Well, maybe not damaged — but Johnny talks about the new evidence that the brains of right wingers are different from those of other people. You can listen after the jump.
sfbg.com172010 by endorsements2010Tim Redmond
Hennessey, Lee and change
I’m not surprised that Randy Shaw is defending Ed Lee and arguing that either Lee or Mike Hennessey would be fine as interim mayor:
Ed Lee is not Gavin Newsom. Lee has dedicated his life to public service, spent years as a poverty lawyer, and has proved an outstanding administrator over the past two decades.
Shaw worked with Lee way back in the 1980s, when they were both young, underpaid lawyers doing housing work for some of the poorest San Franciscans. Both of them were doing crucial work that nobody else would handle; both of them were making San Francisco a better place. While I sometimes disagree with Shaw (and he seems to be all about attacking the Guardian these days) we have been close allies over the years on almost all the issues that matter. And I’m not going to attack Ed Lee or suggest that he’s forgotten his roots in immigrant rights and poverty law.
Here’s what I will say: If Ed Lee is interim mayor, you can expect very little change in Room 200. There’s a reason that Newsom wants Lee in office, and it’s not that he was a great progressive lawyer once. Newsom (and Sean Elsbernd, who nominated Lee) don’t want to see the mayor’s staff infrastructure — the people really running the city — dismantled. They don’t want any real changes in how business is done — and how the budget is addressed — from the way things worked the past seven years.
Lee hasn’t survived (and thrived) under so many different mayors by rocking the boat. He would be a cautious administrator who, I suspect, would avoid anything controversial (like tax increases on the wealthy or big cuts in the bloated Fire Department). Ed Lee is not Gavin Newsom — but his staff will be Gavin Newsom’s staff and, through the inertia that is San Francisco bureaucracy, not much will change in the next 11 months.
That’s what the conservatives on the board want, and I understand that. I don’t think Hennessey would make dramatic changes, either — the whole idea of a caretaker mayor is that the person who fills out Newsom’s term won’t try to put his own stamp on city government. (And let’s remember, Hennessey sided with Newsom on privatizing jail health services) But I think Hennessey would bring some new blood into the office and would be more likely to consider an approach to the budget that differs significantly from what Newsom has offered.
Everyone agrees that Lee is a smart, competent manager; that’s why he won unanimous approval as the City Administrator, an office that doesn’t involve major policy initiatives. So if you think things are basically okay in San Francisco, and you don’t want any major policy shifts out of the Mayor’s Office until after the next election, Ed Lee will do a fine job for you. That’s not demonizing him; that’s just explaining the reality here.
Me, I don’t think things are okay in this city at all. I’m looking for dramatic, profound, radical change in the next mayor. I’m not going to get it from either of these interim candidates, but after talking to Hennessey, I think if the supervisors pushed for a better, more progressive budget, he’d go along. I’m not so sure about Lee. And the fact that Newsom and every member of the conservative wing of the board wants Lee over Hennessey says something to me. These people aren’t fools; they don’t want any surprises. That’s why they’re making this move.
I’ve been wrong before. Hope I’m wrong this time. Maybe Mayor Ed Lee will support $250 million worth of new revenue measures, like a city income tax and a business tax overhaul that makes the biggest companies pay more. But if that was part of his agenda, I suspect Elsbernd and Newsom would have a clue — and then he wouldn’t be their choice.
Jerry Brown and local government
So Jerry Brown wants to go back to the days before Prop. 13. He wants to do what a lot of people say, in retrospect, he should have done in 1978: Leave local government with the responsibility for all those things that property taxes used to fund.
His idea is being framed as a little more gentle than that:
“We’re going to shift funding to the local level, we’re going to make sure there’s enough responsibility and discretion to use the money in the wisest possible ways,” Brown told reporters after the meeting, adding that he does not believe it will be an easy change. “There will be controversies.”
But the reality is simple: the state doesn’t have the money to fund all the things that cities and counties need to do. And Brown would be solving (some of) Sacramento’s problems by adding to the burdens of local government.
He’s crazy like a fox, though, Jerry is. Back in June, 1978, when the voters approved Prop. 13, local officials said the results would be disastrous — schools closing, fire stations shuttered, police departments devastated by layoffs, bus service collapsing … and at first, none of those things happened. That’s because under Gov. Brown, the state was running a huge budget surplus — and Brown shared it with the cities and counties.
Now more than 70 percent of every dollar of state spending goes directly to local government. When people complain about the state’s budget increasing over the past few decades, they need to understand — not only has population expanded and the federal government cut back on programs that the state now has to pay for, but the state has taken on programs that used to be funded by local property taxes.
And Brown wants the cities and counties to take some of that responsibility again. In the process, he might wind up doing what no politician in the state has managed in in 32 years. He might show Californians how bad Prop. 13 really is.
Because unless the state gives local government significant new power to raise taxes (and I’d love to see that happen), the cuts over the next two years will hit particularly hard on the things that people see around them every day: Local government services.
It is, indeed, shock doctrine. And the only way it can possibly work is if local government is given the authority to raise enough money to pay for the services people want, need and expect — and if people start to realized that there’s nobody in Sacramento or Washington to bail them out, and that if they want good schools, safe streets, nice parks, etc. they’re going to have to pay for it.
It’s going to be a fascinating spring.
The vote’s delayed until Friday
Late at night, a bit of common sense at the board. After Supervisors David Campos, John Avalos and Ross Mirkarimi made the same basic point — that none of them had had a chance to talk to Ed Lee about the job, that Lee wasn’t even in town right now and that it was crazy to vote for a mayoral candidate who hasn’t been part of any process — six supervisors, including Sophie Maxwell, voted for a continuance until Friday, Jan. 7th at 3 pm. So it will be another crazy three days trying to figure all this out.
The problem with Ed Lee
Is not just that he’s the candidate of the conservatives on the board; I don’t even know at this point how to describe his political inclinations, and Eric Mar thinks he’s got progressive credentials (from the past, though, not from anything recent.) The problem is that we don’t have any idea how he would handle any of the central issues facing the city, starting with the budget mess.
Although I’m pissed that the other candidates didn’t show up for a Milk Club forum, at least Art Agnos and Mike Hennessey have been talking to people, meeting with supervisors and activists and giving some indication of how they might handle the job. If Ed Lee has been doing that, it’s been very, very quiet — and if he wants to be mayor of the entire city, he can’t just ignore the progressives.
So at the very least, David Chiu ought to allow the board to recess until tomorrow so a few of the people who will be voting for the next mayor can talk to the guy they may be electing.
A swing to Lee — Daly ballistic
Bevan Dufty emerged from his meeting in the mayor’s office to say he was ready to vote for Ed Lee. The deal was cut; we don’t know what it is, but that’s what happened. And Sup. Chris Daly is ballistic.
“This is,” he just said, “the biggest political fumble in the history of progressive politics in San Francisco” and he put the blame directly on Board President David Chiu, the sixth progressive vote who went with Lee over Hennessey. As much as he liked Ed Lee as a person, Daly said, “politically, he will work for the other side.” He then told Chiu he would “haunt” him politically and announced, “it’s on like Donkey Kong.”
Then Avalos asked for a recess “to go in some back room” and with minor disagreements, the board is in recess until 10:15.
Wow. What a moment. What a totally bogus way for a new mayor to be chosen for this city. Ed Lee wasn’t even on the radar, wasn’t under consideration, had said he didn’t want the job, until some deal was cut at the last minute. Nothing against Ed Lee, but you can’t be an effective mayor of this city when you jump into things at the last minute, with no chance for anybody to talk about or evaluate your credentials. And he’s clearly the mayor of the conservative board members — and David Chiu has joined them.
I’m not as angry as Chris Daly — that would be hard — but I’m disappointed.
Dufty the swing vote — and talking to Newsom
The Board of Supervisors has gone into recess with a split vote on either Ed Lee or Mike Hennessey as interim mayor. One supervisors have voted no on both nominees — and now holds the power to decide who the next mayor will be.
And Bevan Dufty, the wing vote, along with Sophie Maxwell, was just seen walking into the mayor’s office.
Not the way anyone thought this would come down; David Chiu wasn’t even nominated, and Art Agnos, who at one point looked close to the magic number of 6, only got 3 votes. It’s going to be close, with all the conservative supervisors voting for Lee and all the progressives except Chiu voting for Hennessey. It’s entirely possible that we’ll have at least a prospective new mayor tonight — that is, if Newsom ever decides to leave town.
2010 Offies!
tredmond@sfbg.com
When a major conservative political movement starts using a name that typically refers to the act of scrotal fellatio, you know it’s morning again in America. In 2010, the teabaggers came home. They nominated candidates who think masturbation is selfish and wonder why monkeys aren’t still evolving into humans. They held rallies urging the government to “get out of my Medicare,” which happens to be a government program. Their leaders praised dictators and urged women who had been raped to look at the bright side of things.
And those were just the headlines.
It’s hard to imagine a year that could be worse than 2010 — but it was a great vintage for the Offies.
Presenting the Off Guard awards for the silliest, most insane, and absolute worst of the year that was.
AND SHE FIGURES IF WE ARREST EVERYONE WITH BROWN SKIN, WE CAN FINALLY GET THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR UNDER CONTROL
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer told reporters that illegal immigration resulted in beheadings in the desert.
BUT AS LONG AS YOU DON’T TOUCH YOURSELF WHEN YOU THINK OF THE DEVIL, IT’S GOING TO BE OKAY
Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware who decried masturbation as a “selfish act,” said she only dabbled in witchcraft and had just one date on a satanic altar.
EXCEPT THAT WE ALREADY ARE, AND WE ALREADY ARE
Jerry Brown said he opposed the state’s marijuana legalization measure because “we can’t compete with China if we’re all stoned.”
LOOK BUSY
A Pew Research Center poll showed that 41 percent of Americans think Jesus will return in the next 40 years.
HEY, IF WE’D JUST CREATED THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER OF THE DECADE, WE’D WANT A LITTLE BREAK, TOO
A few days after the worst oil spill in U.S. history, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward complained that he wanted his life back.
BUT HE SWEARS HE’LL STOP AT BEHEADINGS
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said if he were governor he’d give the National Guard live ammunition to shoot at immigrants on the border.
AFTER ALL, IF THEY’RE NOT IN AN AIRPLANE, THEY CAN’T DO ANY DAMAGE
GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said that people on the federal no-fly list should have the right to own guns.
OOH, WHEN YOU TALK TOUGH LIKE THAT YOU ALMOST SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WHO COULD STAND UP TO THE REPUBLICANS. OR MAYBE NOT
President Obama asked whose ass he should kick at BP.
IT’S OKAY, THOUGH, AS LONG AS THEY WEREN’T ENGAGING IN ANY SELFISH ACTS
Staffers at the Securities and Exchange Commission got caught spending as much as eight hours a day downloading porn at the office.
AND SOMETIMES GOP CANDIDATES ARE NITWITS
Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle praised Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for his efforts to privatize that country’s retirement system, saying “sometimes dictators have good ideas.”
YEAH, COME ON, WHY CAN’T YOU LOOK AT THE BRIGHT SIDE OF THINGS?
Sharron Angle said that women who have become pregnant as the result of rape or incest should “turn lemons into lemonade.”
DAMN GUMMINT TRYING TO INTERFERE WITH PRIVATE BIDNESS
GOP Congressman Joe Barton of Texas apologized to BP for a White House “shakedown.”
YES, AS A MATTER OF FACT I DO OWN THE WHOLE GODDAM SCHOOL
Meg Whitman’s son threw softball equipment over a fence to kick a group of computer science and physics students off the Princeton rugby field.
NICE, SINCE THOSE GROUPS ALL GOT ALONG SO WELL
GOP Senate candidate Chuck DeVore compared Palestinian activists to Nazis, Fascists, and Communists.
AND OF COURSE, THAT WORKS SO WELL WITH MODERN MANAGED CARE
Nevada banned chicken costumes from the polls after Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden said that people should barter with doctors for health care the way “our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor.”
ANOTHER GREAT MOMENT IN THEOLOGY FROM THE MAN WHO BROUGHT YOU THE PEDOPHILE PRIEST COVER UP
Pope Benedict said it was okay for male prostitutes to wear condoms.
SO HE’S GOT THAT GOING FOR HIM. WHICH IS NICE
Formerly classified State Department cables revealed that the premier of Korea is still an excellent drinker.
ACTUALLY, THEY TOOK ONE LOOK AT THE TEA PARTY AND DECIDED THEY WERE BETTER OFF AS THEY ARE
Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell said that evolution was a myth; after all, she wondered, “why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?”
THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN FOR ITS SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
The Vatican announced that the ordination of women and the abuse of children were both “grave crimes.”
THAT’S OKAY, IT WILL LOOK GOOD ON HIS RESUME
Gavin Newsom decided to run for lieutenant governor after saying he didn’t know what the job was.
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK, CIA EDITION
The United States held high-level negotiations with a supposedly senior Taliban operative who turned out to be a Pakistani shopkeeper.
BUT WAIT — HOW WILL WE KNOW IF WE’RE SUPPOSED TO WORRY OR NOT?
The Department of Homeland Security abandoned color-coded safety alerts.
THE INTELLIGENCE AND CULTURAL TASTE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS SIMPLY STAGGERING
Sarah Palin’s daughter, Bristol, made it to the final round of Dancing with the Stars.
WHICH MAKES HIM ENTIRELY QUALIFIED TO SERVE AS A REPUBLICAN POLITICIAN
Dan Quayle’s son ran for Congress in Arizona and admitted that he had been posting on “dirty Scottsdale” under the name of Brock Landers, a sidekick to porn star Dirk Diggler.
IS HE ONE OF THE NAZI FASCIST COMMUNISTS, TOO?
Rand Paul said Obama’s criticism of BP was “un-American.”
WAIT — WAS THAT A BROWN ALERT?
The California Highway Patrol shut down its South Lake Tahoe office after officers found an anal vibrator and thought it was a bomb.
HONESTY IS JUST PART OF THE PROCESS OF RECOVERY
Tiger Woods admitted that he sucked.
EXCEPT THAT IT MOSTLY BENEFITS THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Vice President Joe Biden called the health reform bill “a big fucking deal.”
IT’S THOSE CUTE WOODEN SHOES, YOU SEE
NATO Commander John Sheehan said Dutch soldiers were too gay.
DAMN, AND HE’S SUCH AN ATTRACTIVE MAN. I’M SURE THE TSA FOLKS WERE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IT
John Tyner told Transportation Security Administration officials in San Diego that if “you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”
AND HE WASN’T EVEN TALKING ABOUT HER
Sarah Palin demanded that Rahm Emanuel apologize for using the term “fucking retarded.”
SINCE WE ALL KNOW THOSE PEOPLE DON’T KNOW HOW TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC
MSNBC Host Chris Matthews was so excited by an Obama speech that he said he “forgot he was black.”
THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. spent $50 million on a ballot initiative to stop public power, and lost after getting soundly defeated in every county where the utility has customers.
YOU MAY BE PART OF THE FAMILY, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO MY POLITICAL CAREER, HONEY, YOU’RE OUT THE DOOR
Meg Whitman fired her housekeeper when she found out she was in the country illegally.
BUT THEY’RE ALIKE ANYWAY, RIGHT?
Sharron Angle defended a campaign ad depicting menacing-looking Hispanic men by telling members of the Hispanic Student Union at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas that many of the members looked Asian.
OF COURSE, SHE SKIPPED THE FIRST FEW AMENDMENTS — BOOORING!
Christine O’Donnell said she couldn’t find anything about the separation of church and state in the Constitution.
BECAUSE IN A FIREFIGHT, THE FIRST THING ANYONE WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IS HIS SERGEANT’S CUTE ASS
Sen. John McCain said he opposed ending “don’t ask, don’t tell,” talked about all the soldiers and Marines who lost limbs, and said that “when your life is on the line, you don’t want anything distracting.”
SINCE WE ALL KNOW THAT HEALTH INSURANCE MAKES YOUR PEE SMELL FUNNY
Federal judge Henry Hudson asked Obama administration officials whether the new health care plan was similar to forcing all Americans to eat asparagus.
SO IT’S JUST AS WELL THOSE PEOPLE ON THE NO-FLY LIST HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Sharron Angle said that the Obama administration’s policies might require “Second Amendment solutions.”
IT’S PERFECTLY FINE FOR HOMOSEXUALS TO ATTEND MARRIAGE CEREMONIES, AS LONG AS THEY’RE JUST THE HIRED HELP
Sir Elton John played at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding.
SURE, GREAT FUN. JUST LIKE SHOOTING YOUR FRIENDS WITH A HUNTING RIFLE
Dick Cheney said he had been a “big supporter of water boarding.”
DAMN, SUPERVISOR, THE OFFIES WILL MISS YOU
Chris Daly vowed to say “fuck” at every single board meeting in 2010.
Editor’s Notes
tredmond@sfbg.com
Social inequality is morally wrong, politically dumb, and economically unsustainable. It also makes you fat.
Seriously.
There’s a book by two British epidemiologists that argues the physical and mental health case for economic equality — and it’s full of great stuff. It’s a year old, but I read a nice analysis of it in Nicholas Kristof’s column in the Jan. 2 New York Times. Kristof notes that Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, both British epidemiologists, cited vast and growing evidence that societies with greater equality are in general more healthy. And by that they mean not only that those societies have less crime and violence; the people who live with greater equality actually have less heart disease, mental illness, and obesity.
The book is called The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. A lot of it’s kind of touchy-feeley, but in the end, they come to a scientific conclusion: “The relationships between inequality and poor health and social problems are too strong to be attributable to chance.”
The two scientists also take on one of the great taboos of modern economics. They argue that growth isn’t necessarily good, that the standard goal of every official government policy in every major nation in the world — capitalist, socialist, or communist — over at least the past half-century, has been based on a flawed assumption.
There aren’t even that many progressives in this country who want to challenge the idea that the economy needs to grow to solve problems like unemployment and poverty. Sim Van Der Ryn, the visionary planner and architect, once told me that it makes no sense to have “a perpetually adolescent economy.” But in most polite company, that’s heresy.
But our new governor, who once employed Van Der Ryn as the director of the Office of Appropriate Technology, has a few heretical cells in his Jesuit-trained brain. And while I don’t expect him to turn the state’s growth frenzy on its head, he ought to be willing to think about this:
The solution to California’s problems may lie more with redistributing the pie than with making it larger.
I’m not arguing that we should abandon growth, particularly at a time of high unemployment. But keep in mind: corporate profits are already up, both here and nationwide — but the big companies are hoarding their cash and not hiring. Banks are making money again — but they’re not lending it out. We’re in a different sort of recovery here, one that may, for the moment, be structurally jobless. During the deep recession, businesses figured out how to survive with fewer employees, and they’re not about to start expanding the payroll.
And of course, the public sector has done nothing but shrink, and there’s little talk of anything but more shrinking.
So maybe the only way we’re going to get out of this is to inject more money into the economy, not by borrowing but by sending some of the idle wealth at the top back down to the level where it might become production. It might make us all a lot healthier. Because it turns out that you don’t have to eat the rich; just tax them.
Social inequality makes you fat
This is one of my favorite bits of social science research of the past year: The kind of gross inequality that we see in the United States not only harms productivity, damages the economy and is unsustainable — it makes you fat. From the NYTimes:
For example, macaque monkeys are also highly social animals, and scientists put them in cages and taught them how to push a lever so that they could get cocaine. Those at the bottom of the monkey hierarchy took much more cocaine than high-status monkeys.
Other experiments found that low-status monkeys suffered physical problems, including atherosclerosis in their arteries and an increase in abdominal fat. And as with monkeys, so with humans. Researchers have found that when people become unemployed or suffer economic setbacks, they gain weight. One 12-year study of American men found that when their income slipped, they gained an average of 5.5 pounds.
So:
Among rich countries, those that are more unequal appear to have more mental illness, infant mortality, obesity, high school dropouts, teenage births, homicides, and so on.
My conclusion: tax the rich and we’ll all be a lot healthier. Happy new year.
SFBG Radio: Schwarzenegger’s bad pardon
So you thought Johnny was always mad; you ain’t seen nothing. Today he’s furious that the outgoing gov cut the prison sentence of a killer who happened to be the son of another prominent politician — while thousands of nonviolent inmates are rotting in prison. You can listen after the jump.
sfbgradio1/3/2011 by endorsements2010
Guardian, SF Weekly settle suit
The Bay Guardian and the chain that owns SF Weekly have reached a settlement that ends an eight-year legal battle.
The parties have settled their differences on mutually acceptable terms.
You can read about the trial court verdict here, and some of the post-trial issues here, and our victory at the Court of Appeals here and here and the Supreme Court decision upholding our verdict here.
Specific terms of the settlement are confidential, as is often the case in business-related litigation.
Guardian Editor and Publisher Bruce B. Brugmann said the Guardian’s string of victories at the trial court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court “provide a model for protecting other small, independent businesses facing predatory pricing schemes from competitors.”
The Guardian’s legal team toiled for more than six years to bring this case to trial, to preserve the trial result on appeal, and to attempt to enforce the judgment and negotiate the settlement. Ralph Alldredge, Richard P. Hill and E. Craig Moody handled the trial. Joseph Hearst joined in for the appeals work. And Jay Adkisson took on the collections work.
Thanks, folks. You preserved a crucial state law, and you proved that persistence in the pursuit of justice is worthwhile. Small businesses in California will never forget it.
All candidates duck; mayoral forum cancelled
I was all excited about moderating a Harvey Milk Club discussion tonight on the next mayor, and getting a chance to ask the candidates who want to fill out Gavin Newsom’s term a little about what they might do in the next 11 months. It’s kind of important; you’d think the folks who want the job would be willing to give us a little clue about why they think they should have it.
But guess what? Not a single potential candidate was willing to show up. Art Agnos, Mike Hennessey, Ed Harrington … they all either declined or said they couldn’t make it.
That, my friends, is really lame — and not a good sign for San Francisco.
At any rate, the forum would have been open to the public, has been cancelled.
Editor’s Notes
tredmond@sfbg.com
Art Agnos spent six terms in the California Assembly and four years as mayor; he doesn’t need my political advice. But I gave it to him anyway the last time I saw him, when he expressed an interest in serving out the remainder of Gavin Newsom’s term.
Agnos and I were not close when he was running San Francisco; the Guardian supported him strongly for the job, but we were quickly disillusioned, not just by his nearly instant sellout to Pacific Gas and Electric Co., but by his apparent disdain for public process. But now he’s retired, and living on Potrero Hill near the Guardian office, and I see him on the streets when I’m going to buy lunch at Hazel’s and he’s walking his dog, and we have pleasant chats about politics. He’s mellowed. At 72, he seems to have a bit more perspective on what he did right — and wrong.
At any rate, when he told me that he’d be willing to serve as a caretaker mayor — and I got a sense that he’d actually like to do it — I told him this: you can’t just talk to me and a few supervisors. You want to be mayor of San Francisco, even for 11 months, you have to go out and talk to the people who spend their lives trying to make this a better place. The same goes for Ed Harrington, Mike Hennessey, and anyone else who wants the job.
Here’s the odd thing about the next mayor: For better or for worse, the person who takes over whenever Newsom finally decides to go to Sacramento will be directly accountable only six supervisors (or seven or eight, in the unlikely event that anyone gets that kind of majority). If the interim mayor is really a caretaker and never seeks reelection, it’s possible that the voters and the activist groups that define San Francisco won’t be part of the next administration’s political calculus.
And that would be a mistake.
The progressive movement in San Francisco is much stronger and more organized than it was when Agnos first ran for mayor in 1987. And if the progressive majority on the board chooses a mayor, there will be high expectations — not just for policy, but for openness and inclusiveness. After being shut out for seven years, a whole lot of people are going to want to be able to walk into the Mayor’s Office and feel welcome.
And that process starts now.
There are all kinds of arcane state laws that limit the ability of the current or incoming supervisors to campaign for the mayor’s job. But we already know who they are — they’ve been campaigning and meeting with groups and constituents regularly over the past couple of years. Not so with the outside candidates.
What mix of new revenue and cuts would Harrington seek to balance the budget? How would Hennessey address pension reform? Where’s Agnos on implementing community choice aggregation? I’m not the only one who wants to know.
There’s this ethos among these guys that it’s unseemly to be trying too hard to get the job, that it’s better to sit back and be asked — and part of that is the reality that it’s going to suck trying to balance the city’s books, and it won’t be a fun 11 months, and some of them would just as soon not bother. But there’s no shame in wanting to be mayor, or interim mayor. If you want it, say so — and tell us all what you’d do.
I’m moderating a Harvey Milk Club panel discussion Jan. 3 and all the prospective candidates are invited. The least any potential mayor can do is show up and answer questions.
Maybe bankruptcy would save California
First of all: ain’t going to happen. The state needs to spend $6.6 billion on bond debt, and has more than $50 million available. No default looming. I’m with Robert Cruickshank at Calitics: The law shouldn’t give bondholders first claim on the state’s money. But it does.
That said, some of the people who commented on my last post on the subject seem almost to be drooling at the prospect of a state or municipal bankruptcy; a judge, they argue, could force big reductions in employee pensions.
But there’s another twist on this that my colleague Johnny Angel Wendell just passed along to me:
In a normal bankruptcy, a judge looks not just at debts and obligations but at assets. A bankrupt corporation has to turn over all it has, including accounts receivable; hiding money isn’t legal. So suppose a bankruptcy judge looked at California and said: This is a rich state with lots of assets, and the only reason it can’t collect on those assets and make good on its debts — the number one responsibility of a bankruptcy judge — is that it’s hamstrung by some ridiculous laws. Bankruptcy judges have sweeping authority to restructure corporations; perhaps by the same standard, a judge could restructure not only California’s accounts payable and obligations but its ability to bring in money.
Imagine a court saying: Prop. 13 interferes with California’s ability to pay its debts. The two-thirds requirement for tax hikes interferes with California’s ability to pay its debts. Sorry, those laws are gone.
A federal judge has already mandated that California spend billions on better prison health care; why not mandate that the state raise taxes to cover its costs?
So all you fiscal conservatives who are looking only at the debts and liabilities side of the balance sheet, think about what you’re asking for. Because there’s an asset side, too — and California’s is pretty big.
Spoiled mayor wants to get his way
I guess it’s no surprise that Gavin Newsom takes his political cues from the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. But this spoiled-kid choose-a-mayor-I-like-or-I-won’t-leave attitude isn’t pretty. Newsom has chosen a new office; it’s no longer his business who the folks he left behind want to put in Room 200.
And here’s what’s silly: If he wants a caretaker mayor, he’s not helping things with this approach. I actually think the incoming board is less likely to pick a caretaker. And the overall political leaning of the new board isn’t that different than the current board.
Newsom even seemed to acknowledge that: “I wonder what the big difference is now the more I work through the math.”
So why exactly is he doing this? Just to make the Chron folks feel important? Just to leave us with one last show of petulance? Or has he cut some sort of deal with the incoming supervisors? And which candidate does he want, anyway? because if it’s Ed Harrington, I hope he’s worked through the math — there’s no way Harrington gets six votes on the new board, unless either David Chiu or Jane Kim goes totally south and decides to support a pro-PG&E candidate who will only continue the worst of Newsom’s policies.
Frankly, I don’t see it happening.
Gavin: You’re done. You can’t choose the next mayor; you don’t have the votes. So quit whining and move on.
SFBG Radio: The year in review
In today’s episode, Johnny and Tim talk about the crazy year that was 2010. Listen after the jump.
The unfair attack on public employees
Just to be sure my pal(s) Matlock and Lucretia aren’t off on some sort sort of web holiday, thought I’d repost this week’s Editors Notes here. It’s a defense of public employee pensions and pay. At the very least, it’s a perspective you don’t hear much.
The caretaker hypocrites
Isn’t it interesting that so many of the people who are demanding a “caretaker” mayor — someone who will accept the appointment but not run again — are politicians who were originally appointed to their jobs, and then ran again?
Dianne Feinstein: Appointed mayor by the supervisors. Ran again, even though she had said she wouldn’t.
Gavin Newsom: Appointed supervisor by Willie Brown. Ran for re-election then for mayor.
Sean Elsebernd: Appointed by Gavin Newsom. Ran for re-election.
Michela Alioto-Pier: Appointed by Gavin Newsom. Ran for re-election.
It is, DCCC Chair Aaron Peskin told me, “more than a bit ironic.”
I have to admit, there’s also something a bit un-democratic about the caretaker idea. What if the supervisors appoint a “caretaker” — and round about July or so, we all realize he or she is doing a great job. Why can’t we, the voters, decide to keep that person in office? And if the person the supes appoint is doing a crappy job, we can vote for somebody else.
I get that someone who isn’t spending the entire interim period running for re-election might have some advantages. But in the end, the “caretaker” is a bit like term limits. Shouldn’t the voters be the ones to decide that?
Editor’s Notes
tredmond@sfbg.com
When the talk comes around to budget politics these days — and these days, nobody in politics can talk about much else — there’s a pretty consistent line out there, from the mainstream left to the far right, and it goes like this:
Public employees have been riding high on great pay and benefits, and they’re going to have to accept that those days are over. We can do it nicely, and negotiate and all, but the people who work for the city and the state are getting a haircut. Pension reform. Health care premium hikes. Two-tiered wage systems. Sorry, folks — there’s no other choice.
And I understand the feeling. There are plenty of unemployed people out there who aren’t happy that they’re still paying taxes to support generous pay and health benefits for workers who are consistently maligned as lazy. There are small business owners who can barely afford minimally adequate health insurance for themselves and their employees. There are underpaid private-sector workers who get jealous when they hear what you make over at City Hall.
I get it, and in terms of political reality, public-sector pensions, pay, and benefits are going to have to be part of any budget resolution in Sacramento or San Francisco.
But let me say something else.
In the past 30 years, while public-sector unions were getting organized, becoming a political force and negotiating decent pay and benefits, the United States economy was shifting radically, in a way that we hadn’t seen since the turn of the Century. From Reagan on through Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, powerful forces in Washington launched a class war in this country, one that has as many victims as most of the traditional wars we’ve fought in the past century. The winners have been a small number of people and businesses that have grown impossibly rich — by taking money away from everyone else.
And they aren’t getting any cuts. In fact, their pay, pensions, benefits, and wealth aren’t even on the table. Which is profoundly unfair.
Of the 400 richest people in America (according to Forbes), 80 live in California. Their combined new worth is $231.8 billion — about 10 times the size of the state’s budget deficit. If they gave up just a modest amount of the benefits they get from living in this state and this country (and yes, the rich got that way in part because of the benefits they get from living here), we wouldn’t have a budget crisis at all.
The people who declared this war were smart enough to figure out how to divide the opposition, to turn us against each other. That’s why they keep winning.
Chiu, the mayor and the next board
Matier and Ross today ran a piece saying exactly what everybody who follows local politics already knew: Board president David Chiu will have considerable influence over the choice of the next mayor. The thing is, Chiu has to make a decision, soon: Does he want to be interim mayor (thus giving up his board seat and risking losing in November) or go for the district attorney job (thus giving Newsom a swing-vote appointment to the board and pissing off the progressive constituency that got him elected and will be critical to his political future) or move to keep his position as board president (which means working some deals with the incoming board)?
He has to decide pretty soon, too.
Chiu can almost guarantee that the current board doesn’t choose a mayor. that will take six votes, and without Chiu, neither the progressives nor the moderates can count to six. That would put his fate (both as a potential mayor and board president) in the hands of the new board.
And while everyone at the Chron seems to accept at face value the notion that the new board will be more centrist, I don’t think we know that yet. The only way this board moves to the center is if Jane Kim, a former Green Party member who replaces Chris Daly, starts to abondon her progressive principles. If that doesn’t happen, then all this talk of a more centrist new board is bunk.
Remember: D2, Farrell replaces Alioto-Pier — a wash. D4: carmen Chu re-elected. D6: Kim replaces Daly. D8: Wiener replaces Dufty — a wash. D 10: Cohen replaces Maxwell — probably a wash, since Maxwell was never part of the progressive majority.
The only twist is that Chiu supported Kim and they’re close, so she would back him for mayor. But Daly might, too.
The bottom line: Chiu has to decide pretty soon what he wants to do, and let the rest of us know.
Could California go bankrupt?
Not today, not under current federal law. But Calitics alerts me to a really disturbing story that I didn’t know about: Congressional Republicans are pushing legislation that would allow (and actually encourage) state bankruptcies. The idea, of course, is to break public-employee unions and wipe out pensions that people have paid into and earned.
Oh, and by the way: The bill would almost certainly make it harder for states to borrow money for infrastructure projects. The cost of bonds would go up, California would have less money to build new schools, roads, high-speed rail etc. Again, something the Republicans like.
It’s crazy: California is such a wealthy state, and should be nowhere near bankruptcy. I heard on the radio the other day that Jerry Brown is going to have to do now what he should have done in 1978: Make Californians feel the affects of Prop. 13. Back then, after warning that the tax-cutting measure would have calamitous results, he used state money to bail out local governments and prevent the impacts from being felt. Now, when there’s no state money left, local governments are going to get hit really hard. The disaster that Prop. 13 opponents warned about 32 years ago is finally going to hit.
At the very least, if that’s Brown’s approach, he’s going to have to work to allow local governments more freedom to raise revenue on their own. Unless he wants cities and counties (which by law CAN go bankrupt) to follow that route. And I don’t think he does.
Newsom tries to defy City Charter
Gavin Newsom knew that if he got elected lieutenant governor, the supervisors would be able to choose his replacement. That was part of the deal. Now he wants to game the system, and delay his swearing in until the new board takes over. The claim: “The board should pick a caretaker, not a politician.”
A politician? In the mayor’s office? Um, dude: What are you?
This is not only annoying and dubiously legal, but stupid. Does Newsom really think the incoming board is more likely to choose a caretaker? No such luck. The incoming board is likely to choose David Chiu — a politician who will likely run in November.
Besides, the state Constitution says the lite guv takes office Jan. 3rd. So if Newsom refuses to take the oath of office, one could certainly argue that he has vacated that position, meaning the governor, Jerry Brown, could appoint a replacement. I think if Newsom carries through with his lame threat that Jerry should do exactly that.
PS: Newsom also said he “can’t just walk away and see everything blow up and there are a few politicians in this town that want to serve on ideological agenda.” Let’s be clear here: Newsom also has an ideological agenda. He thinks same-sex marriage should be legal and taxes should be low. He thinks it should be illegal to sit on the sidewalk. He’s got plenty of ideology.
He just doesn’t want a mayor whose ideology he disagrees with. Too late, Gav: You decided to leave the city. Now leave the rest of us alone to deal with the consequences.
SFBG Radio: Why the rich won’t flee
Every time I talk about taxing the rich, some cretin comments and tells me that if you raise their taxes, they’ll all leave California. I’ve heard the same thin about businesses — and there is no factual evidence to support that. Johnny and I talk about this lunacy after the break.
sfbgradio12162010 by endorsements2010