Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown joined two fellow former governors Thursday night at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles for a reception honoring the work of the California Conservation Corps, a program they have all supported. In a rare joint appearance, Brown, former GOP Gov. George Deukmejian and former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis mingled with guests for nearly an hour in an ornate ballroom over cocktails, sometimes a few feet from one another.

The three men, along with former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, joined forces more than a year ago, using their political clout to advocate for the Corps after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed eliminating its funding in the 2009-10 budget. After receiving a letter from the four former governors strongly supporting the Corps, Schwarzenegger restored funding for the program, which is modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps and employs 18- to 25-year-olds to do natural-resources work that includes emergency-response efforts to fires, floods and earthquakes.

In speeches Thursday night, the three former governors hailed the program as one both parties could get behind. "It's about service, it's about collaboration, it's about discipline, it's about acquiring skill in service to something bigger than yourself," said Brown, who signed the program into law when he was governor in 1976.

Read the entire story at the Los Angeles Times

 

A fired-up Jerry Brown previewed his general election themes in two gubernatorial campaign stops Thursday, framing the state's present straits as a chance to bring Californians together for a common purpose.

Although he criticized Republican rival Meg Whitman for attempting to "buy" the election, the Democratic nominee's message was largely optimistic and centered on the argument that his decades of political life were not an albatross at a time when anti-incumbent sentiment has been tilting electoral races across the nation. Rather, Brown contended that his life experience could bring Sacramento partisans together for the betterment of the state.

"At this stage in my life, I don't have anything to prove, OK? I've done it all before," said California's last two-term governor and its current attorney general, speaking Thursday morning in the quad of Laney College in Oakland. "And I just want to go back to Sacramento and I want to do everything I can to pull Republicans and Democrats together. It's not a time for increasing the partisan divide. It's time for thinking as Californians first. I'm not saying it's easy, but we've had tough times before and we've always come out of it."

Read the entire story at the Los Angeles Times

Photo Credit Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press / September 2, 2010

 

Read the article at the Los Angeles Times

Democrat Jerry Brown is running for governor, but voters in California might not know it. Since winning the primary in June, he has spent almost nothing, has rarely appeared on the campaign trail and has yet to air a single ad against Republican rival Meg Whitman.

But as Labor Day, the traditional start of the general election season, approaches, polls show that Brown and Whitman are locked in a tight race, despite Whitman's putting $104 million of her personal wealth into her campaign and spending $20 million on television ads over the summer.

"It's a very important point that after Brown not running any campaign, the race is still tied," said GOP strategist Adam Mendelsohn. "People are now realizing that Jerry Brown is a tougher candidate than they anticipated and the fall is going to be a very difficult election. I think some Republicans thought because she had so much money and was running a very competent campaign, they could get themselves 10 or 15 points up" before he began campaigning.

Brown's low-key summer strategy was born of necessity, because the candidate's campaign coffers are a sliver of his billionaire opponent's, but it is also one that many political experts questioned and that some fellow Democrats criticized as the summer wore on. Whitman's blanketing of the airwaves and juggernaut campaign machine, they said, would put Brown so far behind by Labor Day that he would never catch up. That scenario failed to materialize.

Whitman brushed aside suggestions that her spending has failed to provide the edge over Brown that a similar early barrage accomplished against her primary opponent, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. She said she is pleased with her standing, given the Democratic Party's double-digit voter registration advantage in the state.

"I am absolutely thrilled to death that we are where we are, and I feel very good, I feel the momentum is on our side," she told reporters in San Diego this month.

Brown mocked the amount the GOP candidate has spent in relation to her position in the polls.

"There are two things that are unprecedented in American political history," he said last week while campaigning in San Diego. "One, the $100 million plus that Whitman has paid on her campaign, most of it from her own pocketbook, and two, the virtually no effect it's had."

Read the article at the Los Angeles Times

The close race appears to rest on a combination of factors, including spending by organized labor on Brown's behalf, his visibility as attorney general and summer lassitude on the part of voters. General election voters tend to be less committed partisans than primary voters and are not as engaged now as they will be in a few weeks, said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political scientist.

"This group of people will come to the party late," he said.

The aggressively negative ad campaign launched on Brown's behalf by organized labor was meant to keep Brown in the mix as he raised money for a fall battle. To date, union coalitions have spent at least $14 million on anti-Whitman efforts.

The largest, California Working Families, spent $9 million, including $7 million on television ads. Spokesman Roger Salazar said labor wanted to avoid a repeat of the 2006 gubernatorial election, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic nominee Phil Angelides began the summer tied but ended it with the Republican up by 14 points.

"Our goal was to make sure that Whitman doesn't run away with this thing over the summer months," Salazar said. Working with several other pro-Brown independent expenditure groups, "we did just that. We made sure that come Labor Day, the playing field is even."

Notable stories - the arrest of a suspect in the Grim Sleeper serial killings in Los Angeles and the pension and pay scandal in Bell - allowed Brown to stay in the spotlight in his day job as attorney general.

Darry Sragow, a Democratic consultant, said Brown managed to avoid looking like he was grandstanding precisely because he has not been in full campaign mode.

"If he had become a candidate too early, in the eyes of voters, everything he did legitimately and appropriately as attorney general ... would be suspect," Sragow said.

Whitman's campaign charged that Brown was using his elected office to further his political ambitions, but that has not gained much traction. The campaign also accused Brown of hypocrisy for interceding in the Bell case, arguing that mismanagement occurred during his tenure as mayor of Oakland.

Mike Murphy, Whitman's chief strategist, said last week that the campaign plans to press the issue in the Bay Area, Brown's home base and a traditional Democratic stronghold. The move is atypical for Republican candidates but demonstrates how Whitman can stretch political norms because of her checkbook.

Like Whitman herself, Murphy rebuffed suggestions that the campaign had failed to capitalize on its summer spending advantage. Most polls since the primary show a dead-even race, but Murphy seized on a single poll last week that showed Whitman with a lead of eight points, on the edge of the poll's margin of error.

"I'm not telling you it's an eight-point race, but I'm also telling you I believe we're ahead," he said.

Gerston said that regardless of any gyrations in the polls, what many observers, including himself, predicted - that Whitman would pummel Brown if the Democrat failed to act during the summer - has not come to pass.

"The question is will [he] get close enough to equaling the onslaught we all expect from Whitman in the coming months, and whether the $25 [million] or $30 million he's squirreled away will get him there. I don't know if it will," Gerston said. But "he's made it a lot more interesting than many people had anticipated."

Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford said some campaign staffers questioned the wisdom of holding off until the fall.

Brown "said in the spring that voters would pay more attention in the fall and wouldn't be paying attention in the summer. I think the fact that there's virtually no movement in polls shows he was right," Clifford said.

 

Photo Credit: CRISTA JEREMIASON/The Press Democrat

Jerry Brown chose Santa Rosa to make his first foray onto the campaign trail in several weeks Wednesday night, rallying hundreds of Democratic Party faithful with a stump speech that held true to the candidate's off-the-cuff style.

Using no notes and with his suit jacket removed, the 72-year-old Brown spoke inside the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Hall on everything from pension reform to the benefits of meditation.

He argued that he has a broader base of experience in life and in politics than his opponent in the governor's race, Republican and former EBay executive Meg Whitman.

"I know all the mistakes. I've made them all," Brown said.

Brown's appearance at the Vets Hall followed an exclusive fund-raising event at the McDonald Avenue home of former Congressman Doug Bosco, who has long known the attorney general and former governor.

Brown has been making fund-raising rounds for most of the summer as he wages an uphill money battle against Whitman, who has poured more than $100 million of her own money into her campaign.

Some Democrats have privately worried that Brown is letting the momentum get away from him by sticking to private events.

Brown, whose family vacationed at the Russian River when he was a child and whose father, Pat Brown, also served as governor, compared campaigning for governor to being on the rocky shore, grabbing hold of a rope swing and "letting go."

But if people were hoping that his appearance at the Democratic rally was a sign that he is fully embracing the public fray, Brown squelched the idea in his opening remarks.

"The campaign starts after Labor Day," he said. "Save your energy."

Continue reading at the Press Democrat

 

Which of California's five recent governors had the best job growth during his tenure in office? And which had the worst?

Michael Bernick, an employment specialist affiliated with Santa Monica's Milken Institute, has come up with one method of figuring that out - and the answer has already generated a little dustup on the campaign trail.

Bernick added up the number of jobs that were added during each tenure and then compared California's growth rate to the nation's growth rate. Since California represents around 11 percent of the nation's population, any number above 11 percent means we're outpacing the rest of the country.

It's probably no great surprise that the state's worst growth came under the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger , which arguably had much less to do with his policies than with the state's close ties to the real estate bubble and burst.

Since Schwarzenegger was elected through a recall election in October 2003, the state has lost 561,000 jobs, even though the nation added 153,000. Even though all four of his predecessors dealt with recessions, Schwarzenegger was the only governor to come to the end of his term with fewer jobs than in the beginning (unless there's some dramatic burst in employment between now and the inauguration of the next governor).

But which governor oversaw the best comparative job growth? According to Bernick, that honor goes to Jerry Brown. The state added nearly 2 million jobs during Brown's tenure from 1975-82, representing 17.3 percent of the nation's employment growth. That's despite a devastating national downturn during his final year in office that saw unemployment spike to 11 percent nationwide and 10.8 percent in California.

Read the entire story at the San Diego Union Tribune

 

The sad reality about the political commercials now crowding California's airwaves is that they are, de facto, not subject to the same truth in advertising rules that govern ads for, say, cars or computers, laser eye treatments, weight loss programs or plastic surgery.

Candidates can say whatever they want, sometimes totally contradicting facts and suddenly taking positions 180 degrees different from their past stances, usually called a flip-flop.

They hope voters won't notice the lies and punish the liars. And even though political ads are covered by the same laws as other paid messages, campaigns are so short the damage is almost always done before anyone can protest, let alone see a lawsuit through the lugubrious legal process.

With more money than ever spent on political ads whose purpose often is to paper over candidates' awkward situations, lies or past statements, it's vital to track what's true or false in both campaign commercials and candidate statements.

So this column asked both the Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman gubernatorial campaigns for lists of the other's top ten lies and flip-flops.

Brown spokesman Sterling Clifford responded with not 10 but 19 of what he calls "lies Meg Whitman told."

"One of the more amazing whoppers," Clifford said, was about how long she's lived in California. He cited a Whitman ad saying, "...the state is in the worst shape that I've seen in the 30 years that I have lived in California." The ad was quickly changed after newspapers reported that Whitman lived in Massachusetts and Michigan through most of the 1990s. She hasn't been here even close to 30 years.

The Brown spokesman also claimed Whitman "lied about her connections to Goldman Sachs," the scandal-plagued Wall Street banking firm that was a key player in the financial collapse leading to the current recession.

"In her book, Whitman wrote that she had ‘nothing but the highest regard for Goldman Sachs' leadership and integrity,'" Clifford noted. This, he suggested, may explain why she remains a multi-million dollar client of the firm and happily took an appointment to its board of directors. During the campaign, however, she's said her time on that board "wasn't a good fit." She departed the board the very day federal authorities cracked down on some investment tactics the firm used on her behalf.

Read the entire article at TheUnion.com

Whitman's campaign, rather than listing a single Brown untruth or flip-flop, provided a list of what it called "Brown's biggest failures." These, Whitman spokesman Sarah Pompei said, include his initial opposition to the 1978 Proposition 13 property tax cuts, voted in while he was governor, and "the fact that Oakland's public schools failed while he was mayor," then were taken over by the state. Local newspapers, however, report Brown often contended with local school board members during his time as mayor and had no control over their failures.

The Whitman list also includes Brown's appointment of Rose Bird as chief justice of the California Supreme Court during the 1970s and his loss of a 1982 run for the U.S. Senate.

Some might call these items failures, but there's nary a lie or flip-flop among them, other than possibly his working diligently to enforce Proposition 13 after it passed over his opposition.

"These items contradict much of what he's saying now," said Pompei.

So Whitman's campaign listed no falsehoods from Brown. Her campaign didn't mention what some others have called a switch of sorts - the fact that even though it was Brown who first allowed public employee unions strong bargaining rights, he now proposes to cut back on pension gains they have won since then.

Brown calls this change a recognition of today's realities and notes the tough negotiating he did with public employee unions in Oakland.

His campaign suggests Whitman has lied regularly about more than her own residence, financial choices and voting record.

"Not only did Meg Whitman lie about the Mexican border fence in her ads, but she lied about what was in her ads," Clifford said, noting Whitman's statement that "You haven't an ad from me with the border fence in it." Yet the fence was prominently featured in at least one of her commercials.

Perhaps more important, Brown's campaign charges Whitman lied about her stance on offshore oil drilling, an issue that will quickly confront the next governor. She told reporters she has "historically been against drilling." But in 2009, she told a newspaper she supported drilling in the Tranquillon Ridge portion of the Santa Barbara Channel.

The Brown campaign lists 14 more of what it says are lies Whitman has told since Jan. 1.

The bottom line: Whitman's campaign and commercials claim Brown's entire career has been a flop, even if it's not a flip-flop, while his operatives note a score of specific untruths and contradictions from her, not including her initial refusal to admit she physically abused an eBay employee, causing the company to pay a $200,000 settlement.

Voters need to know all these things and more to decide who might be their most trustworthy governor.

 

The "Tax Lady," Sacramento-area tax attorney Roni Lynn Deutch, was sued for $34 million by state officials Monday on charges that her firm swindled thousands of clients.

The lawsuit by state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said Deutch's $25 million-a-year empire is essentially a fraud, with clients paying thousands in fees but getting little or no legal assistance in return.

Known for her relentless TV commercials, Deutch promises to help people who are in trouble with the Internal Revenue Service. Brown's suit said that only 10% of her clients ever get their tax debts resolved. Most quit or are terminated by Deutch's firm and are denied refunds after Deutch's staff bills them for work that wasn't performed, the lawsuit said.

The suit said her TV ads are filled with misleading statements. In one spot, three clients say they had thousands of dollars of IRS debt wiped off the books. Actually, their debts were temporarily placed on hold, while penalties and interest continued to pile up, the suit said.

Read the entire article at the Los Angeles Times

 

Democrat Jerry Brown has the strongest record of any of the five most recent California governors when it comes to creating jobs as a percentage of national job growth, says a former state Employment Development Department director who has been studying the numbers.

Michael Bernick, a San Francisco employment lawyer who ran the jobs agency under former Gov. Gray Davis, notes that the 1.9 million net gain in jobs during Brown's two terms as governor, from January 1975 to January 1983, accounted for 17.3% of the nationwide gain in jobs for the same period.

That performance was ahead of 13.8% of the total under Gov. George Deukmejian from 1983 to 1991; 11.3% under Davis from 1999 to 2003 and 7.2% under Gov. Pete Wilson from 1991 to 1999. The administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger experienced job growth during its first four years, only to see hundreds of thousands of those positions disappear during the steep recession of 2008-09, Bernick said.

(More...)

Here's one thing that's different about the Jerry Brown of today than the one who governed California from 1975 to 1983.

He knows much more about education now than he did then.

He started two charter schools in Oakland -- the Oakland Military Institute and the Oakland School for Arts. And that experience is reflected in his education plan, which seems to be the most measured and thoughtful of the three policy documents (the other two are on jobs and energy) that he has released, albeit more slowly and grudgingly than his rival Meg Whitman

There are a wide variety of proposals in the education plan that don't exactly fit a theme. There's also a bit of the practitioner's skepticism about big solutions to education problems.

Among the highlights:

Brown wants a new master plan for higher education, to replace the 50-year-old document that guided the development of the California public university system. (More...)

Source: Brown Has a Schools Plan. Really. | NBC San Diego

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…

(Crosstalk)

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…

(Crosstalk)

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.

(Crosstalk)

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.

MW: Correct.

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…

(Crosstalk)

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.

MW: Correct.

Interviewer: And the other part of your plan was, well going at sanctuary cities which we just talked about before, more border protection.

MW: Correct.

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…

(Crosstalk)

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%.

E-Verify

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

(Crosstalk)

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.

 (Crosstalk)

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.

(Crosstalk)

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?

MW: Correct.

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,”

MW: Correct.

Interviewer: “He’s endorsed tougher sanctions,”

MW: Correct.

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.

MW: Correct.

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.

MW: Sorry?

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?

MW: Yes.

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.

MW: Okay.

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?

MW: Correct.

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?

(crosstalk)

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.

(Ad plays)

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.

(crosstalk)

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. 

(crosstalk)

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.

(Crosstalk)

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?

(Crosstalk)

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?

MW: Absolutely

Prop 23

Interviewer: We just have a few minutes left. We also want to talk about Prop 23.

MW: OK

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.

(Crosstalk)

Interviewer: Sounds like you’re going to vote no and as governor you’re going to suspend it.

(Crosstalk)

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. 

(Crosstalk)

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.

(Crosstalk)

Interviewer: Why are we gonna trust them to say which industries live and which industries die? Why is it their business?

(Crosstalk)

MW: I am not an apologist for the state of California government. The reason I running for governor of California… 

(Crosstalk)

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?

MW: Yes

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.