Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

Jerry-Brown 1970sAt their convention this weekend in L.A., instead of backing Jerry Brown for governor (again), maybe instead Democrats should back Jerry Springer. That would get his trashy shows off the air during the time when children watch, and Springer, a former mayor of Cincinnati, would be a better governor.

Democrats are worried that Brown’s former lead in the polls against gazillionaire Meg Whitman has eroded to zero, after she blew $59 million telling people she’s a nice person who will solve all their problems and isn’t Steve Poizner. Republicans honchos seem united behind her, if only so their consultants can cash in on some of her moolah. At the March 20 conference held in Newport Beach, Hugh Hewett, the talk-show celebrity and lawyer, insisted that his fellow Republicans must back her.

It won’t be that easy for Meg, despite her billions of semolians. She might not appeal to grassroots Republican and nonpartisan voters.

Jerry, despite his Moonbeam reputation, also is a savvy, experienced politician. This will be his seventh statewide campaign: his father, Pat’s, three gubernatorial campaigns; sister Kathleen’s 1994 run for governor; Jerry’s losing 1982 U.S. senate campaign; and Jerry’s own two gubernatorial campaigns in the 1970s.

The state also keeps becoming more Democratic. White Republicans keep moving to other states, while immigrants from foreign lands keep coming here, and when they become citizens, keep voting about 70 percent Democratic. In the 2008 president election, Democrat Obama beat John McCain by more than 3 million votes in California, a heavy hurdle even for a dot-com executive.

Mid-term elections bring out more Republicans and fewer Democrats. And voter frustration, high this year, is taken out on the incumbent presidential party, the Democrats this year because of Obama. But I expect that Jerry will remind Californians that the sitting California governor is a Republican. Arnold, whom GOP bigshots backed strongly and fawned over because of his movie-star status, now is an albatross hanging around the party’s neck, including the Meg campaign. Jerry’s campaign is sure to say, “Do you want another rich Republican celebrity to mess up the state even more?”

I’m going to enjoy this election even though, if I can overcome my disgust and vote at all, it will be for a third-party candidate. But in a sense, it doesn’t really matter who wins. After the election, the New York bond houses will take the new governor-elect, and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Legislature,  into a room paneled with fine wood and say, “Congrats on your election. But show us the money to repay your bonds. You have to cut spending 20 percent more. And sell state property. You don’t have any choice. If you don’t pay, we’ll cut your bond rating to junk status, and destroy you.”

So, the cuts will come no matter what.

— John Seiler

No comments

Write a comment
  1. stevefromsacto
    stevefromsacto 17 April, 2010, 10:17

    “You have to cut spending 20 percent more…”

    You don’t, John. You can close tax loopholes, tax oil production and do other things to raise new revenue. Cuts are NOT the only alternative, regardless of what the Rabid Right would have you believe.

    Reply this comment
  2. PRI
    PRI Author 17 April, 2010, 22:40

    It’s not the Rabid Right, Steve. It’s economic reality — and the New York bond houses. They told Clinton the same thing back in 1993, after he raised taxes and slowed the economy, thus raising interest rates on U.S. bonds. Clinton then shelved his ambitious domestic spending agenda. Read Bob Woodward’s “Agenda,” which has Clinton cursing at the NY bond houses — but doing what they told him to do.

    It’s like when a person gets in trouble with credit cards. The card companies cut off the credit lines and jack up interest rates. Then there’s no choice but to cut back on spending.

    The same thing will happen to Jerry or Meg next January.

    (The boom times we remember under Clinton happened later, after he and the GOP Congress cut cap gains taxes in 1996, boosting the dot-com boom. Yep. Like JFK, Clinton was a Democrat who cut taxes.)

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  3. StevefromSacto
    StevefromSacto 20 April, 2010, 10:25

    You can raise billions of dollars by closing tax loopholes. Why shouldn’t EVERYONE have to bear the burden of balancing the budget?

    You can tax oil production. Why should California be the only state in the union not to tax oil production?

    Yes, we need to cut back on spending. How about in Corrections, where we spend more than any other state? Sadly, anyone who tries that is branded as “soft on crime” by the Vengence Lobby.

    Reality is that you cannot solve the budget problem by cuts alone.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Plastic bag ban rises from the dead

Jan. 23, 2013 By Katy Grimes The plastic bag horror movie that wouldn’t go away… It’s baaaacccckkkkk! Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San

Fighting Without Skin in the Game

Usually when two sides fight over a contentious issue, both have skin in the game. But when the government fights

California Was Impervious To Change

This article was first published in City Journal. NOV. 4, 2010 By STEVEN GREENHUT No state is in a bigger