This just in from the Fiorina campaign: Barbara Boxer is a Democrat.

Not only that, she’s an unabashed Democrat, who was “prioritizing her own bitter partisan politics” when she voted over the weekend to support the health-care bill wending its way through the Senate.

You might remember that health care bill. You know, the one backed by Democratic President Barack Obama that every single Democrat in the Senate voted for.

Carly Fiorina, who’s looking to win the June GOP primary and challenge Boxer in November, wrote in an email to supporters Tuesday that “with her 1 a.m. vote, Barbara Boxer proved yet again that her loyalties lie with the special interests, NOT with the people of California she was elected to serve.”

Now it’s mighty courageous – a word that’s not always a compliment in politico-speak – to mount a political assault on a three-term Democratic senator for supporting a Democratic bill backed by a Democratic president in a state that typically votes, well, Democratic.

This holiday season, Sacramento policymakers have little reason for good cheer.  Deficit spending, high taxes and excessive regulations are the equivalent of a large lump of coal in politicians’ stockings.

The public gets it.  Most Californians appropriately blame California’s leaders for our failure to act: the Governor’s approval rating has sunk to 27%, while a record low 17% approve of the Legislature’s work.

Reforms are long overdue.  Recent legislative hearings on improving California’s government are a good start-but mere talk isn’t enough.  While political leaders talk, Californians continue to lose their jobs due to the decisions made in Sacramento.

If the economy feels worse in California than the rest of the nation, that’s because it is.  Fifteen metro areas across the nation have unemployment rates of 15% or higher.  Of these, an astounding nine are in California.  The national unemployment rate of 10 percent is more than two points lower than California’s rate of 12.3%.

‘Twas the night before Christmas when all through the county
Not much was stirring, due to lack of a bounty.
Our stockings are hung by the chimney with care
Hoping soon our state will know fiscal repair.

No visions of sugar plums dance in our heads,
But more practical gifts we ask from Santa instead:

1. Jobs
And by that, I mean an inviting business environment that encourages businesses to locate and grow here. Thriving businesses pay taxes that fill the state’s coffers. Thriving businesses hire people, resulting in less demand for expensive unfunded government social programs. Let’s make the whole state an enterprise zone and offer tax credits to businesses hiring the unemployed. Let’s streamline the permit process for getting a manufacturing plant up and running. How about a short-term moratorium on any new law that would add even one cent more to the cost of doing business here?

While we at the California High-Speed Rail Authority don’t second-guess the
will of the voters the way Jon Coupal seems to – instead we make it our
mission to carry out the will of the voters – we actually agree with the
position of the taxpayer advocate who doesn’t want a single cent of the
taxpayers’ dollars wasted. We want to ensure that the $9 billion voters
decided to put toward the construction of a high-speed rail system is not
wasted and is used to its fullest effect. And in fact we have a plan to grow
that $9 billion into the $42.6 billion needed to construct the project.

So, in that light, let us run through a number of reasons we think taxpayers
would be pleased at the approach taken by the High-Speed Rail Authority.

First, investment in infrastructure is good for our economy. Without a
doubt, putting money into brick-and-mortar construction creates jobs and
spurs economic stimulus. In the case the of the high-speed train project, a
conservative estimate shows we’d create 600,000 construction related
job-years over the life of the project’s construction and 450,000 permanent
jobs thereafter. The benefits of $43 billion pumped into our economy cannot
be overstated.

A year as rough as 2009 should end with some tough self-appraisal. So here’s my look at my 8 worst predictions here at Fox & Hounds Daily over the year that passed. In reverse order:

8. I said Lamar Odom might leave the Lakers because of California taxes. I was wrong. What I didn’t account for was the allure of reality TV, and Khloe Kardashian.

7. Writing about the state’s stem cell agency and its board, I suggested that a public agency selling bonds in the private marketplace wasn’t such a bad idea. Given the persistence of the poor economy and the state’s budget problems, I’m no longer so sure about that.

6. Arnold’s future. In this item, actually written in late 2008, asking where Gov. Schwarzenegger might go next, I raised the possibility he could leave before the end of his term to work in the Obama administration. Dead wrong.

In June 2010, California voters will see a ballot measure for the “top-two open primary”. It says that for Congress and state office, all voters would see the same primary ballot, and all candidates would appear on the ballot. Then, in November, only the candidates who had placed first and second would be on the ballot.

State Senator Abel Maldonado, the author of the bill (SCA 4 and SB 6) and Governor Arnold Scharzenegger are the biggest backers of the measure. The legislature put it on the ballot in February, after Maldonado said he would only vote for the budget if his election law measure were passed. The measure has already been endorsed by the California Chamber of Commerce and several newspapers. They all say, and seem to believe, that if the measure is passed, there will be fewer hard-core conservatives and hard-core liberals in state elected office, and more moderates.

Oddly enough, the backers never seem to have looked at the experience of the two states that have actually used that system, to see if it’s true that the system would have that effect. Those two states are Louisiana and Washington. Nor have the backers looked at the California experience with the somewhat-similar blanket primary.

It’s easy enough to be a success in Sacramento: Make an occasional stirring speech and then vote with the party on everything. You’ll generally be on the winning side if you’re a Democrat and the losing side if you’re a Republican, but so what?

In these days of gerrymandered districts, a record of party-line votes is a virtual guarantee of re-election and personal political success.

But politicians interested in actually accomplishing something for the state should remember the words of that esteemed philosopher, Jay Ward’s Super Chicken:

“You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.”

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) recently
released a voter survey measuring voter attitudes in California on various
issues, candidates and incumbents.

In the GOP Primary race for governor, former e-Bay executive
Meg Whitman continues to show a significant lead over her two GOP rivals, Tom
Campbell and Steve Poizner: Whiteman 32%, Campbell 19%, Poizner 8%, someone
else 4% and undecided 44%.

Attorney General Jerry Brown continues to leads all three
Republican candidates, though falling short of a majority support in
hypothetical November election matchups.

Early polls are interesting, but are not always accurate
indicators as to who will win come election time.  Ask supporters of Hillary Clinton and Richard Riordan on
that point.

When California voters barely approved a $9.95 billion bond measure for High Speed Rail in 2008, they had no idea how soon they would learn the true meaning of the phrase “being railroaded.” As more about this project is revealed, the backlash from the public and political leadership is sure to grow.

For purposes of full disclosure, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ran the unsuccessful campaign against Prop 1A (not to be confused with 2009’s Prop 1A, an attempt to raise $16 billion in new taxes). Our most potent weapon was a devastating study by the Reason Foundation which revealed that the proponents’ representations regarding costs, fare price and profitability were pure fantasy. But, from the start, we had an uphill battle convincing voters how poorly thought out this measure was. The California Legislature had already stacked the deck by providing such a biased title and summary for the measure that the issue of that deception is still the subject of litigation today. The deceptive ballot material, in addition to the campaign contributions from those who would profit from the project, was enough to ensure victory at the polls – albeit by a very small margin.