cents on the California election.

The midterm election is now about a week away, and being a political junkie, I’ve of course got my ducks in a row. While you may still want to take this with a grain of salt, I have read all of the 9 propositions on the California ballot and carefully considered the arguments both for and against each. I’ve also had many people ask me how I was going to vote on specific issues, so this then is my first installment on an answer.

Proposition 19: The legalization of marijuana under California law.

This is a big 10-4. Marijuana should never have been illegal in the first place. It’s sad to see that Senator Feinstein is behind the Argument Against Prop-19. She and Laura Dean-Mooney of MADD are in opposition for the same unsupportable reason. They claim that the legislation will lead to bus drivers and the like being stoned on the job. They even assert that jobs could be lost and schools could lose federal money, all because employers will not be able stop employees from being high at work.

Of course, this is all complete nonsense. There is really no change in the present situation, except that employers would no longer be able to terminate employment based solely on the fact that an employee had tested positive for marijuana, which can remain in a person’s system for as much as 30 days. The new legislation expresses the strict prohibition on impairment while driving or partaking of other potentially dangerous activities and also stipulates that employers have the right to address impairment of job performance.

Those opposing the reform on the grounds stated are simply attempting to create a legitimate sounding argument to support their underlying position against legalization.

For those not hampered by emotional belief systems on the matter, the facts are clear. Marijuana is a drug that’s far less dangerous than alcohol and should be regulated and controlled instead of criminalized. This proposition will put an end to the massive number of Californians arrested for marijuana each year — 61,000 in 2008, and it will free law enforcement officers to focus where they’re really needed — working on violent crimes.

Legalization will reduce law enforcement costs and help address prison overcrowding. It will remove the black market and strike a blow on the cartels while also removing the profit motive on American streets. Legalization will, in short, cut crime. This is the primary reason that police organizations throughout the state support Prop-19.

And as if this were not enough, the legalization of marijuana will establish a new revenue source for our cash-strapped state. The Board of Equalization estimates that tax revenues will start out at around $1.4 billion, and that’s on top of the cost savings.

Incidentally, the other popularly surfaced argument against legalization is the “Gateway Theory.” While not specifically mentioned by those opposing Prop-19, it should be understood that study after study has refuted any statistically significant linkage between marijuana use and the abuse of more dangerous drugs. In fact, there’s a much stronger correlation to alcohol use, and even where direct correlation was evidenced, the studies found other more significant links.

Proposition 20: Redistricting of congressional districts.

The question here is really a case of not only who do you trust to configure California’s congressional districts, but whether or not you feel that you should have some recourse if you disagree with the districts they define.

Under current law, there is a 14-member redistricting commission that will define districts for the state legislature, but their authority does not extend to congressional districts, which are presently under the purview of the state legislature. Prop-20 will expand the authority of the Citizens Redistricting Commission to include congressional redistricting.

Those in favor of the proposition assert that the legislature can’t be trusted to serve anyone’s interest but their own and therefore an independent authority is needed. Those opposed claim that the redistricting commission is a waste of taxpayer money — that it creates a new bureaucracy, and that most importantly — taxpayers will have no recourse to hold the commission responsible for its actions.

It is interesting to know that the entire Yes on Prop-20 campaign has been funded by Charles Munger, Jr., son of Wall Street billionaire Charles Munger.

In the end, although proponents are undoubtedly right that the politicians will carve out the districts in their best interest, and that such action typically results in more incumbents being reelected, there’s really nothing to prove that an independent commission will net any better results. Incumbents win because they typically get more campaign financing and the electorate votes for them.

There are far more effective measures that can be put in place to address the incumbent issue than a redistricting bureaucracy that answers to nobody. If we’re serious about effective change and holding politicians accountable, we should instead move for public campaign finance, preferential voting and term limits. And in the meantime, if you don’t like what the legislature does with redistricting, you can vote them out. A NO vote seems in order for Prop-20.

Proposition 21: The $18 annual vehicle fee to help fund state parks.

This initiative is simple. It adds an $18 fee to the vehicle registration for all non-commercial vehicles, except trailers and trailer coaches, and the proceeds are earmarked to go to state parks and wildlife programs. In return, all subject vehicles are allowed access to state parks without further charges.

Proponents of the proposition argue that state parks are in peril from poor maintenance and many are in danger of closing. Opponents claim that the initiative is a “cynical budget shell game that could still leave our parks dilapidated.”

Of course, even in their argument, the opposition admits that the parks need the funding. Their game is to color the initiative in the worst possible light, labeling it the “Car Tax.” These people are none other than the same folk who oppose any taxation, regardless of the intent. And their claim that the parks could remain dilapidated completely ignores the fact that 85% of the proceeds are dedicated to the operation and maintenance of our state parks.

Those who don’t understand or appreciate the process through which a society of free people fund the services that are important to them will never support taxes or fees of any sort. These people don’t seem to understand that the state economy has suffered and that parks are already closing and are in serious need of maintenance as a result.

The real question here is whether or not you believe that the preservation of the California state parks is worth $18 per year. And if you ever visit them, the real cost is closer to zero. Sometimes people just need to stand up and say, “Yes, I’m willing to pay for that.” Oddly, it’s usually those who can afford it least who are willing to make the sacrifice, and those with deep pockets who complain about every penny they pay.

If you care about the state parks, vote YES. It’s a small amount to pay.

And if you’re interested, stay tuned each day this week for further installments of my 2 cents on the California election.

The Tuesday debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman illuminated the drastic contrast between the two candidates. It was a classic battle of public servant versus business tycoon. The two combatants presented diametrically opposing views on most topics, but nowhere was the contrast more stark than in their divergent commitment to honesty.

To his credit, Jerry Brown shared his beliefs and priorities in a direct and sincere manner. It’s unlikely that he won over any supporters with his eloquence or flawless articulation, as he did spend a fair amount of time sputtering and at times trailed off into incomplete thoughts. But all things considered, it’s hard to see how viewers who hadn’t already made up their minds would not be at least somewhat captivated by his frankness.

The current Attorney General spoke on both his past record and his plans for the future with openness and candor. When asked about his personal pension, currently due to be over $78,000, he replied that at age 72, he was “the best pension buy California has ever seen,” and he added that should he win in November, the buy would get even better. And at only 20 minutes into the debate, Brown was just getting warmed up with a personable style that would show throughout the event.

Brown’s absence of guile even touched the sharp edge of fumbling when asked why Californians should trust his commitment to the state in light of his past flirtations with the presidency. The former 3-time presidential candidate’s response was a candid “Age! You know if I was younger, I’d run again.” But Brown didn’t leave it there. Instead, he continued, “Now I have a wife, so I’m home at night and don’t try to close the bars in Sacramento.” Endearing? Possibly. Foot in his mouth? At least a couple toes. Honest? There is no doubt.

Most of the debate proceeded in similar fashion, with Brown often shooting from the hip and Whitman being more scripted and sticking to her talking points. But the real fulcrum for revealing their individual veracity came on a question from a college student asking Brown if he would roll back UC and CSU fee hikes from recent years. Brown’s response was “Not my first year, not with a $19 billion deficit. We have to get real here.” His answer was certainly not what the student wanted to hear, but it may have very well been music to the ears of those who want real solutions.

When the same question was posed to Whitman, the former eBay CEO seemed to forget about the state’s deficit and spoke instead of her plans to add $1 billion to higher education. She did take the time to elaborate on the topic, revealing that she would get the money from cuts in welfare, but failed to explain why she wouldn’t apply the savings to the budget shortfall. She also failed to be honest about the situation with welfare in California.

Whitman’s spin on the welfare issue is indicative of her general attitude toward the truth. California’s welfare state being a talking point of her campaign, she reiterated her “facts” on the matter at the debate. The situation according to Whitman is that the welfare problem in California is so bad that there are five times more welfare cases than in New York but only double the population. This really does reflect a problem, only the problem is with Ms. Whitman’s penchant for skewed “facts” and wild spin.

California’s population is indeed roughly twice as large as New York’s, but that’s about the full extent to which Whitman’s “facts” and the truth actually coincide. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are a whopping 1.4 million recipients of welfare in California and only 389,586 in New York, for a ratio of 3.6:1. Still significantly higher than the corresponding population ratio but not the 5x multiplier pushed by Whitman. The truth is that Whitman’s deception is based upon completely ignoring New York’s separate state welfare program (SSP) and looking solely at their TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients — a completely disingenuous comparison, since the combined TANF/SSP totals are what impacts the state budget.

And Whitman’s skewing of the caseload numbers doesn’t even begin to convey the degree of her dishonesty. Misinformation Meg relies on the New York welfare comparison to frame a picture of an out of control California government and the dire need for fiscal reform. She uses a distorted caseload number to make her point but oddly never mentions expenditures. Why? Because based on the most recent data available, New York spent nearly as much on public welfare as California. The 2008 totals were $33.4 million compared to $35 million. New York’s per capita expense was $1,710, and California’s a comparatively meager $955.

This much focus on Whitman’s distortion of the welfare story may seem a bit much. If it was an isolated instance, it could appropriately be overlooked, but such is not the case. The truth is that Queen Meg’s deception has been evidenced consistently throughout her campaign. Her ads openly attack Jerry Brown on his record as governor, lying about his records on taxes and jobs. She pretends to be factual on his record as mayor of Oakland but instead presents a fictitious tale of slander. She lies about state spending, talks out of both sides of her mouth on immigration, posits fallacious nonsense about tax cuts and job creation, spins some seriously illegitimate yarns on California’s business situation and does it all with conviction and a smile.

Politicians in general are not known for their truthfulness, so maybe Meg Whitman has just come down with a serious case of politi-deception-itus. Whatever the case, the Red Queen seems completely unable to curtail her deceit and refrain from perverting the truth. When it comes to Whitman, the old joke seems to fit like a glove: how do you tell when Meg Whitman is lying? That’s right — just look and see if her lips are moving.

The two candidates vying for the office of Governor of California presented near polar opposite positions and proposals for how they would govern. Jerry Brown touted his long career in politics and his extensive experience working with government. Meg Whitman positioned herself as a political outsider well suited to effect change. Both spoke to their concern over the state budget and jobs, but each shared drastically different approaches on how they would deal with the issues.

Jerry Brown talked about cutting red tape, focusing on green technology and protecting education. Meg Whitman also said she would cut bureaucracy, but focused on her plan to cut taxes for the rich, suspend environmental regulations and was largely silent on K-12 education. Both candidates were light on details, which can be expected in a debate, but neither left any doubt as to the approach they will take as governor.

The Brown plan to address the budget will begin with bringing representatives from all state agencies together to discuss how 15% to 20% can be cut from operations. Brown stated that he knows the inner workings of Sacramento and will lead the way with an 18% reduction for the governor’s office. He also cited the need for a state salary commission to address compensation issues.

Whitman offered no details on how she would reduce state spending, other than cuts to welfare and state jobs, but repeatedly made references to how she would bring Silicon Valley managerial expertise to Sacramento. This sounds good at first blush, although one might be left wondering how said “expertise” might fit in a government environment. The tech center’s claim to fame doesn’t stem from legendary efficiency or frugality but rather from high pay, 100% paid healthcare, and happy employees. Does she plan on bringing Google style cuisine and open pet policies to state offices? Perhaps eBay’s de-stressing and meditation rooms will help reduce costs?

When asked about the issue of escalating state pension costs, which have increased from 12% of total spending to 13.9% over the past decade and continue to grow, Brown reminded voters that he pushed for a 2-tier system back in 1982, and that when he left office, retirement was calculated based on a 3-year salary average, not the present single highest year. The former governor stated clearly that retirement ages would have to go up.

Ms. Whitman responded to the same question by first attacking Brown’s ability to address pensions while receiving campaign donations from employee unions. When asked again what she would do, her response was to raise the retirement age from 55 to 65 and implement a “401K type” system to replace the current defined benefits. When pushed for how she would make this happen, she said that she would try to negotiate. But then taking one from Arnold’s failed playbook, she suggested that a ballot initiative would serve as her backup plan.

The candidates displayed vastly different styles, with Brown being the much more personable and Whitman seeming canned and rehearsed, but the true contrast was even more evident on the topic of jobs. Brown proposed a continued focus on investment in the green sector, claiming that California was once the leader in renewable energy and can be again. He talked about building out the grid, and when pushed on jobs outside of green, spoke to the cumulative effects of roofing and other energy-based retrofits, which would fuel construction jobs — the place where California is hurting the worst.

According to Meg Whitman, jobs are her main focus. But her plan is vintage Bush — the president with the worst job creation record in modern history. The former head of eBay claims that her plan will create 2 million jobs, yet its single most significant proposal is a cut in capital gains tax. The cut would take as much as $10.8 billion from state revenues, of which, according to Brown, 82% would be pocketed by people making over $500,000. Both economic theory and historical record refute Whitman’s claim that such a move will have any significant effect on job creation.

The entire debate went back and forth in a similar manner, with Brown relying on his record, and Whitman taking every opportunity to defame it. Brown repeatedly asserted that Whitman is the best friend of the rich, and Whitman fought back that Brown was married to employee unions. Other distinctions were made including Brown’s support of a path to legalization for illegal immigrants and Whitman’s opposition, but the real dividing line was drawn along the traditional Democrat/Republican positions.

In the end, other than reinforcing concerns regarding Queen Meg’s continued proclivity for half-truth and distortion, the debate should have solidified existing voter opinion on the two candidates. All Californians know that jobs and the budget are our most important concerns, so the decision will likely depend on who appears more capable of addressing the issues.

Come November, voters must decide between a very pro-business, champion of the wealthy who still purports to believe in trickle-down economics, or a career politician with an excellent record for fiscal conservatism and a commitment to advance California’s leadership in renewable energy and green technology. The choice couldn’t be more clear.

Are the offices of elected officials in America really up for sale? Apparently Meg Whitman believes so. With 48 days left in the auction for the office of Governor of California, billionaire Whitman raised her bid by another $15 million. Her personal total now at $119 million, Queen Meg has set a new all-time record for personal contribution in an American election campaign.

Some people might consider it unhealthy to have a process that allows candidates to contribute without limit to their personal election campaign. Objections asserting that a candidate should be elected based upon their record and policies, not the size of their bank account, are certainly valid. But that’s not the way things work in 21^st Century American politics, where corporations are people, facts are optional, and elections are decided by who has the better television ads and sound bites.

For her money, Meg Whitman has assembled a media blitz of attack ads aimed at discrediting her opponent. Attacking both Jerry Brown’s record as mayor of Oakland and governor of California, her campaign has managed to saturate television and radio with an unrelenting barrage of half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

Fortunately for Meg, lying may be unethical, but it’s not illegal. From her early ad that attempted to illegitimately associate Jerry Brown’s record as mayor with the debacle of misappropriation and graft in Bell, California, to her ridiculously mistitled The Facts: Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, a video ad that was virtually fact-free, to her most recent perversions of truth regarding Brown’s time as governor, Whitman has rivaled her contribution record with a performance destined for the liar’s hall of fame.

In Whitman’s seventh attack ad against Brown, she attempts to defame his position on taxes as governor by showing footage of former president, Bill Clinton, during their contentious 1992 Democratic presidential primary battle. In the video, Clinton asserts that Brown had raised taxes as governor — a claim that Clinton has since refuted. As it turns out, the former president’s statement was based on information presented by Brooks Jackson, of CNN, who now openly admits that his data was in error. The Whitman campaign, to their continuing discredit, was made aware of the issue but chose to retain the ad.

Another current Whitman ad, allegedly reporting the “facts” about Jerry Brown, apparently relies on the same erroneous reports of California taxes under Brown, claiming that he supported $7 billion in increases. The truth is that taxes fell under Brown, from an average 6.89% to 6.56%. The ad also claims that Brown was against Prop-13, which he was — because it artificially fixed rates and set a requirement for a two-thirds majority in both state houses to increase any tax. Brown wasn’t against the tax cut, and in fact had tried to get a cut through the legislature that was blocked by Republicans in an election year tactic. The truth is that Prop-13 was a poorly designed 389 word initiative that amended the State Constitution, drained the budget surplus, gutted education and benefitted business far more than the average Californian.

Unsatisfied with distortions only on Brown’s record on taxation, the Whitman ad is facetiously named, “Job Killer.” The job portion of the video starts with the claim that California’s unemployment rate “nearly doubled to 11%” under Brown. The truth is that it did go over 11% in late 1982, when the national rate had climbed to 10.8% because of the recession. But Whitman’s claim that the rate doubled is pure fiction.

According to Whitman’s own website, the unemployment rate before Brown took office was 7.3%, which would equate to only a 50% increase. And the fact is that unemployment started climbing before Jerry Brown took office, with the state losing 140,000 jobs between 11/74 and 3/75 because of the oil crisis and the end of the Viet Nam war. Official records only go back to 1976, when the rate was at 9.3%, and the reason it was higher when Brown left office, even though the state had 1.9 million new jobs created during his tenure, is because of a nagging recession and a growing population. The truth is that Jerry Brown had the best job record of the State’s past five governors.

Election campaigns being what they are, public offices are effectively sold today, but that doesn’t mean that once aware, voters should allow it to happen. There is no other case in American history where it was so obvious that a candidate was trying to buy an office and would stop at nothing in order to get elected. Meg Whitman has spent millions of her own money to inundate California voters with false information. She believes that her veracity is immaterial so long as she can saturate the media. California voters need to ask themselves if this lack of good character is what they really want in a governor.

Meg Whitman cares as much about the truth as she does the good people of the State of California. If she is able to lie and buy her way into the governor’s office, she will most assuredly fight for her fellow elite and bring them prosperity at the cost of the working people of California. Queen Meg believes in tax cuts for the rich and the outsourcing of jobs. Her dubious plan to address unemployment is nothing more than vintage trickle down, and her plan for education as substantive as her “facts” about Jerry Brown. The people of this state need to send Ms. Whitman back into retirement, because if they don’t, they’ll all be seeing red when the Red Queen is done.

If you live in California and watch television at all, you’ve likely seen Meg Whitman’s current campaign ad. The 33 second video is entitled, “The Facts: Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown.” In this day and age of so much hyperbole and distortion, a political candidate putting together an ad based on facts would be something truly rare. So, does Meg Whitman deserve some accolades? The answer really depends on her “facts?”

Whitman’s “Fact” number one: “Brown promised to improve schools, but the dropout rate increased 50% and the State had to take over the schools.”

The numbers behind this “fact” aren’t given, but according to the California Department of Education’s Ed-Data website, the number of dropouts in Oakland Unified School District for the year Brown took office (98-99) was 846. During his last full year as mayor (05-06) the number had climbed by 11% to 941. But the following year (06-07), one in which Brown left office halfway through, dropouts did shoot up to 1384 — a whopping 64% jump. That’s a staggering leap for a single year. Well . . . as it turns out, it was also the first year that districts throughout the State were required to use Statewide Student Identifiers (SSID) for their reports. The Ed-Data site states that prior to 2007, dropout numbers were mere estimates, and that “trend data is not meaningful.”

Could Whitman’s campaign have just overlooked the warning about dropout data? That’s possible, but when you also consider that the Academic Performance Index (API) scores for the district climbed every year from inception through the end of Brown’s term: 2003: 596; 2004: 605; 2005: 634; 2006: 653; 2007: 658, you might conclude that the distortion is intentional. If you also evaluate the second part of Whitman’s claim, taking into consideration that the State take-over was in response to the $82 million debt incurred by the independent government body that presided over the district, completely outside of Brown’s control, you would likely remove all doubt.

Whitman’s “Fact” number two: “The city controller found employees paid for 22,000 hours they never worked.”

This time, at least the source of the figure is known. It comes from a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Larae Brown, the former Oakland city controller, in 2008. There is a trial pending. But according to City Auditor Courtney Ruby, an independent audit performed in 2007 showed no such finding. Likewise, officials in the city administrator’s office said, “We have no data to support that claim.”

Obviously, in the Whitman world an unsubstantiated accusation foisted by a former employee with a grudge sufficiently constitutes a “fact.” This is actually valuable information for anyone interested in evaluating the facts regarding Meg Whitman’s character.

Whitman’s “Fact” number three: “Brown promised to cut crime, but murders doubled making Oakland the fourth most dangerous city in America.”

Oddly enough, this is Whitman’s most veracious claim — and it’s a half-truth. The number of murders did escalate during Brown’s tenure, from 72 in 1998 to 145 in 2006. But the murder rate is only one factor to be considered in determining the relative danger or safety associated with a city. The rest of the story, the part Meg Whitman doesn’t want to mention about Oakland, is that overall crime dropped by 13% while Brown was in office. There were nearly 5,000 fewer crimes reported in 2006 than in 1998, and amongst those that dropped were several other of the violent variety, like rape and assault.

So, what about those accolades? The Whitman ad isn’t completely devoid of factual data, but to present it as an assemblage of facts is a distortion of the highest degree. The ad is a patent perversion of the truth that mostly twists questionable “facts” into outrageously false assertions. In the end, the only fact about Whitman’s ad that rings true is that it can safely be considered 99% fact-free.

Image via Wikipedia

Did Barbara Boxer do any homework before her senatorial debate with Carly Fiorina on Wednesday? Boxer did hold her own and responded fairly well to most of Fiorina’s truth stretching assertions. But when her opponent is running on her record as a business leader, and that record earned her a place as one of the “20 Worst CEOs of all time,” the door was wide open for Boxer to clearly show what an abysmal leader Fiorina was.

Senator Boxer did take every opportunity to point out Fiorina’s woeful record on jobs, the one where she actually shipped 30,000 overseas. She even mentioned Fiorina’s very personal contribution to the American vernacular, coining the term “right-shoring,” a euphemism for firing Americans in order to send their jobs to a foreign land. Of course, Fiorina was laser focused on the “shoring” part but never really got it “right,” since as also pointed out by Boxer — Hewlett Packard lost more than 50% of its stock price under Fiorina’s control.

But Boxer missed the opportunity to elucidate how well aligned Ms. Fiorina is with the conservative extreme. She has spoken at Tea Party rallies and stated that she agrees with their views. She’s even a member of the tax-cuts-pay-for-themselves voodoo contingent of the Republican Party. Fiorina stated in a CBS interview that, “you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs.” Never mind that even conservative economists no longer support such nonsense.

For whatever reason, Boxer also failed to support her own record for voting in favor of the Stimulus, and allowed Fiorina’s statement that it had, “manifestly failed,” to stand. Without doubt one of the easiest assertions to refute, being that the Stimulus has been a huge success by every objective measure, nevertheless Fiorina’s fact-free spin went unchallenged.

Part of the problem was the format for the debate. It allowed for response and rebuttal but provided no means for redress of erroneous claims made during a rebuttal. Fiorina used this to her advantage by using rebuttal time to introduce new points when she had no real argument for the topic at hand.

Fiorina was allowed to characterize her support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as good for the middle class. Boxer would have been well served to illuminate the fact that it’s Democrats who have drawn the line in the sand and support the extension for all but the top 2%. Fiorina used a similar tactic when speaking about the estate tax. Of course, she referenced it as the “death tax,” and drew alarm to the 55% rate. But where she really left the truth behind was in associating the tax with the 88,000 family farms in California. Boxer should have made sure that the facts of the matter were voiced, that the experts all agree that there’s not been a single “family farm” hit by the estate tax. She should also have added that the Democratic plan to deal with the expiring cut would lower the top rate to 45% and only apply to estates over $7 million, which would apply to .25 percent of estates.

Boxer also allowed Fiorina to demonize federal employees by associating the increase in their number with the loss of jobs in California. It would have been nice if Boxer had mentioned that the increase is almost entirely related to temporary census positions, which hit its 564,000 job high in May. Although Boxer did take advantage of the opening to hammer on Fiorina’s offshoring record one more time: she introduced Fiorina’s characterization of the recent aid bill to save teacher’s jobs as a “disgrace,” and added that Fiorina was likely opposed because, “we paid for it by stopping some tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas.”

Another well delivered blow by Boxer occurred in her rebuttal to Fiorina’s response to a question regarding the apparent conflict between her accepting a $21 million severance package and yet taking a strong position that teacher jobs should be tied to performance. Fiorina attempted to dodge the question by offering several statistics regarding HP’s growth under her tenure, failing to mention that the growth was the result of a failed merger. But Boxer responded with a body blow, stating that, “I think we are entitled to our opinion but we’re not entitled to our own facts. The facts are there was a $21 million severance check, and my understanding is that it was taken after my opponent was fired.”

But Fiorina scored points on Boxer’s legislative record. Citing the fact that only 4 bills bearing Boxer’s name have been signed into law, she asserted that Boxer was an ineffective legislator. Boxer did rebut by stating that the objective is not to get your name on legislation, and offered Senator Russ Feingold as an example, stating that the campaign finance legislation commonly known as McCain-Feingold does not bear his name. She didn’t mention that Feingold too only passed 4 bills during his tenure, or that the reason his name was missing was that it was the House version that was signed into law. The fact is that Boxer has a well-deserved reputation for carrying liberal causes as well as for working across the aisle. She needs to build a case that she can recite in a succinct manner.

As Boxer stated, Fiorina is the candidate of Big-Oil and Big-Coal. She danced around the topic of global warming, offering possibly the evening’s most twisted stretch of double-talk. According to Fiorina, the solution to global warming, “lies not with a single state taking action on its own, but rather with global action.” So, evidently there’s really no reason for any entity to take a first step until we get everyone in line to make a change. Sounds like a good capitalist position — after all we can’t address the environment and be competitive with polluters like China at the same time.

In the end, it was likely more Fiorina’s exposing herself as a died-in-the-wool capitalist Republican that will sway more votes toward Boxer than anything else. It’s difficult to understand how a politician could think it advantageous to use China as an example of how to create jobs. But of course, it’s all a part of her one-trick-pony approach to all thing economic: cut taxes and regulations and all will be well — it’s the same prescription offered by all of her Republican cronies — a race to the bottom for American workers and the environment be damned.

A book could be written about what Meg Whitman doesn’t know about government, the public sector in general and most specifically, public education. But the fact is that she wants the governor’s office and is willing to buy, lie and pander to get it. Unfortunately for Ms. Whitman, the price seems to keep rising. Maybe it’s pressure from Jerry Brown, or perhaps just a desire to overwhelm Californians with media blitz, but whatever the case, billionaire Whitman upped the ante on Friday by adding another $13 million in personal funds to her campaign chest.

Whitman, who has said that she’s willing to spend up to $150 million to buy the top seat in California’s government, has invested $104 million to date. Still $5.2 million short of the self-funding record set by Michael Bloomberg, she is outspending her Democratic opponent at a dramatic rate. Although Jerry Brown has accumulated $24 million in campaign funds, his spending to date is a miserly $700,000.

Some in the Brown camp are concerned about his frugal ways, and believe that he should jump center ring and grapple in the Whitman-financed mud wrestling. Many Brown supporters are concerned that Whitman’s continuous half-truth and distortion based assault may cause irreversible damage. They cite instances like her present illegitimate attempt to associate Brown’s record as Oakland’s mayor with the pension and pay scandals in Bell, CA as evidence that she must be rebutted. They argue that Brown needs to respond to Whitman’s blatant distortions, like her treating as fact, claims made by a fired city controller that City of Oakland employees were paid for thousands of hours that were not worked.

Other Brown supporters find comfort in the fact that even Whitman’s own consultants know that, despite all the money they’re spending, she’s not making any real progress. They contend that there’s plenty of time to explain that crime did not increase in Oakland under Brown, or how the tax increases she blames on Brown were actually approved by 70% of voters. They argue that she may have oversaturated the media with her abundant ads, and that the prudent tack may well be to let her continue the negative campaigning. So, for now, the Brown campaign is waiting and watching Whitman spend her millions, all the while revealing herself as the out-of-touch, mudslinging, wealthy panderer she is.

But just who Meg Whitman is may be a bit difficult to determine. She’s flip-flopped back and forth on offshore drilling, so her position likely depends on when it’s rendered. Her position on immigration is even more ephemeral, seeming to be tailored to whatever she thinks the current audience wants to hear: when interviewed on American Morning News this past July 28, Whitman stated that Arizona’s SB1070 should stand, but her Spanish language media ads that ran earlier said that she was opposed to the Arizona law.

The truth of the matter is that anyone who doesn’t question Whitman’s character must be either ignorant, in denial or as unscrupulous as she. And one does not have to look far for answers. Even at eBay, Whitman’s record was tarnished with claims of dishonesty, where she resigned her post there under charges of insider trading brought by her own shareholders. She denies the allegations, but admits to making money from “spinning” – an activity since rendered explicitly illegal by the SEC. The suit brought by eBay shareholders was settled and along with the others charged, Whitman paid $3 million.

Meg Whitman has a plan for California, but voters need to beware that Meg does what benefits Meg. In large part, she stands for what California stands against and vice versa. She is strongly against Prop-19; she’s neutral on Prop-23, which is sponsored by two Texas Oil giants, but she supports a suspension of AB32, which would have a similar effect in lifting pollution standards. While at Goldman Sachs, she was even a big supporter of the huge bonuses for which Wall Street is now infamous.

In the final analysis, Meg Whitman is a billionaire, and she’s not likely to change her mega-wealthy patterns of behavior —  like hiding profits in the Cayman Islands — just because she becomes Governor of California. She’s used to getting what she wants, and she wants to run this state. The trouble is that from the perspective of an average Californian, she’s likely to run it straight into the ground.

Like her or not, there is one good thing about Meg Whitman – she always has a plan, and she’s not afraid to share it. Of course, having a plan is only one element of sound leadership. There is also the persnickety little issue of plan quality. And though the Whitman plan for jobs and spending cuts is largely based on failed assumptions, her plan to fix education is at best rooted in complete ignorance.

This is not to say that the Whitman plan is completely without substance, because it’s not. She does support efforts to simplify the ridiculously complex structure of categorical funding, which currently includes more than 50 separate buckets, that collectively place a significant accounting burden on educational agencies. Whitman doesn’t offer much detail on what the new structure would look like, but streamlining the model would without doubt reduce administrative overhead.

Whitman also advocates for meritorious compensation for teachers, a commendable reform embraced by many, including President Obama. But even as she advances the benefit of such a program, she shows her naïveté regarding education by concurrently criticizing the overhead expenditures that would include the systems required to administer merit pay and the personnel needed to make it effective.

As so many others outside of education are so prone to do, Meg Whitman fails to understand what it takes to provide high quality education. If she wants merit pay for teachers, then she damn well better ensure adequate staffing of competent administrators to evaluate performance and oversee operations. If she wants to see test scores climb, then she better figure out that it takes much more than teachers to make a school system shine.

Meg Whitman is a classic business type who thinks that a production mentality will increase the efficiency of schools, and while this is true in certain support areas, when it comes to the delivery of instruction, less production and more individual customization is the answer. Whitman ridicules California public schools for having only 60% of spending reach the classroom, but as with most of the Red Queen’s critiques, she only tells part of the story. In fact, the most recent numbers from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) show the national average to be less than 1% higher at 60.9%.

It is this type of half-truth that weaves throughout all of Whitman’s press that should beg for questioning of not only her proposals but here motivations as well. As evidenced by the lies that pollute her campaign ads maligning the political record of Jerry Brown, Ms. Whitman really seems to have difficulty dealing with truthfulness.

Whitman champions charter schools as part of her plan to “fix education.” She does this as if they were some magic key to improved learning, yet the most definitive study yet on the matter, completed in 2009 by Stanford University, showed otherwise. Charters are often less expensive than their normal public school counterparts, which I’m sure pleases Whitman, but when it comes to learning results, the study identified only 17% of  charters in the 15 states studied showed improved results. Compare that with the 37% where results were, “significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.”

Is this the type of “fix” education in California needs?

The Whitman plan also advances a system of school grading to be used so that, “parents can easily understand how well their children’s school is performing.” Her argument for the need is based on better test scores in the State of Florida, who pioneered the system. Of course California’s scores have improved recently at an even faster rate, and then there’s that little matter of Florida spending nearly $900 more per pupil in regionally adjusted dollars.

Queen Meg has solutions for underperforming schools too, like “school closures and staff replacement.” Oh yes, Whitman has lots of ideas, but what she really needs is a clue! And she might start with looking at the impact of location on school performance, or the demographics of the parents and community. She might want to consider that most of the best teachers don’t want to work where they’re needed most, and then she could work toward some real solutions, on devising real plans to address real issues.

The final installment on Meg Whitman to follow shortly.