As all the political world knows, the selection of Senator Kamala Harris as Joe Biden’s Vice President will create a vacancy in the US Senate that Governor Gavin Newsom is authorized to fill by either making an “interim” appointment or calling a special election within 100 days.  The Governor has indicated he will appoint a replacement and the jockeying for this Senate seat has already intensely begun.

The Washington-based “Black Women’s Roundtable” is already demanding that Harris’ successor be a Black woman, while the “Latino Victory Fund” endorsed Secretary of State Alex Padilla, saying: “He’s the ideal candidate to break one more barrier by becoming the first Latino to represent California in the U.S. Senate and increase Latino representation.” 

An open letter from 150 major Democratic women donors pressed Newsom to choose a “woman of color.”  Shortly after the Biden-Harris ticket declared victory, Newsom worried aloud about “the stress of having to choose between a lot of friends, to choose between quality candidates — and the fact that whoever you pick, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be upset.”  The Los Angeles Times upped the pressure in an editorial around then: “It’s imperative that Newsom appoint a senator of color. And if he picks a woman, that would be even better.”  

Well, Newsom could easily meet the Times’ criteria and please many voters in Southern California by appointing Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, leader of the Women’s Legislative Caucus.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), the California firm that literally kickstarted Silicon Valley in a garage in 1939, is moving to Texas. The low-key announcement was made via an SEC filing on Dec. 1.

If California’s anti-jobs policies, its high taxes, capricious regulatory enforcement, and blackout-inducing energy policy can chase out the company that launched Silicon Valley, is any business, large or small, immune from pressure to move? Unless a company must directly serve the California market, such as a fast-food chain, the answer is a resounding “No!”

And there’s no sign that things are about to turnaround soon: after the 2020 election, Democrats retained their supermajorities in both legislative chambers while controlling every statewide office. In effect, California is a one-party, anti-free enterprise state.

When Los Angeles City Administrative Officer Rich Llewellyn suggested that the LAPD might have to cut 10% of its force, or 951 officers, due to a pandemic induced budget crunch the defund the police advocates cheered. If this cut actually happens—and cutting police is an old “cry wolf” strategy to secure new funds that is rarely implemented– it would certainly be a test of how far the general population will go in supporting defunding the police.

The LAPD already saw $150 million chopped from its budget in the wake of the George Floyd justice reform protests. How much in cuts can the police department stand without putting the city residents’ safety in jeopardy? 

Public safety is often called the first civil right. Yet, the cuts would be particularly harmful to minority communities that have seen a recent upsurge in violent crime. Meanwhile, homicides are up in Los Angeles by nearly 30% over last year to the largest number in more than a decade and the year is not finished yet. 

The much-discussed contest over who Gov. Newsom names to fill Kamala Harris’ Senate seat—a contest in which I remain the best choice—is about far more than one appointment.

In fact, it’s starting to look like the governor will get to make a Big 4 of appointments to elected office. And on top of those, he’s likely to be able to remake much of his senior staff, as some aides are likely to head to Washington.

Who are the Big 4? Let’s offer a fearless set of predictions. 

Today’s LA Times reports the city is looking at layoffs of police officers because of a budget shortfall. But as we explain here, LA could save nearly $400 million per year by eliminating a rich subsidy for retired city employees that was rendered redundant by subsidies provided by the federally-funded Affordable Care Act in 2010 and state-funded Middle Class Subsidies in 2019. Active LA employees and public safety should not be sacrificed to unnecessarily subsidize retired LA employees.

PS: Don’t worry about the state’s ability to finance its program. Unlike local revenues, state revenues in calendar 2020 are running ahead of calendar 2019.

In the spring, California policymakers created Project Roomkey to address the needs of people experiencing homelessness amid the pandemic. To date, the program has provided a hotel room to more than 22,000 people. Governor Newsom recently announced an additional $62 million in one-time state funds to continue the program over the winter, given the current surge in COVID-19 cases. Though Project Roomkey was conceived as a short-term emergency measure, evaluating its impact and that of its successor, Project Homekey, could shed light on long-term strategies for tackling California’s homelessness crisis.

Project Roomkey serves people experiencing homelessness who have been infected by or exposed to the coronavirus, as well as those who are at high risk of complications, such as older adults and those with underlying health conditions. People experiencing homelessness are at higher risk of contracting the coronavirus for various reasons (e.g., shelter services are generally in group settings).

You’d have to forgive small business if they look at the state government as a magician who offers a bouquet of flowers that suddenly turns into a bird that flies beyond their grasp. On Monday, the governor announced a program to boost small business during the pandemic with access to grants, low-interest loans, tax deferrals, and some fee modifications. Three days later, the governor announces new shutdown orders that will adversely affect small businesses during the most important time on the business calendar—holiday shopping season. 

The small business relief package is a measure of concern expressed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and is meant to balance the effects of the limitations imposed by the new order. The governor and his staff must have known that the new restrictions were coming when the relief package was offered, but the timing is difficult for small businesses. 

The much-discussed contest over who Gov. Newsom names to fill Kamala Harris’ Senate seat—a contest in which I remain the best choice—is about far more than one appointment.

In fact, it’s starting to look like the governor will get to make a Big 4 of appointments to elected office. And on top of those, he’s likely to be able to remake much of his senior staff, as some aides are likely to head to Washington.

Who are the Big 4? Let’s offer a fearless set of predictions.

He starts by picking Secretary of State Alex Padilla to fill the Harris seat. Padilla is the favorite and would make a good senator. That’s big pick #1. That would open up Padilla’s job, for which there are many great candidates across the state. My best guess is that the job goes to Jay Nath, the former chief innovation officer for San Francisco, and now the co-CEO of a non-profit that helps government be more effective. If not Nath, look for Jen Pahlka, the Code for America founder, or a top legislator like Toni Atkins to get the gig. That’s big pick #2.

Pension Obligation Bonds (POBs) do NOT reduce pension obligations. They increase pension assets, which produces an accounting benefit (more assets — the same liabilities = a lower unfunded liability).

Economically, a POB is just a “carry trade,” which is a borrowing at a low rate to bet on hopefully-higher-yielding products. Not surprisingly, Wall Street also sells those products (e.g., stocks, private equity. hedge funds, etc.).

When the smoke clears after issuance of a POB, the issuer has (i) the same pension obligations it had before, (ii) more debt, (iii) paid fees to bankers, and (iv) gambled the proceeds on products that beget more fees for bankers.

POBs are meritless products deliberately misnamed by bankers in search of fees. Just say no.

Along with our guest,  journalist Pilar Marrero, we discuss the Latino vote in the 2020  election nationally and in  California, Arizona and other states.  And we explore the impact of Latinos on American politics and policy in the future.

Nancy Boyarsky is the producer-director of Inside Golden State Politics.

Listen to the podcast here.