Yes siree, ladies and gentleman, the horse race for governor has begun. The horses are jockeying for position, mud flying, as they hurtle down the straightaway.

There’s Meg Whitman splattered over and over again with her voting record. She’s trying to avoid some more mud as she moves to the outside, hollering that she did so vote … once or twice.

Steve Poizner is moving to the right to get away from a smash-up in the middle of the track. But he can’t duck the glob of donations he made to Al Gore, or was that his stable mate. We can’t quite tell from here, but it seems the mud is sticking.

And, there’s the old war horse, Jerry Brown, biding his time along the rail. Brown still has mud stains splattered on his shirt from forty years of going around the track. And, there appears to be a new stain. Did he actually appear at a fundraiser for a hard core Republican DA in San Bernadino County? Wow! That won’t wash out so easily. Like trying to explain to your wife that lipstick on the collar.

Joel Fox, the honcho of this blog, had an interesting piece Wednesday about the prospect of dueling initiatives battling on the November 2010 ballot.

Ballot measures on the two-thirds budget vote rule, a split-roll property tax, a new paycheck protection assault on union dues, repeal of corporate tax incentives and other reform/revenge measures could bring out big money donors in campaigns that could change the political face of California, he warned.

Any of those measures could have a major impact on the state for years to come. But there’s an inside baseball feel to all of them, as if they’re issues that will stir up the party faithful and the groups directly affected, but won’t really interest the average California voter until a week before election day.

California has clearly hit a wall, which also opens the state to the possibility of truly positive change.

Last week a bi-partisan commission appointed by the Governor and legislature to find solutions to the state’s budgetary and fiscal problems recommended an overhaul of the state’s tax system. Specifically, the commission recommended that the state lower its top marginal personal income tax rate from 10.55% to 7.5% and that the state replace its state corporate and sales taxes with a tax on business net receipts. This lower rate would broaden the tax base making it much easier for budgeting. Additionally, several gubernatorial candidates appear to support a flat tax.

Out of the ashes of California, we may see a green shoot.

See my thoughts on tax reform in my earlier Fox and Hounds post.

Powerful interests are making last minute decisions on which initiatives to put forward to achieve their goals. At the same time they are practicing a bit of brinkmanship, determining which measures their opponents truly back, while deciding which ones their side will file if opponents put up an initiative they abhor.

Call it MAD – a case of Mutually Assured Destruction. The old Cold War term has been defined as a doctrine that “assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force.”

Over the next three weeks or so, initiatives will be filed in hopes of qualifying for the November 2010 ballot. Some initiatives would prompt counter moves setting off a true initiative war. There are, of course, a number of initiatives that have already emerged from the Attorney General’s Office but we’re looking for the measures that expect to receive big money support.

Well, that was an endorsement.

Former President Bill Clinton was at the Basque Cultural Center in South San Francisco Tuesday afternoon, giving an effusive blessing to Lt. Gov. John Garamendi’s run for Congress.

Clinton gave a long and personal salute to Garamendi, citing his years of work on health care and the environment.

“We need people in Congress like John Garamendi has been, not just in this campaign, but all his life,” Clinton said.

The former president’s ode to Garamendi stood in contrast to the rather more perfunctory public endorsement he gave to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in Los Angeles Monday.

For a forthcoming book
with my New America colleague Mark Paul, I’ve been studying the constitutional
history of California. I recently read the transcript of the 1878-79
constitutional convention, the last such convention in the state.

One
argument that took place among the delegates on Feb. 10, 1879, had to do with
adding a limit on property taxes. Excerpts of the debate follow. It began with
the following proposed amendment:

"The
State tax on property, exclusive of such tax as may be necessary to pay the
existing State debt, shall not exceed forty cents on each one hundred dollars
for any one year."

Green growth is finally becoming a reality at our region’s ports. Just last week, the Clean Truck program celebrated its first anniversary. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson announced federal grant funding for cleaner cargo-moving equipment at the Port of Los Angeles. And after nearly a decade of planning and debate, the Los Angeles Harbor Commission approved a $1.2-billion project to transform the San Pedro waterfront into a vibrant commercial and outdoor promenade expected to attract thousands of residents and tourist each year.

The San Pedro Waterfront Redevelopment project is a port makeover which will bring a needed economic boost to our region, along with a green and open waterfront for residents and visitors to enjoy. The 27-acre project will deliver an eight mile promenade packed with a 75,000-square-foot conference center, 300,000 square feet of commercial space, new arts and cultural attractions, a trolley car line, bike trails and walking paths and a vastly upgraded recreational marina – all built to the highest environmental standards.

As part of a federal lawsuit challenging the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage, plaintiffs have demanded that the Yes on 8 side turn over internal campaign documents. Last week, a judge approved the disclosure request. Why? The plaintiffs are alleging that the ban is discriminatory, and want to see if the Yes on 8 campaign’s records offer evidence of discriminatory attitudes.

This case — and a recent case in Washington state, involving questions of whether signatures on an anti-domestic partnership referendum petition could be made public — point to a weakness in the law on initiative and referendum campaigns: lack of disclosure. Initiative and referendum campaigns are conducted by private organizations and interest groups. But the act of sponsoring such a campaign is very much a public act — it’s the act of legislating. Legislative records should be public so voters and elected leaders are making choices based on the best available information.

As Vice Chairman of Jobs and Economic Recovery I realize in times of economic adversity there should be no higher priority for government than to find out how it can best help get businesses back on track towards job creation. This means finding the source of the problem, determining the best solution, and moving forward with determination and a solid plan. To date this has not happened.

As our federal government continues its experiment in a jobless recovery, it’s crucial for California to not make the same mistakes. The recent report on the cost of regulations on California business, which was delivered to the Governor’s office by the Small Business Advocate, gives a broad overview of all that state government has done to make things harder on businesses and working families, costing us 3.8 million jobs, hundreds of billions in costs to California businesses, and even billions lost in state revenues as a result of overregulation. In other words, government over regulation, is crushing the hopes and dreams of millions of California families..