Simple solutions to complex problems of public policy are the stock in trade of political wannabees who think they can lead and manage because they did something else well.  Like US Senator George Murphy, who was a song and dance man in the movies; or, Al Checchi, who ran a pretty good airline but couldn’t get himself off the ground.

Arnold, of course, is the essence of the issue.  He’s really a wonderful person, a successful businessman, accomplished actor and terrific father.  Whatever made him think he would be a good governor?  With all due respect, the only thing that Arnold has ever created is himself. Arnold is proud of the fact that he has never compromised anything in his life – but isn’t successful governing based upon the ability to compromise? Arnold has been a celluloid leader since he first starred as “Conan.”  It was like electing Batman governor.

Ronald Reagan is an exception to this rule.  Reagan spent many years giving speeches around the country and writing op-ed pieces across the entire spectrum of issues affecting Americans. And when he became Governor, and then President, he reached across the aisle and created solid legislative victories by getting Republicans and Democrats to agree.  He didn’t get 100% of what he wanted, but he got a lot…and he made sure that his loyal opposition had input into the process and reaped some victories for their constituencies.

The LA Times’ Evan Halper wrote a piece on Monday, ‘Group fights plan to fine tax cheats‘, regarding a tax refund penalty provision buried in Senator Lois Wolk’s otherwise worthy tax relief bill SBX8 32.  The focus of concern in this bill is a controversial penalty on misclaimed refunds.  Whether or not one agrees with the policy of a refund penalty, it is important that controversial policies stay out of a federal tax conformity bill.  The conformity bill, over 100 pages, must have consensus or its demise is certain.

Typically, controversial provisions are passed outside the conformity bill process, which is why items like the Health Savings Account and the Research and Development Credit conformities have not been included in past omnibus conformity bills.

John Perez said all the right things when he officially took over Monday as Assembly speaker. But it’s going to take more than banning legislators on the Assembly floor from taking text messages from lobbyists to fix California’s problems.

If you go by the speech Perez gave, he recognizes that Job One both for him and the Assembly is to get something, anything, done.

“When it is my turn to step down as Speaker and turn over the gavel, I intend to look back and say that we delivered,” the Los Angeles Democrat promised.

The good news for Perez is things have got to get better. For too long, the Assembly has been a hyper-partisan graveyard where budget legislation went to die.

Right now, Meg Whitman is spending millions to convince Republican primary voters that she’s the most authentic, conservative, anti-tax candidate for governor. Steve Poizner is doing the same (though he’s spending fewer millions).

They’re both full of it. Everything we know about both of these two people is that they are mainstream, hyper-ambitious, business-oriented, socially moderate folks who weren’t particularly conservative or anti-tax before they got into Republican politics. So let’s cut through the nonsense. (I know, I know, without the nonsense there’d be no campaign, but let’s just try it here, as an intellectual exercise).

Does Whitman really believe what she’s saying about herself – and about Poizner? Does Poizner really believe what he’s saying about himself and about Whitman?

Doubtful.

California’s new Assembly Speaker, John Perez, attempted to set a tone of inclusiveness at his swearing in yesterday, not only with minority party Republicans, but also with the people of California on the difficult budget dealings.

Perez declared a couple of committee chairmanships would go to Republicans. He also stated he would open the budget process for all by holding budget meetings around the state before the eyes of the public. Further, he said the budget would not be the product of Big 5 meetings between legislative leaders and the governor.

The key to Perez’s effectiveness will be his ability to deal with his roots in the labor movement. Perez points out his history with the United Food and Commercial Workers involved him with a private labor union. However, his close ties to public labor are undeniable.

And, it is labor’s dominance under the capitol dome that has greatly influenced the difficult budget problems that Perez hopes to ameliorate.

Last week’s LAUSD school board vote was a stark reminder of the lesson we have all learned many times before – parents can’t rely on politicians to advocate for their own children.

In a remarkable show of political cowardice, several LAUSD school board members overrode Superintendent Cortines’ thoughtful recommendations and removed three of the highest quality charter schools in America from having the opportunity to serve children. In an even more stunning display of the backroom deal making, the school board voted to remove high-quality charter operator ICEF from the new Barack Obama Middle School after exactly 0.0 seconds of debate.

What started six months ago as an historic break from a failed past, was exposed Tuesday as the same old business-as-usual politics played by grown-ups, for grown-ups, about grown-ups that got us into this mess in the first place.

One of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I heard recently was that Attorney General Jerry Brown persuaded San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to drop out of the governor’s race by offering to support him later for the Lieutenant Governor’s office. In turn, Brown would declare he would serve only one-term paving the road for Newsom to move up.

All this without a threatening email from Mike Murphy! Sorry, I’m rejecting this one out-of-hand and I don’t even have to consult Garry South to see if such an arrangement was ever discussed.

But the one-term piece of the arrangement struck a chord. Could that be a device the soon to be 72 year-old Brown would employee to convince California voters that this turn through the governor’s office would be dedicated to cleaning up the mess before he rides into the sunset?

If people are wondering why Meg Whitman, leading the GOP race for governor by 30 or 40 percentage points in the polls, would bother slamming Steve Poizner with a batch of attack ads, there’s a simple answer:

Why not?

In most California campaigns, money drives strategy, especially when it comes to the millions that are spent on a TV ad campaign. The bank balance determines when a campaign starts its advertising, where the ads run and how often voters are going to see them.

While a campaign team may want to go on the attack immediately, finances typically require them to hold off until they finish their run of ads introducing the candidate to the voters.

But with Whitman talking about putting $150 million of her own money into her run for governor, her campaign team is like the fat guy choosing desserts at the buffet: “I believe I’ll have them all.”

The article in Friday’s Fox and Hounds titled, “What if the Open Primary were Used for the Governor’s Race in June?” paints a very inaccurate picture of what we might expect were the “top two open primary” in effect for the June election.

The article reports that a survey of 794 high propensity voters would break down as follows in an open primary: Meg Whitman 29 percent, Jerry Brown 25 percent, Steve Poizner 21 percent. The author contends that Democratic voters would vote “strategically” by crossing over to help nominate Republican Poizner as the weakest candidate to face Democrat Brown in the fall. “We believe that Democrats and Liberals are expressing a sentiment not for any candidate in particular but against Meg Whitman. This interpretation might give ammunition to those who argue voters could cause mischief in an open primary system.”

This poll and these conclusions are both counter-intuitive and run against the history of voting in an open primary. First, almost all other polling has shown that Poizner has very low name ID. Why would we think that vast numbers of Democrats would throw away their votes on a candidate they have never heard of? If they wanted to vote against Whitman, as the poll implies, they would logically vote for Jerry Brown. Hardcore liberal Democrats would not go to the polls to vote for the most conservative candidate for governor.