Twenty months ago, then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom sealed the endorsement of the powerful California Nurses Association in the governor’s race with an impassioned promise to bring single-payer health care to the Golden State.

“There’s no reason to wait around on universal health care and single-payer in California. It’s time to move [Senate Bill] 562. It’s time to get it out of committee,” Newsom told a nurses union conference in September 2017. “If we can’t get it done next year, you have my firm and absolute commitment as your next governor that I will lead the effort to get it done. We will have universal health care in the state of California.”

But now, as Newsom undertakes a “California for All” tour of the state’s largest cities, that ambitious rhetoric has long since given way to more modest proposals – and to attempts to dampen expectations. Instead of the governor reviving Senate Bill 562 – a 2017 measure passed by the Senate that would have committed the state to creating a single-payer system – he now says that’s not feasible without the assistance of the federal government.

Newsom has asked the Trump administration to give California a waiver from federal laws allowing the state to set up its own unique health care system – and for a sum equivalent to the amount the federal government now spends on health care for state residents. Senate Bill 562 died in the Assembly over expectations it would cost about $400 billion a year – double the state’s budget.

Governor risks backlash from fellow Democrats

The May Revise of the 2019-20 state budget that Newsom unveiled last week includes several proposals to expand availability of health care partly subsidized by the state government, in particular raising the income threshold of eligibility up to $73,000 a year. Individuals who make $48,000 a year or more are not eligible for federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But he stopped short of extending Medicaid coverage to unauthorized individuals in California, citing its $3.4 billion cost. And he made no concrete proposals on advancing single-payer beyond previously announced plans to use the newly created state Council on Health Care Delivery Systems to examine how the state could transition to such a system.

The potential for a backlash from Newsom’s own party is clear. Politico reported in March than Newsom believed strongly that leadership on single-payer should be led by “the horseshoe,” an insider’s term for the governor’s unusually shaped office. But having a commission look at the state’s possible courses of action isn’t the dramatic move that fans of Democratic presidential candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren want. A Quinnipiac University poll released in February showed 61 percent of state Democrats back a government-run single-payer system in California.

The California Nurses Association has expressed disappointment with the lack of progress. In February, CNA lobbyist Stephanie Roberson told the Sacramento Bee that it was “baffling” that no state lawmaker had introduced a measure like Senate Bill 562 and said her union strongly believed that incremental improvements in health care access were not enough.

“We can’t, as leaders, just protect what we have because we fundamentally believe that health care is [a] human right,” Roberson said.

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, 47 – with his military background, part-Mexican heritage, Spanish fluency, Rhodes scholarship and progressive credentials – has seen his tentative steps toward a White House bid win encouragement from pundits and politicians alike.

But Garcetti has a disadvantage that doesn’t hamper politicians like Harris, Warren and Biden who don’t have daily responsibilities for making government work better: He’s a mayor who faces fresh scrutiny each day over how his administration is performing. This has yielded months of critical coverage on three major issues:

1) A Los Angeles Times investigation of a retirement program set up for police officers and firefighters showed rampant abusive practices likely costing city taxpayers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” Under the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP), approved by voters in 2001, officers and firefighters can get both regular pay and a pension in their final years on the job.

The Times probe found that nearly half of the 5,000 men and women who signed up for DROP got substantial increases in their pensions by claiming work-related disabilities. The newspaper found broad evidence of workers’ compensation fraud – and no evidence the Garcetti administration ever acted to counter the fraud, even after being warned about it in 2016.

The newspaper also found no evidence the program has saved money, as voters were promised in 2001. And instead of keeping officers and firefighters on the job, DROP reportedly led to the loss of thousands of workers who filed disability claims.

Despite the findings, Garcetti earlier this month gave his blessing to a new police contract that retained DROP as is and gave officers a raise of up to 5 percent.

Recycling, homeless programs drew sharp critiques

2) A new 10-year contract with seven companies to improve recycling citywide has proven a public relations debacle for the Garcetti administration. Landlords have reportedly seen recycling bills go up three- to six-fold, leaving many scrambling to raise rents that are already considered sky-high. Many individual customers complain bitterly over extra fees added to their bills by the companies for services that previously were provided without additional charges.

City officials claimed to be blindsided by the problems. But as with the DROP program, there’s evidence that Garcetti and the Los Angeles City Council dropped the ball. The Times noted that former City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana had opposed awarding exclusive long-term contracts but was ignored. Santana contended that promoting recycling competition was more likely to lead to reasonable rates.

3) The city’s troubled efforts to respond to a burgeoning homeless problem. A 21-page report by Santana released in 2015 concluded that the city spent $100 million a year on homelessness in unfocused, marginally successful ways.

This year, a public backlash has built over the Garcetti administration’s slowness in responding to nearly 6,000 requests to clean up homeless encampments. City statistics released in February showed that 2,400 of the complaints had gone unaddressed for more than 90 days.

In an interview with the Times, City Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents a downtown district with a heavy homeless population, depicted City Hall’s response as having failed Angelenos.

On the homeless cleanup front, “How can we go to our constituents and say with a straight face, ‘We will get to this’?” Huizar told the newspaper.

Garcetti has plenty of time to make up his mind about a presidential bid, in terms of qualifying for the ballot in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in early 2020. He also has some leeway in gearing up fundraising and organizational efforts. The last “outsider” candidate to win the Democratic presidential nod – then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama – didn’t publicly signal his intention to seek the 2008 nomination until October 2006, after spending much of the year saying he would not run.

John Stumpf abruptly resigned Wednesday as CEO and chairman of the scandal-torn San Francisco-based banking giant Wells Fargo.

But much more fallout is expected over the revelation last month that Wells Fargo had fired 5,300 employees for fraudulently signing up customers for 2 million new services and accounts. The bank’s agreement to pay $185 million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hasn’t remotely satisfied its critics.

In Calabasas on Tuesday, the state Assembly Banking Committee held a hearing in which witnesses denounced Wells Fargo for its actions. The criticism continued even after Wells Fargo executive David Galasso told the committee that Wells Fargo would go beyond the $185 million settlement in compensating customers who were victims.

Banking Committee Chairman Matt Dababneh, D-Encino, said he was considering introducing a bill in the Assembly targeting laws and regulations that allow banks to compel disgruntled customers to go to arbitration in just about every circumstance.

Wells Fargo has already used such state and federal laws to get several related individual lawsuits thrown out and sees the rules as a potent tool against expected class-action lawsuits in which former Wells Fargo customers say their credit ratings were damaged by the bogus accounts and services established in their names.

In Washington, meanwhile, senators of both parties have been pressuring the Justice Department to open a full-blown criminal investigation of the company and its top executives — and not settle for a large fine.

Under formal Justice Department policy, the decision to start such a criminal probe partly depends on ”the pervasiveness of wrongdoing within the corporation, including the complicity in, or the condoning of, the wrongdoing by corporate management.” Given that the 2 million phony accounts were being set up from 2009 to earlier this year — and that executives were aware of the problem for at least three years — the pervasiveness standard is seen as highly relevant to the Wells Fargo case. Under federal law, corporations bear responsibility for the criminal behavior of their employees if it arises in the workplace.

“If it was one person or even 100, you might argue that it’s a rogue contingent,” University of Virginia law process Brandon L. Garrett, author of ”Too Big to Jail,” told The New York Times. ”But you can’t seriously argue that 5,000 people have gone rogue. That’s systemic behavior. People above them had to have noticed. … Fines aren’t working. We’re not going to see deterrence until we see some high-­level individual cases.”

Wells Fargo scandal an issue in presidential campaign

The Wells Fargo scandal has also become an issue on the presidential campaign trail. Like Dababneh, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has denounced laws that compel arbitration in banking disputes.

There is also additional fallout at the state and local level. California Treasurer John Chiang and Illinois Treasurer Michael Frerichs separately announced that their states would limit use of Wells Fargo on an interim basis.

In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s administration announced that it was selling all its Wells Fargo securities — about $25 million worth. Last week, the Chicago City Council took a first step toward banning any city dealings with the California bank.

These lost customers don’t mean much to a company with $90 billion in sales and $23 billion in net profits in 2015. But in an era of anger over the perception that big banks paid a small price for their role in creating the Great Recession, disinvesting in and banning Wells Fargo could become a proxy way for elected officials to take a stand against Wall Street — even if the company is based in California.

Although the two did not directly trade barbs, Harris and Sanchez faced their first high-profile matchup at the convention, where their differing styles and rival camps were put on plain display. But it was featured speaker Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Ma., who gave a powerful edge to Harris.

Setting the tone

“When discussing unjust home foreclosures by banks, Warren made clear where her loyalties lie,” the Los Angeles Times observed. “‘That woman was fearless’ in helping combat unscrupulous lending and foreclosure practices in California, Warren said of Harris, whom she endorsed for the Senate seat earlier this year.”

Warren’s praise for Harris struck a special blow against Sanchez, who has sought to frame Harris as too cautious and calculated to stay ahead of the curve on important political issues — including housing. At her campaign kickoff event, the Sacramento Bee reported, Sanchez asserted “that she was working on the housing crisis long before Harris secured large financial settlements with lenders. Without uttering her name, Sanchez suggested Harris was the hand-picked favorite of the party establishment, and that she has been unwilling to answer questions and too cautious in sharing her positions.”

In the wake of Warren’s pointed opposition to President Obama on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty, Harris stood to strengthen her defense against Sanchez’s line of attack. Warren’s unquestioned ideological credentials with liberal Democrats have made her into a potentially powerful king- or queenmaker. Harris, who can benefit from the strong support of any anti-establishment Democrat, could not do much better than securing Warren’s.

Economic consensus

Warren’s significance, however, may already have been limited by her willingness to lead the left on economic issues. Neither Harris nor Sanchez have appeared willing to depart from establishment Democratic orthodoxy.

At the convention, Sanchez struck a familiar note for Democrats: “I have got to tell you,” she said, according to KQED, “there are a still a lot of people who have lost their homes, who are troubled, who are underemployed, and so we are going to show how we work with the business community to get those good paying jobs into California.”

Harris’s language was remarkably similar. “I’ll tell you, when we were growing up, we talked about opportunity as a ladder, and that ladder of opportunity described America as a place where anyone could lift themselves up, anyone could reach higher, and everyone has a right to the American dream,” she said.

Cultural controversy

With little apparent daylight between the two candidates on economic issues, identity politics quickly asserted itself as a dominant dividing line. From the beginning, Latino Democrats, especially in the Southland, refused to line up behind Harris, giving Sanchez the opening she needed to step into the race. But at the convention itself, Sanchez made national news by letting slip the kind of gaffe guaranteed to ruffle Democrats’ cultural feathers.

Joking around with the state party’s Indian American caucus, Sanchez “let out about two seconds” of what CNN called “a stereotypical Native American ‘war cry.'”

“‘I’m going to his office, thinkin’ that I’m gonna go meet with woo-woo-woo-woo, right? ‘Cause he said “Indian American,”‘ she said, using the gesture to try to discern between Indian Americans — with ancestry from India’s subcontinent — and Native Americans.”

This past weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren received top billing as the convention’s keynote speaker. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi earned rounds of applause from committee and caucus meetings. And, of course, the convention buzz focused on the U.S. Senate showdown between Attorney General Kamala Harris and Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

But, below the surface, there was a clear frustration from some delegates that women aren’t equally represented in Democratic politics. That’s why as Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon were speaking to the women’s caucus, Janet Cook was outside the meeting, dutifully passing out stickers for her organization, Close the Gap.

“Women are only 26 percent of the California Legislature,” said Cook, a Close the Gap CA recruiter for the East Bay. “We think that sucks.”

Close the Gap’s Mission: 16 for ’16

To Close the Gap, the organization is recruiting Democratic women to run for office, then offering early training to those progressive candidates on how to run an effective campaign. After several years of working towards its mission, the group has updated its website and refined its pitch to a concise game plan: 16 for ’16. That’s recruiting 16 strong women candidates for 16 targeted seats in the 2016 legislative election.

The group proudly boasts that they’ve already found nine women for those targeted races – with a large number of women of color.

“At a time when Latinos are the largest and fastest growing demographic in California, Latina women are one of the least represented groups in the state Legislature, currently at five out of 120,” points out a joint campaign brochure for three Democratic women candidates running next year in two of the targeted seats.

Close the Gap selected its 16 targeted races by looking first and foremost at open seats, which they see as opportunities. According to an election analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics, there’s a big gap in the success rate for women picking up open seats compared to knocking out incumbents.

In 2012 races for the House of Representatives, women ran for 26 open seats, winning 15 campaigns for an overall 57 percent success rate. Compare that to the 74 open seats where women ran against incumbents, winning just 4 races or five percent.

State Assembly pays women less; fewer in top staff positions

Part of the challenge in recruiting women to run for state office is that candidates often rise through the ranks as legislative staff. Yet, as a CalWatchdog.com investigation revealed in 2013, the state Capitol remains a good old boys’ club.

Women who work for the California State Assembly face a glass ceiling, substantial pay inequities and limits to their career advancement. Female employees are paid less than their male counterparts, are less likely to serve in leadership roles and remain stuck in secretarial positions, our 2013 analysis of legislative payroll data found.

Since that analysis, a Democratic woman has taken over the speaker’s office, yet little’s changed. Earlier this year, a review by the Sacramento Bee found pay inequities persist in the state Legislature.  Those gender biases, Cook believes, are best solved by electing more women to office.

“We just keep at it,” she said. “It’s not a short process. I’ve been working at it a long time, and I’ll continue to work at it.”

Open Legislative Seats in 2016

In 2016, more than two dozen seats of the state Legislature will be vacant. The 16 seats that are being targeted by Close the GAP CA are noted below with an asterisk (*).

State Assembly

• AD 6 Beth Gaines
• AD 12 Kristin Olsen
• AD 14 Susan Bonilla*
• AD 16 Catharine Baker*
• AD 24 Richard Gordon*
• AD 27 Nora Campos*
• AD 30 Luis Alejo*
• AD 31 Henry Perea*
• AD 34 Shannon Grove
• AD 35 Katcho Achadjian*
• AD 37 Das Williams*
• AD 40 Marc Steinorth*
• AD 43 Mike Gatto*
• AD 48 Roger Hernandez *
• AD 68 Donald Wagner
• AD 71 Brian Jones
• AD 76 Rocky Chavez
• AD 78 Toni Atkins*

State Senate

• SD 3 Lois Wolk*
• SD 7 Vacant*
• SD 9 Loni Hancock*
• SD 11 Mark Leno*
• SD 25 Carol Liu*
• SD 27 Fran Pavley*
• SD 29 Bob Huff
• SD 35 Isadore Hall, III*

The first-term Democratic Senator from Massachusetts earned a rousing applause and standing ovation from convention delegates as she blamed the country’s income inequality and decline of the middle class on Ronald Reagan and three decades of Republican economic policies.

“The epicenter of the political earthquake that shook America’s middle class to its core started right here in California — right here with your former Governor Ronald Reagan,” Warren said as convention delegates cheered her on. “For more than 30 years, starting with Ronald Reagan, the Republican leadership latched onto an idea it called trickle-down economics, and then they got to work.”

She continued, “They attacked wages, they attacked pensions, they attacked health care, they attacked unions, they attacked education, they attacked science, they attacked financial regulation.”

Democrats divided on economic policies

Warren’s speech to convention delegates was only one example of the growing divide between moderate, business-friendly Democrats and those considered to be the true champions of progressive causes. At this weekend’s convention, progressive speakers offered subtle quips and direct jabs at party members who have strayed from what they see as party orthodoxy.

President Obama, who is currently pushing for congressional approval of a Pacific Rim trade agreement, wasn’t immune from the criticism.

California Democratic Party Chairman John Burton, a hero of the progressive wing, used his introductory remarks at Saturday’s floor session to criticize the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership as just “another way of saying ‘take jobs away from American workers and send them overseas.'”

Considered the most significant free-trade agreement since the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1994, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, known simply as TPP, would reduce tariffs and other trade barriers among the United States and a dozen Pacific Rim countries, including Japan, Australia, Singapore and Malaysia.

“In San Francisco, we used to have a fairly sized garment industry, that’s gone — shipped overseas,” the former state Senator reminded delegates. “We had manufacturing companies, those jobs are gone.”

Burton lamented that new trade deals “help big business, and American workers get screwed and the business guys gets rich.” He also assured delegates that Warren was on their side in the economic split, calling her “the f-ing champion of the American people.”

Rep. Ami Bera targeted by labor

Organized labor made clear that even Democratic elected officials that currently represent swing districts would not be excluded from criticism over the trade deal. Outside of the Anaheim Convention Center, protesting workers held signs singling out Rep. Ami Bera, D-Elk Grove, for “railroading working families” with a free-trade agreement that they see as the “fast track to no work.”

“Ami Bera, you’re no good,” a lead protester chanted to the communal reply, “Treat the worker like you should.”

The second-term Congressman narrowly defeated former Rep. Doug Ose last November by less than 1 percent of the vote. He is considered one of the top targets for Congressional Republicans in 2016.

Bera’s trouble at the convention is the second time this month that he’s been in hot water related to the controversial trade agreement. Earlier this month, Bera admitted to plagiarizing an op-ed piece featured in the Sacramento Bee. Republicans wasted no time in capitalizing on that misstep.

“With more evidence of Ami Bera’s cut-and-paste public policy coming to light, the hardworking people in his district have every right to question Bera’s honesty and leadership,” Zach Hunter, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement released earlier this month. “With his history of plagiarism, how can 7th District families trust Ami Bera to shoot straight with them on important issues?”

Tom Steyer dragged into rift

Influential Democratic donor Tom Steyer could soon be dragged into the party’s rift over economic issues.

On Friday, the billionaire climate change activist urged Democrats to support his plan for a statewide ballot measure to impose an oil extraction tax. By Saturday afternoon, Steyer’s critics attacked his silence on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and questioned his financial ties to the trade deal.

“Today CA Democratic Party Chair John Burton joined progressive leaders such as Senator Elizabeth Warren in opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” said Sabrina Lockhart, communications director for Californians for Energy Independence. “Tom Steyer, by far the party’s biggest donor, has not stated his position on the TPP, perhaps because he is still invested in Farallon, which stands to benefit from the TPP.”

She added, “This is odd given he is positioning himself as the party’s progressive, environmental leader, and criticisms from groups like the Sierra Club that the trade agreement is weak on the environment.”

With the economy improving, his “California is back” message playing well and a landslide re-election victory just four months in the past, the four-time governor is riding high. His approval rating was 58 percent favorable, just 26 percent unfavorable.

That contrasts sharply with his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just four years ago, as he left office, a Field Poll found Schwarzenegger’s approval rating was terminal, at 75 percent of voters looking on him negatively, with only 20 percent approving. The state was suffering through the middle of the Great Recession, with $20 billion state budget deficits.

However much voters now give a thumbs-up to Brown in the governor’s office, for the Oval Office, they seem ready for Hillary.

When asked whom they preferred for president of the two potential candidates, it came down to 49 percent for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 26 percent for Brown.

Although Clinton has not officially announced her candidacy, yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported she will do so in April. An announcement that early could help preclude candidacies from such potential challengers as Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and former Virgina Sen. Jim Webb.

As to Brown, he started campaigning late in his three previous candidacies for president — in 1976, 1980 and 1992 — but finished strong, though falling short in the end. An early start definitely would be required this time to have a chance at heading off Clinton.

As to the recent poll, it’s not California voters who likely will decide the candidate, as our primary comes in June. More decisive will be what voters think in the Iowa Caucuses next January and the early primaries in New Hampshire, the Carolinas and Nevada.

However, should Brown and Clinton somehow both run and be contenders on the June 7 date of the California Primary, then Golden State voters really might get to decide who the next president is.