Poll shows support for Jerry Brown's tax increase proposal. Is President Obama’s energy plan the right path to energy independence? Dead heat sparks fiery fight for Latino vote. Pentagon announces fundamental redesign.
Californians are willing to pay higher taxes for education
California Governor Jerry Brown has found himself in a unique position for a politician – one in which his constituents support raising taxes. A recent poll by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California shows that 68 percent of California voters support Brown’s proposed November ballot initiative. It includes tax hikes on sales and the wealthy when the intent is to use the revenue to shore up the state’s struggling K-12 schools and community colleges. Moreover, an even higher number of Californians, 75 percent, oppose cutting funding to schools.
Parsing the poll numbers reveals that Californians overall have mixed opinions about whether they prefer higher taxes and retaining social services or lower taxes and fewer services, but they have nine months to make up their minds. As for the governor, Brown’s approval ratings have slipped slightly in the year since he took office - slumping form 47 to 44 percent – but the perception is that he is trying. "There are still a lot of people on the fence about Jerry. But he's getting credit for effort,” said Mark Baldassare, the policy institute's president and pollster.
WEIGH IN:
What do you think about raising taxes to pay for schools? What can Governor Brown do to maintain this delicate balance of support through November?
Guests:
Jerry Brown, Governor of California
Mark Baldassare, President and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California
Dan Schnur, Director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC and adjunct faculty at USC Annenberg School
Is President Obama’s energy plan the right path to energy independence?
In his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, President Obama called for “a future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world.” The President touted record levels of domestic oil production – the highest in eight years. But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, Obama said the country needs an “all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”
Toward that end, Obama announced the opening of 75 percent of potential offshore resources. He also called for an increase in domestic production of natural gas, adding that companies drilling on public lands would be required to disclose the chemicals used in the drilling process, known as hydraulic fracking.
Obama’s energy proposals drew sharp criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Republicans argue that Obama claims to be for energy, but isn’t, as evidenced by his decision to stop the Keystone pipeline. Environmentalists were pleased with that decision, but raised big concerns over the safety of fracking. Obama conceded that lawmakers are too divided to pass a comprehensive plan to fight global warming, but said he wouldn’t “walk away from the promise of clean energy.”
WEIGH IN:
What would it take to really make the U.S. energy independent? Is there as much natural gas within our borders as Obama claims? Can we get to it? Can it be done safely? Would investments in renewable and clean energy be good or bad for the economy and job creation?
Guests:
Philip Verleger, Visiting Fellow, Peterson Institute of International Economics; Founder of PKVerleger LLC; former David Mitchell Professor at the Haskayne School of Business at the University of Calgary
Benjamin Zycher, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Adjunct Professor of Economics and Business at the Martin V. Smith School of Business and Economics, California State University, Channel Islands
Dead heat sparks fiery fight for Latino vote
The political rhetoric was white-hot in Miami yesterday. Accusations were hurled. Ads were pulled. Foreign leaders were threatened. And all because Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are aggressively courting the Latino vote ahead of next week's Florida primary.
The Republican presidential contenders spent part of their Wednesday at a Univision event where the Spanish-language network co-hosted a "Meet the Candidates" forum.
In an interview there, Gingrich was asked what he would do to the Castro regime. Gingrich compared it to the U.S. intervention in Libya and U.S. support for the Arab Spring: "We're very prepared to back people in Libya. We may end up backing people in Syria. But now Cuba – hands off Cuba? That's baloney. The people of Cuba deserve freedom."
Mitt Romney went further. Speaking with the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC (political action committee), Romney said, "If I'm fortunate to become the next president of the United States, it is my expectation that [retired Cuban leader] Fidel Castro will finally be taken off this planet."
According to Hector Barajas, communications consultant to the California Republican Party, numbers show that Latino votes are critical. He said that there are about 344,000 Hispanic Republican voters registered in South Florida alone. He added that Republicans look to remind Latino voters that President Obama has failed to keep promises he made to their community, breaching trust by increasing deportations, for example.
Barajas went on to say that presidential hopefuls would be most effective if they targeted business issues. “Latinos are very entrepreneurial, as are Republicans. Everything about why Latinos come to this country is to find some sort of success for their family,” he said. “We are very community oriented, but within that community you have the son, you have the aunt, you have the grandmother, that are all working in the same business to help out that family.”
In ricocheting interviews, speeches and advertisements, the two men have also sparred over immigration issues, including "self-deportation" and the DREAM Act. Democratic political consultant Roger Salazar recognizes their attempts to address key issues, and noted Gingrich has taken a more moderate stance on immigration. Still, he went on to say that Republicans need to back up their words with their actions.
“You have a party that claims to be the one talking about self-reliance and pulling yourself up by your boot straps and working hard to get ahead,” he said. “You have [these] people opposed to the DREAM Act, which rewards the very behavior that Republicans say that they want.”
Salazar said that Republicans have been close to closure with Latino voters before, only to lose their trust by insulting them. “I don’t think the voters will forget that [Gingrich] was a fellow who said that ‘Spanish was the language of the ghetto,’” he said. Salazar added later that “this is a very diverse community, but one thing we have in common is that we don’t forget a slight.”
A new Quinnipac poll among Republican primary voters shows Gingrich has nearly caught up with Romney in the Sunshine State. Romney is at 36 percent, Gingrich at 34, with a margin of error of four points. Rick Santorum has 13 percent support and Ron Paul won 10 percent. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama was in Arizona taking his own swipes at the Republican immigration policy.
WEIGH IN:
How much of the Latino vote is at play for November 2012? How crucial is it? What's your reaction to the feisty exchanges between Romney and Gingrich yesterday? How have the demographics changed in Florida and the rest of the country? How popular is Obama with Latinos?
Guests:
Hector Barajas, Political Analyst for Univision & Communications consultant to the California Republican Party; Director of Strategic Communications, Revolvis Consulting based in Sacramento; Barajas joins us today from Miami, Florida
Roger Salazar, Democratic Political Consultant; Partner, Acosta Salazar Strategic Communications based in Sacramento
Leslie Berestein-Rojas, KPCC immigration reporter and blogger, writes the Multi-American blog on KPCC dot org.
Pentagon announces fundamental redesign
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has just unveiled how the Pentagon will deal with $487 billion in cuts over the next ten years. As "The Wall Street Journal" reports, money will shift away from troop numbers and toward special-operations bases and drones. The fleet of armed unmanned aircraft is expected to increase 30 percent. The Department of Defense will also slow down purchases of next-generation stealth fighters.
"Our approach was to use this as an opportunity to maintain the strongest military in the world, to not hollow out the force," Panetta said in a statement prepared for the news briefing. The strategy follows President Barack Obama's directives outlined earlier this month. As fewer resources are needed for larger wars, the Administration believes leaner, covert military operations could help further American interests. Criticism of the strategy continues.
Today, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned, "Taking us back to a pre-9/11 military force structure places our country in grave danger." Cornyn is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee which will hold hearings on the new budget plan.
WEIGH IN:
What will change for bases around the world? Is this a fundamental change in American foreign policy and military policy? How does it square with ever-shifting geo-politics? Is there a range of opinions within the Pentagon? What's the reaction from other military powers?
Guest:
Julian Barnes, Pentagon Reporter, The Wall Street Journal