Interviewer: Meg Whitman is in the studio. She is, I thought we were playing a commercial there, didn’t know. Yeah, I was just talking to her off the air. Commercial free until four o’clock, and we’re going to start right into it. Welcome, how are you?
MW: Good, thank you for having me.
Illegal Immigration/Arizona Law/ Latino Outreach
Interviewer: Thank you for coming. Let’s get right into this because we have limited time. You’ve run at least 30 billboards around the state, saying, in Spanish, unequivocally, no on the Arizona Law. And then there was this ad. Mando, play cut 2. This is a Spanish language ad against the Arizona bill.
[Spanish Ad Plays]
Interviewer: Alright you can stop it there. The translation is that she is the republican that opposes Arizona’s Law. Now, on a conservative radio show, that ran at about 3 o’clock in the morning the other day, you said this on the Arizona Law.
[Meg: I’m running for governor of California, so I have to make a decision, does the Arizona law make sense for California. And I have said no. I don’t think the Arizona law makes sense for California because we have a much bigger state with a much bigger geography. And I understand that immigration is a federal issue, but I would say the states have got to decide what is right for their state. So I would let the Arizona law stand for Arizona.]
Interviewer: The Arizona law should stand for Arizona, but in the Spanish language ad you said that you oppose the law. Which is it?
MW: So, I oppose the Arizona law, have from the beginning, and you know, Steve Poizner ran millions of dollars of campaign ads against me saying I supported Arizona.
Interviewer: So you oppose the Arizona Law? But in the clip that we just played you said you would let the Arizona law stand.
MW: So what I was asked was, the context for that, what I was asked was, what would be my recommendation to the judge who was deciding that day. And I said listen, given that the federal government has not secured the border, has not done their job, you have to come down on the side of states rights. And Arizona needs to be able to decide what they think is right for them.
Why Arizona Law is Wrong for California
Interviewer: But why is the Arizona law wrong for California? What’s this about a bigger state with a bigger geography? This makes no sense.
MW: So my view is, I’ve got a better plan for California. And it is a much bigger state, you know, with many, with 400 different…
Interviewer: But why wouldn’t the Arizona law work because we have bigger geograohy?
MW: It’s not the only reason.
Interviewer: But it’s the reason you said in that interview. And it’s the oppisite of what you said in the Spanish language commercial. You said clearly, no on the Arizona law, and you said clearly in English that you were fine with the Arizona law in Arizona.
MW: That’s not true, that’s not true. What I said is that states rights have to preside here, and that I didn’t think it was right for the Federal Government to be telling Arizona what to do. And I think the Arizona law is wrong for California.
Interviewer: Why, why, why. Why can’t we have local police calling the feds saying I’ve got an illegal alien here? What’s wrong with that?
MW: So we, first of all, you know we, in real life we have to get things done, you have to do things that will actually work, and my view is, the three things that I want to do for California will work better than the Arizona law.
Interviewer: No, no, I want to know why it wouldn’t work, all you’re talking about is a cop calling the Feds, and its done all the time now…
MW: Listen, you can see in Arizona, this has created tremendous divisiveness, you’re going to be involved in law suites for many years
Interviewer: So what? It has also led to many illegal’s leaving, many illegal’s have left Arizona already anticipating this law. It’s a wonderful idea, it’s got a 70% approval rate in Arizona.
MW: And you’re also going to see, I think, tremendous lawsuits on this, so why don’t we do stuff that we know will work.
Interviewer: Just because there’s opposition doesn’t mean you don’t do something. There’s always going to be lawsuits if you try to do something over illegal immigration.
Interviewer: I know, you’re going to give us you’re three point plan, let me just point out this before you do, you were against sanctuary cities.
Interviewer: You know the judge let that stand in Arizona?
MW: I do. And I actually think that was a good part of the Arizona law. But what I think is, clearly illegal immigration is a problem, in California and in the country.
Illegal Immigration/ Federal Government
Interviewer: But you don’t want Arizona to do it’s own thing to stop it. The federal government has done nothing for the last ten years. And there’s no sign that they’re going to do anything anytime soon. So now states want to do their own thing. So if California pass a 1070, you would not sign it as governor? Is that what you’re saying?
MW: That’s correct. I have said that. I said that in the debate with Steve Poizner as plain as day.
Interviewer: So you don’t think the police…
Interviewer: So you don’t think that the police should be able to call into the feds and say, “I’ve got an illegal alien here, he needs to be deported?” The cops can’t do that?
MW: My view is that this is not the right thing for California.
Interviewer: But why cant a cop do that? Why can’t the police…I have memorized your three point plan, and one of the other points is the E-Verify plan.
Interviewer: And the other part of your plan was, well going at sanctuary cities which we just talked about before, more border protection.
Interviewer: These are two things that the Federal Government does that they’re not doing, and you agree with that, so why couldn’t California have a 1070 law which would help with those things. Drive illegal’s from the state because the federal government isn’t doing it.
MW: So my plan, I think, does a better job of having illegal immigrants leave the state.
Interviewer: But it counts on the federal government. Do you see the problem?
MW: Well, guess what? Immigration is a federal issue, we have to count…
Interviewer: The federal government is not doing the job.
MW: I agree.
Interviewer: How are you going to make that change?
MW: The next governor of California has to go to Washington DC, has to argue for better border control, has to argue for more resources, I will send the national guard to the border,
Interviewer: We heard this from Schwarzenegger, wait a second, nobody wants arguments, people want action. At least Jan Brewner and the Arizona Legislature took some action.
MW: Did you see what Jan Brewer said yesterday? She said, “I’m not sure this Arizona law is going to work.”
Interviewer: You mean what’s left of it? No, it’s not going to work now.
MW: No, from the beginning.
Interviewer: From the beginning? Well she signed the law, and why wouldn’t it work? All it is about is cops making phone calls, the feds come and take the illegal alien away. It’s not complicated, there’s nothing mystical about it, it’s very simple, plus it’s a great deterrent. It tells illegal’s, “You’re not welcome here.” And that I think is what’s most important.
Illegal Immigration/ E-Verify/ Federal Government
MW: So you know the best deterrent? Is holding employers accountable for only hiring verified workers. Do you know why most people come here?
Interviewer: But you said E-Verify doesn’t work.
MW: Let me very clear on what I’ve said here. What I’ve said is that E-Verify is in existence many companies use it, but it does have a false negative and a false positive rate. Before we hold employers accountable, we have to make sure that the system will work, because if we…
Interviewer: What if the feds never fix the system? You think Obama… the federal government is not dealing with this issue, that’s why Arizona did what it did. You’re plan is counting on them to work this out. You say you’re going to go to Washington and straighten them out? Really? If Obama’s president the next six years, he’s not going to do anything. So the first 6 years of your administration, you’re not going to do anything because they didn’t do anything?
MW: No, that’s not true.
Interviewer: So what are you going to do about employer sanctions, if their E-Verify system is still broken?
MW: So put the foot on the other shoe for a just a second here. You’re a small businessperson, you want to do the right thing, E-Verify has a 10 % false positive, false negative rate. So you hire somebody…
Interviewer: Only 10%?
MW: It’s only 10%.
Interviewer: Well jeeze, 90%’s pretty good, why don’t we go use it?
MW: I would argue that we should use it, but we’ve got to make it better. Because think about it…
Interviewer: But at 90%, maybe that’s as good as your ever going to get it, considering all the fraud out there. 90% is pretty, you would not implement sanctions with a 90% federal approval rate?
MW: So let me tell you what, I have talked to many small businesses, I don’t know how many small businesses you have talked to…
Interviewer: With all due respect Meg, I asked you a question. If we have a 90% success rate with E-Verify…
MW: It needs to be better. It needs to be better
Interviewer: Really? You wouldn’t implement state sanctions? So you’re going to go for perfect?
MW: No, but I’m going to go for better than we have today.
Interviewer: What is it? 91%, 93.6%?
MW: I don’t know what the right exact number here is.
Interviewer: Well, wait a second. We have a narrow focus here, it’s between 90 and 100. I mean you’re the one, you put it in your campaign literature that you were going to set up this economic fence and I always said what the heck is an economic fence. And your literature says that you we are going to go and put sanctions on employers and then all of a sudden, well we don’t like the E-Verify system and we’re not going to implement it.
MW: So that’s not a fair characterization of my point of view, it really is not. What I’ve said and I’ve said it on your show, I went back and looked on the transcript.
Interviewer: Sure, we replayed your tapes. You were quite definitive on our show
MW: What I said was, we have to get the E-Verify system up to par and then we will hold employers accountable. That’s what I said on your show
Interviewer: But that’s vague and you don’t give us a number so we don’t know when you’ll ever implement your employer sanction system. We’ve been jokingly calling you NutMeg, but that really is out there honestly. And that’s just asking for too much. That’s asking for the impossible.
MW: I disagree with you. I have to say I disagree with you.
Illegal Immigration/ Federal Government/ E-Verify
Interviewer: So you’re going to let this problem slide because the federal government’s not doing its job and as Governor you’re going to say the same thing.
MW: That’s not true.
Interviewer: Immigration is a federal issue, well what can I do? I’d like E-Verify to be one hundred percent accurate and they’re not on board with that.
MW: So can I, can I talk?
Interviewer: Yes if you’ll answer the questions. As long as you don’t change the topic. I don’t want the three talking points, I know those.
MW: So I have said from the beginning that I am going to be a governor that is very pro-active on stopping illegal immigration. I have laid out a plan that I am going to do that. We are going to hold employers accountable; we’re going to work on the E-Verify system.
Interviewer: Wait a second. You’ll only hold them accountable if E-Verify gets a better than ninety percent rate and it’s only at ninety now. You won’t tell us what that rate is and how are you going make it better when it’s controlled by lobbyists.
Illegal Immigration/ Small Businesses
MW: So let me ask you this, if you are a small businessperson. Let’s say you own a small restaurant or a small business and now the government is going to hold you accountable for hiring undocumented workers. How would you feel if you hire someone who in your very best ability, you believe is in fact legal? You hire that person, and then people come to inspect, you find out that person is not legal through no fault of your own through an error in the E-Verify system. Now you are on the hook, you are subject, do you trust the government? Do you trust the government to actually…
Interviewer: Wait a second. You’re trusting the government. You want them to put the E-Verify system together. You want them to control the border. You’re the one who’s telling us that we have to trust the federal government and when they perform their duties you’ll slide in on their coattails.
MW: I think it’s really important to be fair here to small businesses who are going to be relying on a system.
Interviewer: All the construction industry is filled with illegal aliens. I could take calls from now until the end of time from guys out of work, and you’ve got people speaking Spanish, falty social security numbers, the whole bit. And thousands and thousands of American citizens are out of work in California because of illegal aliens who hold construction jobs. Because the owners…
MW: And we are going to hold those employers accountable for only hiring documented workers.
Interviewer: How are you going to do these work place checks?
MW: We are.
Interviewer: Are you going to go to all the construction sites and all the illegal alien construction workers are going to be fired? But you just said you don’t trust E-Verify to be one hundred percent accurate. What are you going to use to do these work place employment checks?
MW: We are going to get E-Verify beefed up. And then we are going to use…
Interviewer: What do you mean we? It’s not yours. E-Verify is not your system. It’s a federal system. No seriously what are you going to do about all the construction workers that are illegal? Right now you talk about creating jobs. Well there’s probably hundreds of thousands of jobs up for grabs, millions of jobs in California being held by illegal aliens. They should go to Americans today. They should go to Americans.
MW: I agree with that.
Interviewer: OK. So you go to the construction site, you’re going to send a state official to the construction site and say guys the jig is up. Pure citizenship here or you’re gone.
MW: First what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to tell people you’re going to hold them accountable. Then there needs to be a system that they can verify, and then you are going to have a three strike program, and I’ve outlined it very clearly. First strike if you have found to hire illegal immigrants you are going to have to pay a fine. Second strike you’re going to have to pay a fine, you may lose your business license for a period of time. Third you’re going to pay a fine and you are going to lose your business license for a permanent amount of time.
Interviewer: But all this only works if we get E-Very to be 99.9 percent accurate. I mean you’re not telling is it’s 90 percent accurate, you want something higher than 90 percent. 90 percent accurate would free up 90 percent of the jobs illegal aliens hold. Even if it’s 99 percent accurate, we’re still going to have a one percent failure rate. We go back to your example of a small business owner who gets caught up in that web because maybe he’s got the one percent where the E-Verify failed him. So I mean we are always going to be in this.
Illegal Immigration/Steve Poizner/Amnesty
Interviewer: Alright, I want to move on to something else here, you sent out a mailer during the primary, and the mailer said this- “Steve Poizner, on the fence when it comes to illegal immigration. Now that Sacramento politician Steve Poizner is running for Governor, he claims to be tough on illegal immigration. But Steve Poizner praised Bush’s standpoint on immigration reform, which included a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Steve Poizner, that’s amnesty. Meg Whitman, tough as nails.” Then you write a piece that appeared in Spanish in local Spanish newspapers saying that, “Former governor Brown appears to share many on my positions on immigration. He opposes blanket amnesty that would grant full citizenship rights. Clearly when examining our positions on immigration, there’s very little over which Jerry and I disagree. Latinos seeking a candidate who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants won’t find one on the gubernatorial ballot this year.” In the Steve Poizner ad, you said, “A path to citizenship is amnesty, Steve Poizner.” Here, you’re saying a path to citizen is not amnesty. Which is it?
MW: So, when I wrote that editorial, right, what I said was, see, what the democrats are trying to do is paint me as anti-Latino, and I am not anti Latino.
Interviewer: No, no, no, its your words! No, no, I don’t care what the democrats say. When you were going after Poizner, you said a path to citizenship is amnesty. “That’s amnesty, Steve Poizner.” And here you said a path to citizenship is not amnesty. You said that in Spanish.
MW: So what I’ve said is, a blanket path to amnesty, what Reagan did is amnesty, when there’s no penalty. And a path to citizenship is amnesty too. I’m not for either of those, as you know, I’m not for blanket amnesty.
Illegal Immigration/ Jerry Brown
Interviewer: Jerry Brown is for a path to citizenship.
MW: That’s correct. But that was actually new to me. When he said that on your show the other day, I was actually in some ways surprised. Because what I had understood…
Interviewer: That Jerry Brown favored a path to citizenship, which, by the way, every listener calls amnesty. I just want you to know, in the real world, paths to citizenships are amnesty.
MW: I know. And I am not for a path to citizenship, you know that, right?
Interviewer: You’re not for a path to citizenship?
Interviewer: Well, that’s not what it says here. That’s not what it says in your Spanish editorial. You support some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, but there would be no amnesty or path to citizenship?
MW: That’s correct. That’s exactly correct. I said there would be no blanket amnesty.
Interviewer: I have to say something. “Former Governor Brown”, this is the Spanish editorial, “Joins with me to oppose drivers licenses,”
Interviewer: “He’s endorsed tougher sanctions,”
Interviewer: “And he opposes blanket amnesty that would grant full citizenship rights without first requiring illegal immigrants to pay a fine a learn English.” You said in your editorial that he’s willing to make a deal. Pay a fine and learn English. That’s what he said on our show. So he didn’t surprise you when he came on our show, because you wrote that as his position in your editorial, and you said you agreed with him in that editorial. So which is it?
MW: So, I don’t think we should have blanket amnesty, and I am not for a path to citizenship. I have been very, very clear on that.
Interviewer: So you’re not getting citizenship with any kind of penalties, period.
Interviewer: No illegal alien should ever get citizenship until they go back, leave the country and process themselves.
MW: What I have talked about…
Interviewer: You didn’t answer; I just want that on the record.
Interviewer: Are you going to answer the question?
MW: Do you want to say it again?
Interviewer: No illegal alien is going to get any citizenship unless they leave the country and apply through the process. Is that true?
Interviewer: So nobody who is living here right now is going to get citizenship, no how, no way, with no penalties or anything.
Illegal Immigration/ Guest Worker Program
MW: What I have said is, what we do need to have is a temporary guest worker program. First example would be the agricultural industry. We have a huge group of individuals who are picking the crops, who are supporting a 36 billion dollar agricultural industry in the central valley. We need a temporary guest worker program for that industry no question about it. I don’t know many farmers you’ve talked to…
Interviewer: I don’t think we need a guest worker program for anything else, considering we have millions of people unemployed.
MW: But do you agree that we need a temporary guest worker program for the agricultural industry?
Interviewer: For the agricultural industry? I don’t have an opinion on that right now.
Interviewer: I don’t know a whole lot about farming, and I don’t really understand why Americans can’t take those jobs either. It seems that the farmers don’t pay enough money to people, and that’s why they exploit the illegal aliens for two bucks an hour.
MW: That’s not true. I have been…
Interviewer: How much do they pay?
MW: So I’ve been to a number, I have spent a lot of time in the central valley in the last year,
Interviewer: And how much do they pay their people?
MW: Depends on the farm, but I’ve been to a number where they pay 10-12 dollars an hour, they get health care benefits…
Interviewer: Oh, please. Illegal aliens are not getting health care…
(CrossTalk) MW: 401ks, I mean...
Interviewer: Then why wouldn’t Americans take those jobs, if they’re so nice as you just laid them out?
MW: Listen, there have been, I have talked to many farmers…
Interviewer: We’ve got 12.3 unemployment. You’re telling me a guy whose run out of 99 weeks of unemployment wont take a $12 and hour job with health care benefits? I mean, come on.
MW: Probably what we need to do is go back to reforming welfare, you know we have 12% of the population and 32% of the welfare cases, so that’s a separate subject. But I spent more time in the Central Valley. I have talked to many farmers. There have been many instances where they have tried to recruit individuals to come from other parts of the state to work in the fields and it has been abject failure.
Interviewer: You use the word temporary. So people would eventually be sent back to their home countries and not be given- I think its disgusting that we’ve got so many millions out of work and so many illegal aliens taking these jobs and I don’t hear anybody talking about being an advocate for that with specific legislation and specific enforcement. Are you going to be that candidate?
MW: Well, yes.
Interviewer: You want to put Californians back to work? Have them take over the illegal aliens jobs right now. You know? You should be sitting on a strike force to every worksite that’s employing illegal aliens and do some inspections right there! Right at the factories!
Illegal Immigration/ Secure the border/ Arizona Law
MW: You know if we don’t secure the border there’s no hope. Then we should send the National Guard there and we should get the border secured. Have you been to the border?
Interviewer: Yes, yeah we have been to the border.
MW: Well what were your observations? The observations that I made was that we are outgunned, outmanned, we don’t have the right technology both infrared or motion detector…
Interviewer: Well that’s why Arizona is doing what its doing! Exactly right. The United States has conceited parts of this country to Mexican drug cartels. You’ve got state parks now that have billboards all over the place saying “Keep out you cant come here there’s shooting going on and smuggling going on. So when that starts happening here in California…
MW: Securing the border should not be the equivalent of brain surgery. There are many companies in- many countries in the world that have done a good job of securing their borders.
Interviewer: Yeah I was just at the border of Palestine and Israel, there wasn’t any problem there (crosstalk) This brings us back to the federal government and the governor of California doesn’t have any say there but the governor of Arizona signed 1070 you see the difference?
MW: Yeah and you and I (crosstalk) were going to disagree on this.
Illegal Immigration/ Prop 187
Interviewer: What about your opposing Prop. 187 which was 16 years ago and you opposed Prop. 187 because it punishes the kids right?
Interviewer: What about all the American kids that are stuck in Spanish speaking classrooms. Their parents can’t afford private school. What about their burden and their suffering and shouldn’t you be on their side rather than the side of the illegal alien kids?
MW: I am on the side of all children.
Interviewer: No you’re not. If you’re against Prop. 187, then you’re on the side of the Spanish speaking kids getting a free education here and you’re against the American kids stuck in Spanish speaking classes.
MW: That is not true I am for all children. I want all children in California to get a good K-12 education.
Interviewer: Then why run an ad that’s about Latino children and their futures as doctors and lawyers and businesspeople. And then oddly you also oppose them going to the state college and university system which has actually got some of the Spanish speaking community angry now that their fighting this out. How are they going to be doctors and engineers if they cant go to public universities?
MW: So Latino-American children can go to public universities (crosstalk)
Interviewer: That’s not what you said in the ad. You didn’t say Latino-American children you said Latino kids. We can play it if you want. And the ad ran in Spanish too and most illegal alien families are speaking Spanish they hear you say that and it sounds like you’re for my illegal alien child becoming a doctor and going to UCLA.
MW: Well clearly that’s not what I meant. You said the Latino community is upset with me because I have drawn the line (crosstalk)
Illegal Immigration/ Targeting Latinos
Interviewer: They’re upset with you because they’re finding this out because their local media is unearthing it not because it’s in your ads. Your ads just said Latino children. Why not White children and Vietnamese children and everybody else it the state? (crosstalk) Would you ever run an ad about White children becoming engineers? Why wouldn’t you put an ad that praises White children, Black children, and Asian children? Why just Latino children?
MW: Guess what I am reaching out to all communities. I want Latinos to be part of this campaign.
Interviewer: Do you want to reach out to us as well?
MW: Of course I do. What percentage of my media is aimed at-
Interviewer: No, no no. The specific reference to children. You singled out Latino children. The only race you’re singling out is Latino from what we can tell.
MW: That’s not true.
Interviewer: Well play the ad! Latino children are the future! Play the ad its cut number 3. Play the ad.
Interviewer: You didn’t say Latino American kids you said Latino kids. That ad also runs in Spanish. So that’s an oversight its not a purposeful mistake. I see.
MW: No, its (stutters).
Interviewer: Oh come on.
MW: No absolutely who are the voters here? The voters are Latino Americans right?
Interviewer: Yeah so if you did that ad again you would say Latino American kids. You would.
Interviewer: There’s a lot of Latino voters who want Latino illegal American kids to go on to American colleges.
MW: But I could not have been more clear about this, could I have been?
Interviewer: Oh sure you could have been. You said Latino kids, you didn’t say Latino Americans.
MW: You all can’t have it both ways. You said the Latino community is upset that I don’t want to have the children, undocumented children attend university. I have drawn the line there because I have said listen, young minors, 18 and under, I think deserve the right to go to K-12 public education in California.
Interviewer: So they can’t be doctors, the illegal immigrants can’t be doctors. So why isn’t it in your Spanish ads and on your Spanish language billboards.
Interviewer: Why don’t you make all your positions clear in all languages, that’s what we are asking. Why don’t you say no on Arizona, why don’t you say no 187? Put those in English speaking Orange County.
MW: Listen, I have been very clear
Interviewer: No really, why wouldn’t you put a no on 187 ad, no on Arizona, in English in Orange County. Do it in Costa Mesa and Irvine.
MW: Listen, everyone in Costa Mesa and Irvine who saw Steve Poizner’s 32 million dollars worth of ads against me know that I am against the Arizona law and against 187. Ya know, I brought a book here for just this purpose in some ways. These are all Steve Poizner’s ads saying I am against Arizona and against 187. Here is all the 98 mentions in the media that I am against Arizona.
Interviewer: But you don’t say it. You don’t say it. You don’t emphasize it to English speaking audiences. You emphasize it to Spanish speaking audiences.
Interviewer: Where was Pete Wilson in East LA?
MW: So, Pete Wilson is the chairman of my campaign. I have a lot of respect for Pete Wilson, I also have a lot of respect for the other chairmen, the other people who work on my campaign. They weren’t with me today either.
Interviewer: Did you say that was important before June 8?
Interviewer: Did you send out Spanish language mailers saying that illegal alien kids can’t go to the university system.
MW: We are about to do that, and they are right here.
Interviewer: Oh you’re about to do that now. Spanish language mailers?
Interviewer: We just have a few minutes left. We also want to talk about Prop 23.
Interviewer: Prop 23 of course would suspend the Global Warming, as we call it Final Solutions Act. Your position on that? Yes or no?
MW: My position, and you know this, because we have talked about it, Is that I have called for a one year moratorium on the implementation on AB 32. So, we have three choices here…
Interviewer: But what’s your position on Prop 23? Are you going to vote yes or no in November? You are going to vote, right?
MW: Yes I’m going to vote.
Interviewer: So are you going to vote yes or no on Prop 23? Or is this a private matter?
MW: No it’s not a private matter, here’s the choice…
Interviewer: We’re giving you a yes or no. I don’t see why we need an explanation.
MW: First is, we have three choices here: one we do nothing, which I don’t advocate. One, we take advantage of the existing law, which has a safety valve in it. Whoever wrote that law was smart, they said in times of economic duress we can call a one year moratorium.
Interviewer: It was Schwarzenegger. And then what did he do?
MW: I can’t, I mean…
Interviewer: That’s one of the reasons why we are somewhat hostile here. We went through this with Schwarzenegger. Twice. And he backstabbed a lot of his voters. You called it a job killer when you were running against Poizner.
MW: It is a job killer in many industries. What we need to do, one percent of all jobs in California today are green jobs, so let’s not kill a whole bunch of other jobs in other industries to support one industry.
Interviewer: Good point.
MW: So I want to be smart and green. I think the right thing to do is to have a one year moratorium on the implementation. Let’s see if we can be smart and green.
Interviewer: Sounds like you’re going to vote no and as governor you’re going to suspend it.
Interviewer: Are you going to vote yes or no on Prop 23?
MW: I haven’t made my final decision on this.
Interviewer: You haven’t made your final decision?
MW: I haven’t made my final decision. In all likelihood, I will vote no on Prop 23, because I think the right thing to do is to have a one year moratorium.
Interviewer: What’s going to happen in a year? The economy is still going to stink.
MW: There’s lots that can happen. We can say what’s the right implementation plan here? What industries are going to be hurt?
Interviewer: Why would you ever implement it when no other states is implementing this. No other country has anything like this. They’re not doing this at the national level. All you’re going to do is send the cement industry for example to Arizona and Nevada. That would happen instantly. So you do it in a year, but not now?
Green Energy Jobs
MW: You can call a moratorium for up to three years. So, let’s take a look and say, what jobs are we hurting? Is there a rationale? Many people I respect in Silicon Valley say that this is going to jump start green jobs and green technology. Let’s look at that and see if there are other ways to do this
Interviewer: Green jobs? Do you know how many green jobs are added to the economy every year since 1995, on average?
MW: Very few.
Interviewer: 3,000. Out of a 15 million job economy. OK, 3000 jobs? And what are these green jobs supposed to be? Nobody ever explains them and I don’t see them anywhere else in the country. These are mythical, Green jobs.
MW: No, You saw the report today…
Interviewer: I mean, a few guys selling solar panels? I mean, come on.
MW: You saw the report today that we lead the nation in green jobs. We need to own green jobs. We have always owned innovation.
Interviewer: But it’s 3000 a year. It’s too tiny for anyone to care. It’s a tiny little niche.
MW: Yeah, but that’s what they said about aerospace when aerospace started. Right?
Interviewer: Yeah, but it doesn’t mean it translates into this? It doesn’t mean we need to be at the forefront and be a laboratory for this, costing this economy a lot.
MW: I will tell you, I think we very much need to own green jobs innovation. If we don’t own innovation in California…
Interviewer: Fine, but let’s do it without AB 32.
MW: So, the three of us are going to disagree on this. My view is that the best thing to do is put a moratorium on the implementation of AB 32. Let’s see if we can be smart and green. We’re gonna agree to disagree on this, and I think I have the right plan here. What government tends to do is they tend to guardrail, lets do this, let’s do this, lets do this. We have a law, lets go forward.
Interviewer: Wait a second, you said earlier in the show, why are you going to trust government. Why are we going to trust the state of California’s government? Look what it has done over the last ten years to us.
Interviewer: Why are we gonna trust them to say which industries live and which industries die? Why is it their business?
MW: I am not an apologist for the state of California government. The reason I running for governor of California…
Plan to Lay Off 40,000/ Furloughs/ Steve Poizner
Interviewer: Are you still going to lay off 40,000 state workers? Are you sticking with that?
Interviewer: Because there was a report yesterday that you are not in favor of state mandated furloughs. But you beat Steve Poizner over the head because he wasn’t for mandated furloughs. So which is it on that?
MW: So let me explain. When Steve Poizner, he was the second highest-ranking republican in state government. His republican governor said we have got to do furloughs. He refused to do furloughs, which I though was wrong as the second highest-ranking republican. If I was governor…
Interviewer: Wait a second; he said he was against state mandated furloughs.
MW: He said he would not implement those furloughs.
Interviewer: You beat him over the head during the campaign with that. Recently, you said you’re not for state mandated furloughs.
MW: So you know what I’m for, I’m for right sizing the government.
Interviewer: Why would you beat him over the head during the primary, and adopt his position now?
MW: Because I thought that as the second highest-ranking republican in the state he should do what his republican governor asked him to do to solve the budget crisis. What I have said is we’re not going to be doing furloughs, we’re not going to be doing minimum wage, what we’re going to do is right size this government. We have 40,000 more workers today than we did 5 years ago, we have about the same revenue, and we have got to right size the government. I’ve run lots of large organizations, what I know is that you’re much better off right sizing the government as opposed to cutting everyone back just a little bit, because then everyone’s unhappy and you cannot move forward. So that’s my view.
Interviewer: Alright, thanks for coming in.
MW: Thank you very much.