CA: Why Get-out-the Vote for Angelides
Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 07:19:09 PM PDT
It's simple: the record through the years proves that Angelides will stand up for the majority of Californians and Schwarzenegger will stay wrapped up in corporate money. Because of that, another Schwarzenegger administration will plague California with the government incompetence, corporate cronyism and abandonment of most Californians that has come to embody the Bush administration. Worse, Schwarzenegger is an actor who can pretend very well that it's not true. Unfortunately, so far Angelide's commercials linking Schwarzenegger to Bush have been utterly ineffective, as recent polls show.
Not because Arnold and George don't in reality have something in common--they do, a lot--but because Angelides' commercials are too patronizing. People aren't going to vote for Angelides from generalities recalling how Arnold appeared at campaign rallies with Bush. Angelides needs to explain WHAT THE TWO HAVE IN COMMON-corporate cronyism at its worst. Here are a few examples.
From the Associated Press, September 3, 2004 here.
Chevron Makes Donations, Gets Key Say in State Overhaul
by Tom Chorneau.
SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plan to reorganize almost every aspect of state government was influenced significantly by oil and gas giant ChevronTexaco Corp., which managed to shape such key recommendations as the removal of restrictions on oil refineries.
Disclosure of Chevron's determined role in what many believe is the administration's most important political reform effort contrasts sharply with statements he made during last year's election campaign and afterward in which he promised to sweep out a corrupt system where "contributions go in, the favors go out.
Many corporations and interest groups participated in the governor's reform plan - known as the California Performance Review - but state records and interviews with the participants show Chevron enjoyed immense success in influencing the report through its array of lobbyists, attorneys and trade organizations.
And few corporations have spent so much political cash on the governor, either. Since Schwarzenegger's election last October, the San Ramon company has contributed more than $200,000 to his committees and $500,000 to the California Republican Party.
So then, is it really a surprise that today, Schwarzenegger has come out against Proposition 87 and Angelides supports it?
With Gas Prices Reaching Record Highs, Angelides Calls for Protection from Big Oil Price Gouging, Urges Passage of Prop 87 for Investment of Alternative EnergyAs Governor Schwarzenegger sides with Big Oil and appears with former President George H.W. Bush, Angelides calls for new commitment to clean, alternative fuels.
For you out-of-staters, Proposition 87, if it passes, will impose drilling fees on oil companies in California, which will go to pay $4 billion in investment in renewable energy. The proposition would also make it illegal to pass this cost on to consumers. I am for this proposition because I happen to believe that global warming could totally sink our society, if not in my generation, my kid's. But I also think there are legitimate short-term reasons to be against it. California would have by far the highest overall taxes on gasoline (which again, I personally don't think is necessarily a bad thing), and gas prices may well go up--if by some miracle the state can actually enforce the prohibition on passing the cost to consumers, oil companies would still have the choice of simply not drilling in California, which could also raise prices. The people that get hurt the most are those that can already barely afford gas. Yet I still think our society needs a kick in the ass, if you will, to reduce dependence on non-renewable energy sources like oil. It's a tough question, and one in which I think we have to think more long-term as a society. Prop 87 is a step in that direction.
But I digress. My point with Proposition 87 is how Schwarzenegger, who tends to make grandiose proclamations about how environmental he is, so transparently takes the side of some of his biggest donors--oil companies--when he pledged he'd never even accept corporate money.
And the contrast between the two candidates gets much sharper. In the wake of the Enron debacle in 2001, which included a price fixing fraud that cost California tax payers billions of dollars, here is what Angelides was proposing to solve the problem and to prevent it from happening again:
As the State's chief investment officer, and as a trustee of over $270 billion in state pension and taxpayer funds, I am deeply committed to safeguarding the public treasury; protecting pensioners, families, and taxpayers; and restoring the faith and confidence of investors. That is why I have taken an active role in advancing corporate reform--using the power of California's considerable investment portfolio and market presence to combat corporate fraud and abuse and to set new standards of integrity and corporate responsibility.
Our office has told investment banks and money managers that they must meet tough conflict of interest and disclosure rules or risk losing the right to do business with the State. We have banned investments in, and business dealings with, expatriate U.S. companies that relocate--in name only--to tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid taxes and weaken shareholder rights. We brought together pension and investment officers from 14 states, responsible for managing over $1 trillion in assets, to collectively push for needed reforms. And, we will continue to take action to help renew the faith of investers in the
integrity of our financial markets.
And what was Schwarzenegger doing? Why, holding private meetings with Enron, of course. According to internal Enron records, which you can read about here, the purpose of the meeting was
to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Not surprisingly, then, Schwarzenegger in 2005 quietly settled a lawsuit against Enron (of course by now a bankrupt corporation) that would have disgorged these $9 billion in profits, for a paltry $1.5 billion, of which only $260 million would to benefit ratepayers:
here is the press release.
And yet another example of Schwarzenneger's policy positions (does he really have any of his own?) that just happens to be completely anti-worker and pro- one of his largest donors: Wal Mart this time.
Governor Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would have required companies with over 10,000 employees, such as Wal-Mart, to devote an amount equal to 8% of its payroll to employee health care benefits. Schwarzenegger says that he vetoed the bill because it wasn't a proper solution to the rising cost of health care and he felt that it was a "job killing bill." The Walton's have made large political donations very close in time to each decision to veto a bill in Wal-Mart's favor.
There's the comparison with the worst President in the history of the United States; and it is indeed a very pernicious comparison. A complete penchant for corporate cronyism. Whatever the corporations say (and it doesn't hurt to put some money where their mouth is) must be what's best for the nation and for California. It's a pattern for Schwarzenegger just like it is for Bush. And the consequences of two administrations will be the same in California if Schwarzenegger is re-elected. I'm willing to bet on it.
Permalink | 30 comments