The poll was based on 691 registered voters, as well as 517 voters likely to vote in the primary. The top two vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the Nov. 6 general election.

Newsom, the current lieutenant governor, received 21 percent of the vote, with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Republican businessman John Cox contending for second place with 11 percent and 10 percent of the vote, respectively; well within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Of potential interest to the battle for second place could be President Trump’s recent decision to endorse Cox. While it could potentially mobilize Republican support, it could just as easily backfire and turn away moderates.

California Treasurer John Chiang, who was hoping to become the state’s first Asian-American governor, and Huntington Beach State Assemblyman Travis Allen, who has brashly courted Trump supporters, stand at 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

When it comes to issues that could swing voters in congressional races, the Trump administration’s tax overhaul and attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act hold the most cache. Almost half of poll respondents opposed the December tax overhaul, with 52 percent being less likely to re-elect their representative if they supported the changes. And six out of 10 residents support the ACA; similarly, 54 percent would be less likely to vote for a representative trying to repeal Obamacare.

California’s three giant investor-owned utilities haven’t given up on hopes that state leaders and regulators may give their shareholders the financial protection they want in an era of frequent massive wildfires linked to climate change – and their hopes don’t seem as dim as they used to be.

In late November, the California Public Utilities Commission issued what syndicated columnist Thomas Elias called “perhaps its most consumer-friendly decision in several decades.” Affirming staff recommendations made in August, the CPUC board unanimously rejected a bid by San Diego Gas & Electric to pass along $379 million in unrecovered costs stemming from three blazes in 2007 that ravaged San Diego’s northeast suburbs, the city of Poway and unincorporated county areas, torching over 1,300 homes. The CPUC board noted that two independent investigations had concluded the fires were SDG&E’s fault because of poor maintenance practices in high-risk fire areas, and that utility shareholders – not ratepayers – should pay the bill.

But as the bureaucratic decision-making process played out in the San Diego case, the CPUC’s decision in the matter came to have immense importance to Pacific Gas & Electric because of what happened in its own back yard – the brutal October 2017 Wine Country wildfires (pictured). The cost of those Northern California blazes – about $10 billion – dwarfs the cost of San Diego County’s 2007 fires. PG&E’s liability exposure is also expected to be much higher than SDG&E’s – likely in the billions of dollars, according to reports that have regularly blamed PG&E wildfire management practices for the conflagrations, which left more than 40 dead.

PG&E, SDG&E and Southern California Edison officials see the CPUC ruling as a potential existential threat in a hotter, drier era and weren’t ready to let it stand as the final word. This led to what seemed like a long-shot January appeal by the three utilities seeking a new CPUC hearing for SDG&E’s bid for $379 million in relief.

It may not be as long a shot any longer. Gov. Jerry Brown issued a pronouncement March 13 mostly devoted to new efforts to minimize wildfire risk. But its passing reference to the governor’s interest in new legislation that would “update liability rules and regulations for utility services in light of changing climate” conditions caught the eye of Wall Street, at least.

PG&E stock price jumps on report from governor’s office

Barron’s gave PG&E its “hot stock” appellation after the utility’s stock price jumped 6.3 percent on March 13, to $45.10. As of the end of trading Friday, the price was down to $43.08. But that was still up more than 20 percent from its mid-February low.

Ultimately, the question of whether the utilities will get help from the California Legislature and the CPUC seems certain to become a huge political football. The governor has long been seen as close to the three utilities, vetoing reform bills related to recent scandals that have easily passed the Assembly and Senate in recent years.

But Brown is termed out and in his final eight-plus months on the job. With California Democratic politics seeming to have entered an intensely populist phase, leading candidates to replace Brown such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa may hesitate to back rule changes that can be depicted as insulating the utilities from the costs of their poor practices in addressing wildfire risks.

Several state legislators are determined to head off any lessening of utilities’ liabilities for their mistakes. In January, Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and seven co-sponsors in the Senate and Assembly introduced Senate Bill 819. Hill called it an “outrage” that state utilities wanted to make their customers pay for damages that “result from negligent practices.”

An April 17 hearing has been scheduled for the legislation.

The Republican candidates – Assemblyman Travis Allen of Huntington Beach and Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox – reflect the GOP consensus that the project is a boondoggle that’s unlikely to ever be completed. But the major Democratic hopefuls – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Treasurer John Chiang and former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin – have all indicated they would continue with rail project, albeit with little of the enthusiasm shown by present Gov. Jerry Brown.

While the new business plan was depicted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s new CEO, Brian Kelly, as a constructive step toward salvaging the project, the plan’s key details were daunting:

The estimated cost of the project, which has yo-yoed from $34 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion, changed once again. The business plan abandoned the previous $64 billion estimate for an estimate of $77 billion – accompanied by a warning that the cost could go as high as $98 billion.

Even at the lower price tag, the state didn’t have adequate funds to complete a first $20 billion-plus bullet-train segment linking populated areas. The present plan for a Central Valley route has an eastern terminus in a remote agricultural field north of Shafter. That’s because the $9.95 billion in bond seed money that state voters provided in 2008 has only been buttressed to a relatively slight degree by additional public dollars from cap-and-trade pollution permits.

The business plan cites the possibility of additional federal funds beyond the $3.3 billion allocated by Washington early in the Obama administration. It doesn’t note, however, that domestic discretionary spending has plunged in recent years amid congressional concern about the national debt blowing past $20 trillion.

The business plan also promotes the possibility of outside investors. It doesn’t mention that such investors have passed on the project for years because state law bars the California High-Speed Rail Authority from offering them a revenue or ridership guarantee.

From 5 years behind schedule to 10 years behind

The initial operation of a bullet-train link serving California residents went from five years behind schedule, in the estimate of the Los Angeles Times, to 10 years behind schedule. The business plan said the project would begin operations no sooner than 2029.

The potential immense cost overrun of the bullet train segment in the mountains north of Los Angeles was fully acknowledged for the first time. A 2015 Times story laid out the “monumental” challenge.

Democratic candidates to succeed Brown have chosen to focus on housing, single-payer health care, immigration and criticism of President Donald Trump in most early forums and campaign appearances. But front-runners Newsom and Villaraigosa in particular seem likely to be pressed on how they can square their claims to be experienced, tough-minded managers with support for a project which seems less likely to be completed with every passing year.

Proposition 70 on the June primary ballot also will keep the bullet train on the campaign’s front burner, to some extent. It was placed on the ballot as part of a 2017 deal cut by the governor to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program until 2030. If Proposition 70 passed, it would require a one-off vote in 2024 in which cap-and-trade proceeds could only be used for specific needs with two-thirds support of each house of the Legislature. Republicans may be able to use these votes to shut off the last ongoing source of new revenue for the high-speed rail project.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom appears comfortable with borrowing from Bernie Sanders’ playbook and embracing single-payer health care in his bid to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in the June open primary and the November general election.

That’s a key takeaway of campaign watchers from the past month of the California gubernatorial campaign. Perhaps the signature moment: Newsom taunting “defeatist Democrats” in a San Diego debate last week – a clear shot at his main Democratic rivals, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and state Treasurer John Chiang, who both support expanded state health care but are leery of single-payer’s potential cost.

The emergence of the former San Francisco mayor as an outspoken advocate of single-payer amounts to a triumph for the California Nurses Association, the leading champions of Senate Bill 562 – which commits the state to providing health care for all residents without providing key details on how that would be achieved. Despite the lack of details, the bill – known as the Healthy California Act and co-sponsored by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Garden, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego – passed the Senate on a 23-14 vote last June.

But Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount, incensed the nurses union later in June when he shelved the bill, declaring it “woefully incomplete.” Rendon cited its failure to identify how it would pay the estimated $400 billion that SB562 would cost per year – more than triple the state’s general fund budget. He also faulted the measure for violating spending limits in the state Constitution and for not making the case on how California would get many needed federal waivers to proceed.

In January, Rendon repeated his criticisms, saying there had been no progress in making SB562 into a serious legislative proposal.

But with polls showing national Democrats consider single-payer health care a high priority, Newsom is eager to take advantage of their enthusiasm. Yet while it may help him in the short term in the run-up to the June primary, it is unclear whether backing SB562 will be popular with the broad electorate in the long term.

A May 2017 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 65 percent of adults surveyed support single-payer health care – but that the number plunged to 43 percent when those being surveyed were told substantial new taxes would be needed. A follow-up PPIC poll in September found just 32 percent of likely state voters backed single-payer.

Rendon recall bid fails without collecting a single signature

Another sign that single-payer support may have its limits has been the collapse of an effort to recall Rendon that was launched last summer after he blocked the advance of SB562. The bid received national attention after an Associated Press story depicted it as one more sign of how divided California Democrats had become.

But the recall campaign unceremoniously ended in early February, with organizers saying they were now focused on defeating Rendon’s bid for re-election – not on recalling him. To force a recall vote, 23,000 petition signatures would have to be gathered. According to the Los Angeles Times, the most recent official report on the recall campaign filed with the state showed no signatures had been gathered.

Public and private polls for months have generally shown Newsom to be leading Villaraigosa, with Chiang, former Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin (a Democrat) and Republican candidates Travis Allen, a Huntington Beach assemblyman, and Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox substantially behind them. But the last poll by PPIC, released Feb. 7, showed a statistical dead heat, with Newsom getting 23 percent and Villaraigosa 21 percent – within the poll’s margin of error.

Since 1998, Republican candidates for governor in California have gotten 38 percent, 42 percent, 56 percent, 41 percent and 40 percent in the general election. Will that figure be 0 percent in this November’s race?

That is the consensus of state pundits and analysts with former Sacramento Rep. Doug Ose becoming the third GOP candidate seeking to replace termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown, joining Huntington Beach Assemblyman Travis Allen and Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox. Unless one of the three Republicans breaks out as the strong favorite of the expected 40 percent GOP share of June primary voters, there is a good chance that the November election will pit Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom against former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – two Democrats.

“It gets very hard to do the math to find some scenario where a Republican gets enough votes to slip into the runoff,” Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s a math problem. It makes a Dem-on-Dem race more likely if you continue to split the Republican vote.”

“I think Doug Ose’s heart is in the right place … but he further dilutes the field,” Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, told the Los Angeles Times. “If all the Republicans stay in, it’s mutually assured destruction.”

In the most recent major poll – released by the Public Policy Institute of California in late November – Newsom had 23 percent, Villaraigosa 18 percent, Cox 9 percent, state Treasurer John Chiang 9 percent and Allen 6 percent.

Ose told the Chronicle that the state GOP establishment privately hailed his decision to join the race. Like Ose, Cox is a wealthy businessman who can self-fund his campaign if necessary. But Cox has never held office. Allen, meanwhile, has little name recognition and has struggled to raise funds.

Allen hammers Cox for not voting for Trump in 2016

Cox is launching a statewide radio ad campaign this week targeting Newsom for high state taxes. Allen, meanwhile, is bidding to become the breakout GOP candidate by emphasizing his leadership of one attempt to overturn the unpopular gas tax hike approved by the Legislature last year and his support for President Donald Trump.

In their first debate on Jan. 4 in Mentone – before Ose joined the race – Allen slammed Cox over and over for voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2016 presidential election.

“If you didn’t vote for the Republican nominee for president in 2016, you supported Hillary Clinton,” Allen said, according to an L.A. Times account. “If you’re not voting for Trump, you’re voting for crooked Hillary.”

Cox has said he shunned Trump in 2016 not because of Trump’s various controversies that campaign season but because of his history of voting for Democrats. Cox expresses regret for backing Johnson and says he is now a Trump admirer. Ose has been a consistent supporter of Trump.

Polls suggest the U.S. Senate race in November will have only Democratic candidates as well. With no high-profile GOP candidate yet in the picture and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer deciding against running, incumbent Dianne Feinstein seems poised for a November showdown with Senate President Kevin de León.

Chronicle senior political writer Joe Garofoli suggested the lack of Republican candidates for the state’s two top elections could hurt GOP turnout. But November ballot measures affecting taxes, guns and public education could still generate substantial Republican interest – especially the bid to repeal the gas tax hike and an attempt by Democrats to roll back parts of Proposition 13 to allow for annual tax hikes on commercial properties.

In February 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration unveiled an Economic Development Initiative to replace an enterprise zone program that had fallen out of favor after nearly three decades. Enterprise zones offered tax incentives to promote the starting of businesses in areas with high unemployment, but many analyses concluded they didn’t have a substantial positive effect. Now a centerpiece of Brown’s replacement initiative is offering up similar mixed-to-poor results.

The California Competes program was initially billed as providing $180 million through the end of fiscal 2014-15 for tax credits to lure businesses to the Golden State or to keep them from leaving. As the Sacramento Bee reported at the time, emergency regulations were hastened into place to get the program up and running.

Panorea Avdis, the chief deputy director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, justified the move in a memo obtained by the Bee: “This program must go into effect immediately to help minimize the migration of business to other states and to encourage growth and expansion in this state.”

Four and a half years later, the sense of urgency among Brown aides about getting California Competes started is hard to square with its disappointing results. A recent Legislative Analyst’s Office report offered many criticisms:

     – Slightly more than a third of awarded credits – 35 percent – went to companies that primarily competed with other California businesses, meaning the credits create no additional economic activity, lead to an unfair competitive advantage for firms getting the credits and consume state resources that could have been use for constructive purposes.

     – There were no metrics to judge the effectiveness of the remaining 65 percent of credits, which went to companies that sold goods or services both in California and out.

     – The size of the hiring and investment commitments the companies made per $100,000 of tax credits has declined steadily in recent years, reflecting a lack of enthusiasm about the value of the credits.

     – The interest in the program had waned among small businesses, which had 25 percent of available annual tax credits set aside for their use. The LAO noted that in the last fiscal year – 2016-17 – only 49 percent of the credits were awarded, or about $30 million.

LAO says close program, but role in Amazon bid may provide cover

“The executive branch has made a good-faith effort to implement California Competes, but the problems described above are largely unavoidable,” the LAO wrote. “We recommend that the Legislature end California Competes. In general, broad‑based tax relief – for all businesses – is preferable to targeted tax incentives.”

Because the program loses its authority to grant tax credits at the end of fiscal 2017-18, the LAO report may shape the Legislature’s and the Brown administration’s decision on what to do about California Competes. The LAO says if the program is retained, its eligibility rules should be tightened up and other provisions should be revised to make it more likely the credits go to companies facing competition from rival firms in other states.

But at least until Amazon makes its decision on where to locate its second North American headquarters, the LAO’s call to shut down California Competes is unlikely to be heeded. In October, some $200 million over five years in California Competes funding was listed as the single biggest incentive to get Amazon to build its second home in California – topping the long list of tax and regulatory incentives that the Brown administration offered Amazon as enticements.

If California Competes is eventually shuttered, some state politicians are likely to strengthen their calls for the full revival of another economic development program shut down at Gov. Brown’s behest – redevelopment. In theory, redevelopment takes a portion of incoming local government revenue and directs it to projects with the promise to improve the local economy or to provide needed facilities.

Critics of redevelopment say it has a long history of being used for crony capitalism in California and that the diverted revenue often goes to cover routine City Hall expenses. But former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has made reviving redevelopment a key focus of his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, arguing that it is essential to building more affordable housing and responding to California’s housing crisis.

Overall, 44.3 percent of registered voters believe California is on the right track, and 55.7 percent believe it’s on the wrong track. The poll also shows that criticism of the recent gas tax hike may resonate at the ballot box. Of registered voters surveyed, only 45.8 percent would keep the gas tax, while 54.2 percent want it canceled.

Here are a few other insights from the poll:

Newsom strong favorite for governor

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom currently has a commanding lead in the race to replace Gov. Jerry Brown, with 31.1 percent of voters backing him. Former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa is in second with 20.7 percent of the vote, and Assemblyman Travis Allen leads the Republican field with 15 percent. Rounding out the top five is Democratic Treasurer John Chiang with 12 percent and Republican businessman John Cox with 11.4 percent.

However, despite the majority of registered voters believing the state is on the wrong track, a slim majority of 50.4 percent would like their next governor to continue Brown’s policies, with 49.6 percent wanting a change.

Feinstein re-election likely

In a two-way race between Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic State Senate President pro Tem Kevin de Leon, 58.2 percent would support the incumbent senator while 31.4 percent would support de Leon. In a three-way race between Feinstein, de Leon and progressive businessman Tom Steyer, the figures are, respectively, 49.7 percent, 24 percent and 17.2 percent.

Californians at odds with Trump

Only 22.3 percent of the state approves of the job President Trump is doing, with 66.2 disapproving. In comparison, Gov. Brown has a net approval of 44.6 percent, with 34.9 disapproving. When it comes to his administration, the president fairs a bit better: 25.8 percent agree with some or all of his policies and 61.2 percent disagree with some or all of them.

Consequently, when asked if their member of Congress should work with the president whenever possible, only 46.7 percent said yes, with the remainder wanting their representatives to never cooperate.

Immigration has broad support

When asked about those who come to America without a visa or overstay one, 64.4 percent believe they strengthen the economy, while 39.6 percent believe they take jobs from citizens. Only 35.9 percent believes this population increases crime, while an overwhelming majority – 64.1 percent – believe these people help revitalize cities. Just 20.5 percent believe they come for a handout, while 79.5 percent believe they want to work.

Finally, when it comes to policy, 60.1 percent of registered voters do not want California to cooperate with the president’s immigration policies while 39.9 percent want the state to cooperate.

But the housing package – a spate of measures that increase funding for subsidized housing programs and reduce regulations for building certain high-density projects – is unlikely to halt debate about housing policy as home prices remain high.

For instance, median home prices in the Bay Area topped $740,000 last month and topped $700,000 in Orange County – breaking records and raising concerns about a new housing “bubble.” Statewide, median housing prices have topped $469,000, which is driving down homeownership rates and keeping the state’s cost-of-living-based poverty rates above 20 percent.

Virtually everyone, left and right, agrees that the state is facing a crisis. Candidates for the 2018 gubernatorial election, which is starting to heat up, are likely to make housing a core component of their campaigns. So far, Republican candidates John Cox, a San Diego-area businessman, and Assemblyman Travis Allen, a Huntington Beach conservative, have largely called for reducing housing regulations, but have not offered detailed plans.

Democrat John Chiang, currently the state treasurer, has touted his efforts to promote affordable housing programs. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has focused on bringing back government-directed redevelopment-style low-income housing programs. The partisan approaches are not surprising – and not particularly detailed, at least not yet.

The big surprise so far is that Democratic candidate Gavin Newsom, the current lieutenant governor and leader in the major public-opinion polls, has released a fairly thorough housing blueprint. It suggests that housing will be a top priority in his high-profile campaign – and his proposals embrace the main concepts touted by Democrats and Republicans alike.

“Simply put, we’re experiencing a housing affordability crisis, driven by a simple economic argument,” Newsom argued in a new post on the Medium web site. “California is leading the national recovery but it’s producing far more jobs than homes.” Here’s where the plan makes headlines: He’s calling for the development of 3.5 million new housing units by 2025, which would mean a near quadrupling of the state’s annual housing production.

That’s not an unreasonable number. In the last dozen years, “California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1,000 new residents,” he explained. Given continued population growth, “it’s obvious we’re not on pace to meet that demand.”

Typical of a Democratic official, Newsom called for more funding for affordable housing, including support for the $4 billion housing bond that is going on the November 2018 ballot. It was part of the Legislature’s housing package. Newsom also called for increasing the state’s funding of affordable-housing tax credits from $85 million to $500 million.

Taking a similar line as Chiang and Villaraigosa, Newsom called for replacing local housing programs that had previously been funded through the state’s controversial redevelopment agencies, which were shut down by Gov. Jerry Brown during the 2011 budget act, as a means to help the state plug its then-gaping budget hole. The agencies had siphoned around 13 percent of the state’s general fund budget to subsidize economic-development projects including housing.

But the real news is Newsom’s focus on “regulatory reform and creating new financial incentives for local jurisdictions that produce housing while penalizing those that fall flat.” Under the old redevelopment system, cities did indeed subsidize low-income housing. But the tax-increment financing scheme, by which cities were incentivized to permit tax-generating retail complexes, led to the overall underdevelopment of housing projects, according to various state analyses.

Those problems still exist. “Cities have a perverse incentive not to build housing because retail generates more lucrative sales tax revenue,” Newsom wrote. “The bigger the box, the better, because cities can then use the sales tax for core public services.” He doesn’t offer many details, but Newsom wants to revamp the tax system to “financially reward cities that produce housing and punish those that fail.” He’s reviving the old debate about the “fiscalization of land use,” but there’s little doubt that local incentives have a major impact on housing permits.

Echoing Gov. Brown, Newsom notes that solving the problem will take more than “throwing money” at it. He calls for “implementing regulatory reform and creating new financial incentives for local jurisdictions” – issues that will bolster conservatives who want to see more market-based housing.

Indeed, California builders have argued that they are more than capable of meeting the needs – if only government regulations and local land-use controls were loosened enough to enable them to build more. His plan will annoy conservatives, though, as he also calls for stronger tenant protections as the state streamlines the permitting process.

Most significantly, the Newsom plan – with its myriad details and mixture of elements from right, center and left – is sure to focus the early campaign on this significant issue. An energized housing debate should warm the hearts of all Californians who are concerned that housing prices are soaring beyond the reach of most California families.

Steven Greenhut is a Sacramento-based writer. Write to him at stevengreenhut@gmail.com.

Is the Legislature’s contract with Fmr. U.S. Atty. Gen. legal?

Good morning! Happy Monday. The struggle between the state and the incoming Trump administration continues to plod along with no end in sight.

Last week, the Legislature’s Democratic leaders announced a contract with former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for outside counsel. While the Legislature’s decision made plenty of headlines, the move may violate the state Constitution, according to a California assemblyman.

Assemblyman Kevin Kiley, a Rocklin Republican, asked the California attorney general’s office on Friday whether Holder’s hiring for outside legal work in an impending battle with the incoming Trump administration violates a constitutional clause protecting against cronyism. 

“California courts have interpreted the civil service mandate of article VII of forbidding private contracting for services that are of a kind that persons selected through civil service could perform ‘adequately and competently,’” Kiley wrote, adding that there are almost 1,600 attorneys and support staff in the Legal Services Division of the state’s AG office.

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• Demographics: “Driven by rising out-migration and falling birth rates, California’s population growth has stalled, leading analysts to consider a possible forecast of a so-called ‘no-growth’ period in the future,” reports CalWatchdog. 

• AG appointment: “If confirmed as state attorney general, Xavier Becerra could lead California in fights against the incoming Trump administration on stop-and-frisk policing, a national registry of Muslims and rolling back regulation of carbon emissions. The Democratic congressman from Los Angeles highlighted those as proposed policies of President-elect Donald Trump with which he vehemently disagrees in his first public position statement since being tapped for the job: a letter to members of the special Assembly committee that will hold a confirmation hearing for Becerra on Tuesday.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

• Solar Power: “Newly sworn-in state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, plans to introduce legislation Monday requiring all new construction in the state to include solar panels,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle. 

• Trump Transition: “While Democrats in Washington ratchet up their criticism of Treasury secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa once offered public praise for the former Goldman Sachs executive.” Politico has more. 

Legislature:

• Assembly in at 1 p.m. Senate in at 2 p.m. 

Gov Brown: 

• No public events scheduled.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @GsmittySmith