POLITICS-Say it enough times, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: Governor Brown is supposed to trounce liberal Republican challenger Neel Kashkari. Yet after watching the one and only debate on September 4th, where Governor Brown was defensive and had a hard time looking at either the challenger or even the moderators, it became clear that Brown HAS made progress...provided we all set the bar real, real, real LOW.
The debate WAS testy, but the moderators appeared to like it and pointedly asked Governor Brown why he wouldn't debate again--after all, Brown was the same man who challenged former Republican Meg Whitman to multiple debates when he last ran for governor.
As in "any time, any place" in order for Brown and Whitman to "grapple with the tough issues". Fast forward four years, and when it comes to defending his own record, Governor Brown had to be dragged into even one debate after being asked for up to ten debates.
Not two or three, but just one...and on the same night as a busy football schedule on television.
Call it being politically smart, call it being defensive, but also call it for what it also is: Brown's main strategy is for voters to know as little about Kashkari as is humanly and financially possible.
Perhaps it's a shame that Kashkari's financial supporters during the earlier runoff election (which eliminated more rightward-leaning GOP candidate Tim Donnelly) didn't have the decency to support him again--because we REALLY need to debate and grapple with the tough issues now as much as then-gubernatorial candidate Brown wanted to do in our last election four years ago.
For example, Kashkari slammed Brown for losing the Tesla electric car marker contract that day to Nevada--this was the perfect example of "green jobs" and was a huge loss for California...as my fellow CityWatch contributor Paul Hatfield pointed out.
Governor Brown's response of defending the taxpayers against Tesla's demands was nothing short of ridiculous, because if we're going to subsidize Hollywood's TV and film production to the tune of $1.5 billion, doesn't it have to make money for Californians and keep jobs here, as my fellow CityWatch contributor Joe Mathews pointed out?
No, the Tesla deal, and other Internet/Silicon Valley jobs fleeing to Nevada or Texas would be good, middle-class jobs to help all of us (not just Hollywood political donors) and create a more stable middle class. That's not due to some eeeeeeevil GOP plot as much as it is a bunch of otherwise-Democratic leaning employers going to where they know they can make some good profits.
Furthermore, the pay-to-play paradigm of making money in California has become so commonplace over the last few years (starting before Brown's tenure, but accelerated during Brown's tenure) that only the most naive could ignore the phenomenon of construction and other workers being paid as "independent contractors" instead of receiving quality middle-class jobs with benefits, as was also reported in CityWatch.
{module [862]}
{module [662]}
In other words, cheaters prosper here, the governing aristocracy gets re-elected by the voters--who are either running away from, or giving up on reforming, the Golden State. The voters become numb to the special deals and corruption and incompetence (and/or perhaps just don't vote), and those driven on making a career do so by making darn sure they're greasing the right palms...and become CONNECTED.
After all, this is Sacramento we're talking about...so..."what can reasonably be done for an ungovernable state"?
And aren't we out of our fiscal problems like we were under former Governors Davis and Schwarzeneggar?
Well, I suppose so...if you want to ignore the cost-of-living, utility and education hikes that have made California a living hell for the lower socioeconomic classes, an exhaustive nightmare for the middle class (including upper middle class, because six-digit figures no longer mean one is "rich" here, anymore), and a pleasure only for visiting tourists and the very rich (and CONNECTED, mustn't forget to be CONNECTED).
Call it whatever you want--governmental overreach, statism, the nanny state, or downright socialism--it's the middle class which gets destroyed when an overly top-down approach to how the state chooses economic winners and losers. There are too many people in the middle class to ensure that enough of them can be connected, because their main role in our current society is to be exploited through taxes.
Taxes that increasingly show up in the form of blazingly-high utility fees, inefficient spending that helps too few at the expense of the majority, as well as inappropriately-high health care, infrastructure and educational expenses for the ordinary resident who just wants a chance to get a job and move ahead...all the while having to work 2-3 jobs just to keep up, as I pointed out in my last CityWatch article.
Which is what GOP challenger Kashkari was pounding Governor Brown about, and which is why Brown clearly had trouble looking at the camera, looking at the moderators, and looking at his challenger.
And which is consistent with the way that Governor Brown prefers to face the Sacramento political leaders (at least those who AREN'T in jail) rather than the middle-class taxpayers he is supposed to represent.
The middle-class taxpayers who once (like myself) and often still do support high-speed rail, but NOT to the tune of $68 billion or more, and certainly NOT to the exclusion of road, water, sewage and other infrastructure repair required to ensure that our economy, environment and quality of life are ensured.
The middle-class taxpayers who are increasingly alarmed at how Governor Brown, Attorney General Harris and the rest of the Sacramento ruling elite are fighting the recent legal ACLU victory against an inappropriate use of teacher tenure laws to prevent quality teachers from best reaching minority students--this was particularly a prominent talking point of Kashkari's, for which Governor Brown appeared to have no answer whatsoever.
As Kashkari pointed out, Governor Brown has not defended the average taxpayer as well as he has the teachers unions and other unions who paid for his election, and are paying for his re-election.
Furthermore, Brown had no answer for Kashkari when the latter came up with several ideas to establish how a college education could again be affordable for the average, hard-working Californian.
Finally, when it came to the issue of illegal immigration, Kashkari--the son of immigrants, and a defender of the Californian, "middle-class first" approach to affordable education and housing, could not get a reasonable response from the Governor when he proclaimed that California and America could not solve all of the world's problems...particularly when Californians themselves (of all ethnic backgrounds) are hurting.
It's not hard to connect the dots and suggest that Governor Brown has shown more love for the President of Mexico and for Californian illegal immigrants (who the Mexican President referred to as his "other Mexico" while Governor Brown made it clear he wanted easy access to all Mexican citizens, legally here or not) than for native-born African-Americans in South L.A. or native-born Latinos in East LA.
In particular, the need for a hike in the Minimum Wage, as was recently supported by the UCLA Daily Bruin Editorial Board and published in CityWatch is excellent in its spiritual intent but woefully lacking in the details on how to successfully implement it (to say nothing of the unintended consequences).
In general, too many Californians are just underpaid...and their costs of living are moving upwards at a sky-high and unsustainable pace.
Hence the siren's call for a mega-hike (not just a hike, but a mega-hike) by a desperate populace striving to keep up. Any reasonable and caring human being wants more Americans to achieve a higher wage and station in life, but if importing tens of millions of low wage workers will do anything it will be to keep wages low--as has been the lot of native-born and legally-emigrated black, Latino and Asian residents.
This is particularly true when we encourage employers to hire illegally, pay under the table and to avoid paying for health care and other worker benefits.
Governor Brown's message was simple, provided you ignore the facts that he enjoys one-party rule and a Fed-Bank-and-taxpayer-subsidized and unsustainable Wall Street surge: we're making progress. But his "progress" is progress only when one keeps the bar jaw-droppingly LOW.
Neel Kashkari's message was also simple: who's representing the middle class who's paying more for energy, utilities, gas, education (including K-12 and college and vocational), taxes and housing?
California is certainly "doing better" and "making progress" to those who are CONNECTED and/or a shill for the Democratic Party (who we should all detest as much as any shill for the Republican Party), and for anyone who gets excited about our "new normal" with a progress bar set frightfully LOW compared to historical standards.
Otherwise, the questions are tough and complicated about how best for current and future Californians to succeed...even if they're NOT CONNECTED. We deserve better, and we deserve more than "shut up, take it, or get lost" or being demonized and called unfair and untrue names when unsustainable and corrupt policies are called out for what they are.
Because not all of us want to flee the state--which is a phenomenon that occurred beginning the first time that Governor Brown held that office.
And if Governor Brown wants to truly "man up", like he once told the California Legislature when he wanted them to make tough decisions, perhaps he should have the moral fortitude and integrity to "man up" himself and not dodge the spotlight of the debate process.
What the heck is the Governor afraid of, and why should he ignore the urgent suggestions of the media who moderated his one and only debate, if he truly has the right answer, and has truly made the right decisions and progress, to lead California?
If Governor Brown is truly in the corner of the middle class and the hurting, exhausted and demoralized taxpayers of this state, then why should he NOT perform more debates like he did during his "any time, any place" effort against Governor Meg Whitman four years ago?
Is the reason that Governor Brown won't "man up" and face a legitimate opponent (who's already angered many on the far right by being too moderate for their taste) is because he knows he doesn't have as convincing argument for the voters--particularly independent voters--this time around as he did four years ago?
Is Governor Brown too scared to comment on his own record...and is he too timid to "man up" and talk to the taxpaying, voting citizens of California...including the beleaguered and endangered middle-class?
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Board member of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] . He also does regular commentary on the Mark Isler Radio Show on AM 870, and co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 73
Pub: Sep 9, 2014
