Truth-O-Meter checks claims about tax cuts for millionaires, number of gun deaths in U.S.

By Caryn Shinske
Published on Tuesday, August 7th, 2012 at 7:30 a.m.

The Truth-O-Meter this weekend took on controversial claims about tax cuts for millionaires and gun use.

In case you missed it, the Truth-O-Meter on Sunday handed down a Mostly False to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for claims made about tax cuts in a new ad. On Monday, a claim by U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) about guns killing more Americans at home than on Middle Eastern battlefields received a Half True on the Truth-O-Meter.

DCCC claim

The group last week posted a series of videos on YouTube targeting 23 GOP House members, including New Jersey’s Jon Runyan (R-3rd). Runyan is seeking reelection in November against Democratic challenger Shelley Adler.

The ad campaign focuses on those representatives who were about to vote for "another tax cut for millionaires at the expense of the middle class and seniors," the group said in a recent news release.

But on Wednesday, the GOP-controlled House approved a Republican bill that extends all of the Bush tax cuts through 2013. Runyan and the other 22 representatives targeted by the DCCC campaign voted for the bill.

The House Republicans’ bill, however, would not extend five other tax policies benefiting lower-income households, which are separate from the Bush tax cuts.

Lautenberg claim

If New Jersey’s senior U.S. senator is to be believed, more Americans have been killed at home by guns than on battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, Lautenberg said in a July 30 opinion-editorial column posted on NorthJersey.com.

Lautenberg’s column said, in part, "In support of the two wars, more than 6,500 American soldiers have lost their lives. During the same period, however, guns have been used to murder about 100,000 people on American soil." Those numbers are technically accurate, but experts told PolitiFact New Jersey that the senator’s comparison is flawed because he uses raw numbers to compare two very different populations. Lautenberg also focuses solely on deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, when many more have died in both wars, experts explained.

To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.

Claim concerns

Have you read or heard a claim from a politician that sounds too good to be true or too odd to be believed? Share the claim with us in an e-mail to PolitiFactNJ@starledger.com and we may test it on the Truth-O-Meter.

View the original article here

Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:05 a.m.

Republicans muscled a budget through the House of Representatives in April that they said would take an important step toward reducing the federal deficit. Introduced by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the plan kept Medicare intact for people 55 or older, but dramatically changed the program for everyone else by privatizing it and providing government subsidies.

Democrats pounced. Just four days after the party-line vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released a Web ad that said seniors will have to pay $12,500 more for health care "because Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to "terminate Medicare." A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country "without Medicare" and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: "House Republicans’ vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal."

After two years of being pounded by Republicans with often false charges about the 2010 health care law, the Democrats were turning the tables.

PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.

Now, PolitiFact has chosen the Democrats’ claim as the 2011 Lie of the Year.

It’s the third year in a row that a health care claim has won the dubious honor. In 2009, the winner was the Republicans’ charge that the Democrats’ health care plan included "death panels." In 2010, it was that the plan was a "government takeover of health care."

A complicated and wonky subject with life-or-death consequences, health care is fertile ground for falsehoods. The Democratic attack about "ending Medicare" was a pervasive line in 2011 that preyed on seniors' worries about whether they could afford health care.

Even when explained accurately, the Republicans’ Medicare plan was not particularly popular with the public, nor with some independent health policy analysts. But the plan was distorted and attacked again and again.

"In terms of creating a national conversation about fiscal reform, the last thing we need is demagoguing attacks against people who have put forward serious policy proposals," said Jason Peuquet, a policy analyst with the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "It’s very worrying."

A persistent falsehood

With a few small tweaks to their attack lines, Democrats could have been factually correct, said Norman Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "I actually think there is no need to cut out the qualifiers and exaggerate," he said.

At times, Democrats and liberal groups were careful to characterize the Republican plan more accurately. Another claim in the ad from the Agenda Project said the plan would "privatize" Medicare, which received a Mostly True rating from PolitiFact. President Barack Obama was also more precise with his words, saying the Medicare proposal "would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more."

But more often, Democrats and liberals overreached:

• They ignored the fact that the Ryan plan would not affect people currently in Medicare -- or even the people 55 to 65 who would join the program in the next 10 years.

• They used harsh terms such as "end" and "kill" when the program would still exist, although in a privatized system.

• They used pictures and video of elderly people who clearly were too old to be affected by the Ryan plan. The DCCC video that aired four days after the vote featured an elderly man who had to take a job as a stripper to pay his medical bills.

"Both parties use entitlements as political weapons," Ryan said in an interview with PolitiFact. "Republicans do it to Democrats; Democrats do it to Republicans. So I knew that this would be a political weapon that the other side would use against us."

Liberal bloggers and columnists contend it's accurate to say Republicans voted to end Medicare. Left-leaning websites such as Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and The New Republic said PolitiFact's analysis was wrong, as did New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"According to (PolitiFact's) logic, if the FBI were replaced with a voucher program wherein citizens would receive subsidies for hiring private investigators to look into criminal activity, but the agency running the voucher program were still called the FBI, it would be unfair to say that the FBI had been ended," wrote Jed Lewison for Daily Kos. "I guess it's their right to make that argument, but it's transparently absurd."

In a blog post, the DCCC stood by its claim, saying the ad accurately stated Ryan's plan would "abolish" Medicare.

But PolitiFact was not alone. Other independent fact-checkers also said the claim was false.

"Medicare would remain an entitlement program, but it would also be more costly to future beneficiaries. It would not end," noted FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker concluded that while there’s "a worthwhile debate" about whether Ryan’s proposal should be adopted, "it is not true to claim Republicans are trying to ‘kill’ Medicare."

The Democratic attacks struck a chord. Polls showed voters were skeptical of the Ryan plan and want Medicare to remain largely the way it is now. That may be why the plan has virtually no prospects of passing the Senate, which voted to shelve the plan. President Obama has indicated he would veto any changes to Medicare that would privatize the program and substantially shift costs to beneficiaries.

How the Ryan plan would work

Under the current Medicare system, the government pays the health care bills for Americans over age 65. Under the Ryan plan, future beneficiaries would be given a credit and invited to shop for an approved plan on a Medicare health insurance exchange. It received overwhelming support from Republicans in a House vote on a budget blueprint.

Starting in 2022, beneficiaries would receive "premium support payments" from the government to help pay for the private insurance. People who need more health care would get a little more money, and high earners would get a little less.

The plan has some guarantees for coverage, although seniors would have to pay more to get the benefits they receive today, according to an analysis completed earlier this year by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

The guarantees: Ryan's plan requires private insurers to accept all applicants and to charge the same rate for people who are the same age. The plans would comply with standards set by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which administers the health plans of federal employees. The Medicare eligibility age would rise from 65 to 67, an idea that has received some bipartisan support in the past.

The CBO found that it would save the government money. But it does so by asking future Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for the same benefits.

Ryan says the plan would offer more choice for Medicare participants and increase competition among private insurers to drive down cost.

"I’m a big believer in patient-centered choice, where the beneficiary is the prime decision-maker, which drives competition and innovation, and that’s missing from the status quo, to a large degree," he said.

It’s not the first time it’s been suggested that Medicare be changed from its current fee-for-service, where the government pays all the bills, to one that uses private insurers. In the past, some Democrats have even favored such proposals, especially if -- unlike the Ryan plan --  the support was linked to medical inflation, or there were an option for traditional Medicare, or there were more explicit protections for consumers.

Just last week, Ryan agreed to a new framework with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Their proposal uses Ryan’s idea for private insurers and exchanges, but it leaves traditional Medicare as an option.

Private insurers already offer Medicare plans under the program Medicare Advantage, though those plans have proven more expensive than traditional Medicare, not less.

The partisan split on health care reveals the contradictions of congressional debate. Republicans were staunchly against the insurance exchanges in the federal health care law. But they endorsed them in the Ryan proposal, even as Democrats switched to oppose the plan.

"Ryan basically proposed the Affordable Care Act for future seniors," said Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who advised both President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney on health care. "I don't understand how you can like it for future seniors but not like it for today's needy uninsured. That doesn't make any sense."

'Scaring 85-year-olds'

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an expert on campaign advertising who directs the Annenberg center at the University of Pennsylvania, says Democrats have been using falsehoods and exaggerations about Medicare and Social Security since at least 1952. She calls it the longest-running "Democratic deception."

It fits with a core theme from Democrats that they will use government to protect seniors and needy people, while Republicans supposedly want to cut those programs, she says. It is a scare tactic that works.

"If you're reliant on Medicare, a suggestion your benefits are going to be cut in any way is a direct, visceral threat," said Jamieson.

Republicans actually used a version of the attack in 2010, claiming Democrats cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obama's health care law; the law actually sought to reduce the growth of future spending with a series of efficiency measures. But historically, attacks about Medicare have come from Democrats.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Democrats used images of Social Security cards being torn in half to suggest that Republicans wanted to cut the program. In 1995, Democrats said House Speaker Newt Gingrich's plan to restructure Medicare would force seniors to pay more and would "wreck" Medicare.

President Bill Clinton vetoed the Republicans' Medicare bill, and used the issue to pummel GOP nominee Bob Dole in the 1996 campaign.

Gingrich complained at the time that "Medicare is the one issue the left believes they can lie about and demagogue." He described the Democrats as "totally morally bankrupt" and said, "They are reduced to scaring 85-year-olds."

The scare tactics are effective because seniors worry about being able to pay their medical bills and Medicare is a vital program for them. Also, seniors represent a large, up-for-grabs voting bloc.

Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said, "If you can scare seniors that something is going to happen to those programs, there is potentially a huge payoff in votes."

View the original article here

Democrats persist with false Medicare claim

Sources:

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, DCCC launches "Accountability August," Aug. 4, 2011.

House of Representatives,Roll call vote on H. Res. 34, April 15, 2011.

U.S. Senate,Roll call vote on H. Res 34, May 25, 2011.

PolitFact Virginia, DCCC says Hurt voted again to end Medicare, June 1, 2011.

PolitiFact Rhode Island,Cicilline says he fought Republican budget that ends Medicare, May 1, 2011.

PolitiFact,Democrats say Republicans voted to end Medicare and charge seniors $12,000, April 20, 2011.

FactCheck.org, Medicare Misrepresentation, July 25, 2011.

THOMAS,2012 Budget Resolution, April 15, 2011

Congressional Budget Office,  Analysis of Paul Ryan budget proposal, April 5, 2011

House Budget Committee,The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise (Republican budget proposal), accessed April 20, 2011

Researchers: Warren Fiske

Names in this article: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Robert Hurt, Scott Rigell, Paul Ryan

We want to hear your suggestions and comments. Email the Virginia Truth-O-Meter with feedback and with claims you'd like to see checked. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.

View the original article here

Lie of the Year 2011: Readers' poll results

We want to hear your suggestions and comments.

For tips or comments on our Obameter and our GOP-Pledge-O-Meter promise databases, please e-mail the Obameter. If you are commenting on a specific promise, please include the wording of the promise.

For comments about our Truth-O-Meter or Flip-O-Meter items, please e-mail the Truth-O-Meter. We’re especially interested in seeing any chain e-mails you receive that you would like us to check out. If you send us a comment, we'll assume you don't mind us publishing it unless you tell us otherwise.

View the original article here

How we chose the 2011 Lie of the Year

By Bill Adair
Published on Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 at 12:01 a.m.

For the first time since PolitiFact started naming a Lie of the Year, readers and editors have made different choices for the top falsehood.

PolitiFact editors chose the Democratic line that Republicans voted "to end Medicare" as the 2011 Lie of the Year, while the winner in our reader poll was the Republican claim that "zero jobs" were created by the economic stimulus. (The Medicare claim was No. 3 in the readers' poll.)

We define the Lie of the Year as the most significant falsehood, the one that had the most impact on the political discourse. In 2010, we chose the claim made by many Republicans that the health care overhaul was "a government takeover." In 2009, we chose Sarah Palin's often-repeated claim that the health care plan included "death panels."

Both were easily the top choices for PolitiFact editors and our readers. This year, the choice was not as clear.

We started with 10 finalists ranging from Michele Bachmann's statement that the HPV vaccine can cause mental retardation to Barack Obama's claim that his review of federal regulations was "unprecedented." We examined each one to see if it could be considered the most significant falsehood.

We faced a new wrinkle this year: campaigning from both sides.

After we named the finalists two weeks ago, many liberal bloggers wrote that the Medicare claim should not be on our list because it was not wrong ("PolitiFact 2011 Lie of the Year finalist … is true," said a headline in Daily Kos). Some bloggers encouraged their readers to vote, which undoubtedly boosted balloting. A few people wrote in a vote for our own fact-check of the claim to be Lie of the Year.

On the other side, Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who authored the Medicare plan, emailed his supporters and posted a video on YouTube urging people to vote for the Medicare claim as the Lie of the Year.

We received 9,214 votes, nearly triple the number from 2010. The full results are below.

The "Zero jobs" claim, which won the readers’ poll with 24 percent of the vote, had been a popular Republican talking point that was uttered by everyone from Rick Perry to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. But we concluded it was more a falsehood from last year, when there was more debate about the stimulus, than this year. Indeed, our first fact-check of that claim was in February 2010 -- nearly two years ago.

The No. 2 choice for readers was Sen. Jon Kyl's claim that abortion services are "well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." This statement became famous because of a follow-up statement from Kyl's spokesman that the claim "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions."

The "not intended to be a factual statement" part was ridiculed by critics and comedian Stephen Colbert, who began tweeting false statements such as "Jon Kyl calls the underside of his Senate seat: ‘The Booger Graveyard.’ " Colbert said it was okay because he included the hashtag #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement.

We, too, got a kick out of Kyl's explanation, but we don't think the abortion claim was repeated enough to be the most significant.

Likewise, Perry's claim that scientists are "questioning the original idea" that climate change is caused by human activity has not been a major issue in the presidential campaign and was not a strong contender.

We reached the same conclusion on Bachmann's statement that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation. It’s an interesting falsehood, but it didn't become a significant issue because of widespread agreement Bachmann was incorrect.

Another finalist was Mitt Romney's claim that President Obama traveled the world and "apologized for America." Romney said this many times (he even titled his book No Apology), but it wasn't picked up much by other candidates and didn't reach critical mass.

We discussed each of the other finalists and concluded that while clearly false, they failed to be as significant as the Medicare claim, which ignored the fact that people 55 and older would remain on traditional Medicare and that even with the privatized system under Ryan's bill, younger people would still receive a guarantee of care.

And more than any of our other finalists, the Medicare claim had staying power. The Democrats launched it just four days after the House vote in April and then repeated it many times all year. It was the latest chapter in a long-running "Mediscare" strategy to frighten senior citizens that their benefits are in jeopardy if they support Republicans.

As we were concluding our reporting for our Lie of the Year story last week, Ryan announced that he was altering his plan and would retain an option for people to stay in traditional Medicare if they want.

His announcement of a bipartisan effort with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., changes the dynamic in the polarized debate and could increase the likelihood that Congress adopts his approach.
Matt Miller, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, wrote that Ryan "has plausibly inoculated his party against a full-frontal Mediscare campaign. Or at least he gives Republicans a credible rebuttal to neutralize it."

But Ryan's latest tactic doesn't affect our decision on Lie of the Year. The statements made about his original plan were clearly inaccurate, they were repeated by many Democrats and they perpetuated a 60-year tactic in using false claims to scare seniors.

-----------------------------------------------

Comment on the Lie of the Year: We'd love to hear your thoughts on our selection. Send them to truthometer@politifact.com

View the original article here

It's getting hot in here!

By Willoughby Mariano
Published on Sunday, April 24th, 2011 at 6:00 a.m.

Things got hot at PolitiFact Georgia, thanks to Josef Stalin, an aging stripper and a Cobb County school board member.

Some days, there was nary a whiff of burning pants in the newsroom air. Atlanta Police Chief George Turner and U.S. Rep. Tom Graves earned Trues on crime statistics and taxes, respectively.

It all changed when U.S. Rep. Paul Broun cranked up the heat with a False claim about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Stalin. A Cobb County school board member made a weak claim about the school calendar.   

Democrats earned a Pants on Fire for an ad that claimed seniors might have to find work mowing lawns or running lemonade stands to pay for Medicare because of Republicans. In one scenario, an elderly man resorted to stripping. Hot!

Want to comment on our findings? Go to our Facebook page and hit the "like" button to join the discussion. You can also follow us on Twitter.

Atlanta Police Chief George Turner: "If you go strictly by the numbers, crime is down across the board. Last year we had a 10 percent decrease in the most serious crimes."
Worried about burglars kicking in your door? If you live in Atlanta, you might find some comfort in crime statistics, according to the above statement by Turner.
Yet many city dwellers don’t think they are any safer, according to a recent survey. We therefore took a closer look.

The numbers confirm Turner’s statement. In addition, the drop is part of a broader trend. Crime in Atlanta during the past decade is down by about 30 percent.

Residents told PolitiFact Georgia they have noticed improvements, and recent audits of the city’s crime statistics found the agency is reporting them according to federal guidelines.

True.

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun: Says President Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent his advisers to study socialism with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin so the president could replicate it in the United States.
The U.S. is marching toward socialism, Broun says. During last week’s scrum over the federal budget, he lectured Congress for 45 minutes on why and included the above claim.
This was like no version of history your PolitiFact Georgia scribes studied. We took a look.
A spokeswoman for the Athens Republican told us his proof is "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," a 2007 book that is critical of New Dealers.
We read it. It doesn’t say what Broun’s office claimed. Its author told PolitiFact Georgia that the congressman’s specific claim is incorrect.

We interviewed other experts. One called Broun’s comments a "malicious, scurrilous lie." Another called it "a whole bunch of hooey."

Broun earned a failing grade: False.

U.S. Rep Tom Graves of northwest Georgia: "America's wealthiest 25 percent pay 86 percent of total income taxes. Wealthiest 5 percent pay 60 percent of total income taxes."
In honor of the tax deadline, Tom Graves, a congressman from northwest Georgia, began sending out messages last week about the current tax system. The above claim, which was broadcast via Twitter, caught our attention.

Instead of trying to figure who’s right about whether the rich pay their fair share in taxes, we wanted to know whether Graves’ facts were correct.

Graves was off by a percentage point on one of his figures, but both numbers are very close to Internal Revenue Service data. While using only the federal income tax as a stand-in for the total federal tax burden paints a somewhat skewed picture, Graves’ tweet, as worded, is accurate. He earned a True.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: "Seniors will have to find $12,500 for health care because Republicans voted to end Medicare."        
A new ad shows seniors running a lemonade stand, cutting the grass and even stripping at a bachelorette party -- all to raise money to pay for Medicare.
The stripper, dressed as a firefighter, bellows, "Did someone call the fire department? Because it's about to get HOT in here!"
The ad critiques a budget proposal from U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., that would dramatically restructure Medicare.

But to say the Republicans voted to end Medicare, as the ad does, is a major exaggeration. All seniors would continue to be offered coverage under the proposal. Instead of $12,500, the cost is more like $6,350. Plus, people 55 and older won’t see changes under the Ryan plan.

Furthermore, Republicans voted on a budget resolution that states policy preferences. They did not actually change Medicare.
It is hot in here, but don’t blame the stripper. The Democrats’ Pants are on Fire!

Cobb County school board member Kathleen Angelucci: "It is a fact that it costs more to run the schools in August."
Cobb’s school board has debated for years about whether to start the school year at the beginning of August or a week or two later.

In 2009, it moved up the start to the beginning of August. In February, it pushed it back to Aug. 15. Angelucci supported the later start and made the above claim.

We called and e-mailed Angelucci repeatedly and didn’t get a reply. When we finally caught up with her at a recent board meeting she promised to send us supporting data. She didn’t.

Local school district officials who start school earlier said they did not have data on cost savings, but some said there were benefits such as fewer faculty absences that save the district money.  

Nationally, there’s little research.

There is scant evidence that Angelucci made a valid point, and she provided nothing to back up her statement. Barely True.

View the original article here

Readers concur, 'Six Californias' don't add up

SACRAMENTO—Judging by your emails, many readers agree with me that a proposed ballot measure to split California into six states is crazy. "Ridiculous." "Laughable."

Also, you concur that this bird will never fly.

Not only would the plan need to be approved by California voters, Congress and the president would have to sign off, too.

"Do you really think Democrats would ever allow anything to disrupt the 55-electoral-vote advantage they get every four years?" from California, reader Kurt wrote.

Very good point. California has been solid blue for the Democratic presidential candidate in the past six elections. Split the state six ways and perhaps half those electoral votes would turn Republican red.

And this from Todd: "The drawing of these lines will mean a huge boom in Republican U.S. Senators…which I probably don't want to share with GOP voters if this qualifies for the ballot. That's bad news from where this progressive Santa Monican sits."

Yes, by my calculation, the 12 senators produced by the new states very likely would be split half Democrat, half Republican. Today, both senators are Democrats.

Looking at voter registrations, three states—West California, Silicon Valley and North California—would favor Democrats. Three—South California, Central California and Jefferson—would side Republican.

Specifically, West California would include Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. Silicon Valley: San Francisco, most of the Bay Area and Monterey County. North California: Marin County and the Napa-Sonoma wine country, east through Sacramento to Lake Tahoe.

Color the rest red. South California: Orange, San Diego, Imperial, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Central California: the San Joaquin Valley east to Nevada. Jefferson: thirteen small counties north to the Oregon line.

All this is the craftsmanship of super-rich Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, who has poured nearly $2 million into a signature-gathering drive to qualify his "Six Californias" initiative for the state ballot. He has until mid-May to turn in 808,000 valid voter signatures to place the proposition on the November ballot. He says he's "close."

Draper, registered independent of any party, contends that California is too big, too ungovernable and too insensitive to local problems. "These states have very, very different interests," he says.

"People in the far south are worried about immigration law. Silicon Valley has different immigration interests and wants a state more in touch with technology. Hollywood is concerned about copyright laws and retaining movie production. The [San Joaquin] Valley is worried about water and losing jobs. People up north are concerned about taxation without representation. It's all legitimate."

"The state needs a refresh," he concludes.

Not all the emailers—perhaps some with tongue in cheek—believe Draper is chasing a losing cause. One sees potential strong political support.

"There would be five more governorships and 10 more U.S. Senate seats available," Edward wrote. "There must be many politicians who realize that in the current California they have no chance of being a governor or a senator, but in one of the six states they might have a good chance."

Heck, after he's termed out in 2018 at age 80, Gov. Jerry Brown—already California's longest-serving governor ever—could keep on running in another state.

Reader Michael predicted that the California crackup would be approved by South California voters "because they think everyone in L.A. is nuts." It certainly would pass in Central California, he continued, "because we KNOW everyone else is nuts." And it would be endorsed in Silicon Valley "because they want to keep all the tax revenue from high wage earners for themselves."

Michael may be on to something, although he's overlooking an ugly truth about his proposed new state of Central California. It would be poorer than dirt—the poorest state in the nation, in fact, poorer even than Mississippi.

The legislative analyst's office conducted an in-depth study of Draper's proposal.

View the original article here

Contributions to California congressional candidates disclosed

Campaign contributions are flowing briskly to candidates in some of California's hottest congressional races, including two of the most vocal proponents of getting money out of politics.

Incumbents in races in the Sacramento area, Central Valley, Bay Area and Riverside and Ventura counties each have raised more than $1 million to fend off vigorous challengers.

And in San Diego County, freshman Democratic Rep. Scott Peters and his main opponent, Republican Carl DeMaio, were nearly neck and neck, with Peters taking in nearly $1.8 million to DeMaio's almost $1.5 million.

Candidates and their operatives were busy scrutinizing their rivals' financial disclosures Wednesday, hours after the midnight Tuesday filing deadline at the Federal Election Commission.

Peters' campaign pounced on a $2,500 contribution to DeMaio from a Koch Industries Inc. political action committee, saying in a fundraising email that it upends DeMaio's claim of being a moderate.

Billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch — conservatives who were early backers of the small-government tea party movement in the GOP — have become a favorite target of Democrats in this year's campaign.

"Scott Peters has embraced the hypocrisy and double standards of Washington politics," Dave McCulloch, spokesman for the DeMaio campaign, responded in an email to The Times. "Scott Peters is just desperate to distract voters from the millions in big business and special interest money he has taken."

Peters' campaign spokeswoman MaryAnne Pintar retorted: "The Kochs bankroll the tea party, and they're bankrolling Carl DeMaio because he shares their extremist values."

The race is emerging as one of the nation's most expensive House contests this year. Another sure-to-be-costly race is the one to succeed Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). His Jan. 30 retirement announcement unleashed a crush of candidates for his coastal-Westside 33rd Congressional District seat.

Former Los Angeles City Controller Wendy Greuel, a contestant in that race, reported raising $672,214 — less than the $964,385 collected by no-party-preference candidate Marianne Williamson. The spiritual teacher and bestselling author began raising money when she jumped into the race last fall.

Defense attorney and first-time candidate David Kanuth, a Democrat, also outraised Greuel, reporting $798,453 in contributions by the March 31 end of the accounting period.

But Greuel collected more than other prominent Democrats in the race: state Sen. Ted Lieu of Torrance, who raised $566,762, and author and radio talk show host Matt Miller, who took in $517,822. Businessman James Graf, also a Democrat, reported lending his campaign $1 million but spent little and does not appear to have done much campaigning.

Greuel's strategists picked apart the reports and issued their own detailed spin on the fundraising race, parsing debts and expenditures and calculating how much of each main candidate's take could be spent in the primary.

Because of limits on how much donors can contribute toward a given election, excess funds are set aside for possible use in the fall by any candidate who finishes first or second in the June 3 primary.

Greuel's campaign calculated that her main rivals all had significant amounts that they could not use in the primary, while she had the smallest amount ($10,400) of contributions that must be saved for a fall campaign.

Williamson and Miller both have made overhauling the nation's campaign finance system a central theme of their congressional bids. But both have acknowledged needing to raise money to be viable candidates. Once elected, they say, they can change the laws governing money and politics.

All of Williamson's listed contributions came from individuals, including entertainer Nancy Sinatra, who gave $1,100, and Leslie Sword of Naples, Fla., who gave $2,600 — the maximum allowed. Sword gave her occupation as "joy seeker."

Williamson's contributions ranged from $10 and $50 to the limit, and some donors also gave money that could be used only for a fall campaign.

The vast majority of Miller's contributions also are from individuals. And the day before Tuesday's filing deadline, he released a proposal for revising campaign finance rules. His proposals include barring lawmakers from taking contributions from industries they regulate and strengthening disclosure rules.

Significant campaign finance overhaul has proved to be a tough sell in Congress.

Prodigious fundraising was reported in other races as well. Among the candidates who have collected the most are Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove), with just over $2 million, and Rep. Michael M. Honda (D-San Jose). Honda has raised $1.9 million but faces a challenger from his own party, former Obama administration official Ro Khanna, who took in much more: $3.67 million.

Khanna reported $1.9 million in cash on hand, compared with Honda's slightly more than $1 million.

In an Inland Empire race to succeed Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-Rancho Cucamonga), Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar and Colton attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes, both Democrats, led in fundraising among the four Democrats and three Republicans who are running.

Aguilar raised $910,730 and had $683,236 in the bank. Reyes collected $710,503 and reported $534,824 in the bank.

Others in hot races who have raised at least $1 million are incumbent Reps. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village).

jean.merl@latimes.com

richard.simon@latimes.com

Merl reported from Los Angeles and Simon from Washington.

View the original article here

Watched by his son Henry, Democratic Senate candidate Bob Kerrey delivers his concession speech at the Nebraska Democratic Party's election night gathering in La Vista.

Top-two primary might be bad for small-party candidates

Peace and Freedom Party candidate Cindy Sheehan, pictured in 2007, says the top-two system "seems designed to kill" smaller political parties. (Jerry Larson / Associated Press)

When California voters decided to change the way the state's primary elections work, the move was cast as an effort to moderate a state Capitol gripped by polarization.

If the top two vote-getters in a primary faced off against one another in November regardless of their party affiliation, the reasoning went, hard-nosed politicians who typically put party purity above all else would be forced to court less partisan voters. That could mean more centrists elected to office, more political compromise and better governance.

But with the approach of only the second election since the enactment of the "jungle" primary — the first featuring candidates for statewide office — some argue that the change has had a decidedly undemocratic effect, muzzling the voices of small-party candidates.

The Green Party, the American Independent Party and other minor groups will now rarely — if ever — appear on the general election ballot, even though they represent 1.2 million people. And they could eventually find themselves out of existence in California, the critics fear.

"It's just a violation of voting rights," said Richard Winger, a Libertarian and publisher of the San Francisco-based Ballot Access News. "Because the right to vote includes the right of the choice."

Antiwar and social justice activist Cindy Sheehan, running for governor as a member of the Peace and Freedom Party, paints a more dire picture. "It seems designed to kill our parties," Sheehan said.

Membership outside the Democratic and Republican parties and among those who state no party preference is admittedly a sliver of California's electorate. And every party has equal footing — at least theoretically — in the current primary system, which voters approved in 2010 for all races except presidential contests.

But already, far fewer third-party candidates have been able to qualify for the general election ballot.

In June 2012, with more than 150 races taking place under rules being applied for the first time, only three minor-party candidates made it to November. This year, no third-party candidate is likely to appear on the fall ballot for governor, attorney general or other high office.

It is more costly now for small parties to place a candidate on the ballot. Previously, Democratic or Republican candidates for statewide office had to pay a filing fee of $2,610 to $3,480 or gather the signatures of 10,000 registered voters to make the cut. But members of smaller parties were allotted a sharp discount and needed only as many as 150 signatures to avoid the fee.

This resulted in a plethora of candidates qualifying for the ballot. In 2010, 33 candidates representing smaller parties ran for statewide office, from the Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and American Independent parties. Because of closed party nominations, each party was guaranteed a spot on the November ballot.

This year, the filing fees are the same but there are no discounts for small parties. Now, there are only 10 candidates for statewide office from seven minor parties. And barring a major upheaval, none will proceed past the June primary because most Californians still vote for Democrats or Republicans.

"There's no question that the minor parties are disadvantaged by the top-two rule," said Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine who specializes in elections.

By contrast, candidates who do not register with a political party have benefited from the change. In the 2010 California primary, all candidates for statewide office had a party affiliation; this year, there are eight who state no party preference.

The occasional third-option candidate has won in California. The Green Party's Audie Bock won a state Assembly seat in a special election in 1999. Another Green Party member, Gayle McLaughlin, was elected mayor of Richmond in 2006.

In other states, Angus King won a U.S. Senate seat in Maine in 2012, and Lincoln Chafee won the Rhode Island gubernatorial contest in 2010, without party affiliations. Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship in 1998.

Such candidates can shape campaigns even if they don't win, Hasen said, citing the effect of an unaffiliated Ross Perot on the 1992 presidential contest.

"His mantra was deficit reduction, and it became a major factor in the campaign," Hasen said. "In fact, it became something Bill Clinton adopted as one of his priorities. It never would have happened if not for Perot…. Losing minor parties does make the debate less rich."

Efforts are underway to offer relief to those groups.

The Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties are pressing a lawsuit on appeal in state court alleging disenfranchisement and other harms, with a new argument filed April 3. And an Assembly bill that would reduce the level of support required for a minority-party candidate to be recognized by the state will be the subject of an upcoming hearing.

View the original article here

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is a Latino officeholder with national prominence, something the Democrats lack for the most part.

( Win McNamee / Getty Images / July 31, 2012 )

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is a Latino officeholder with national prominence, something the Democrats lack for the most part.

View the original article here

California's economic stability leaves Gov. Brown a new challenge

Gov. Jerry Brown, center, at a 2012 rally for Proposition 30, a temporary tax increase that voters approved. On his watch, the state’s finances have greatly improved, but big challenges remain. (Francine Orr / Los Angeles Times / October 30, 2012)

SACRAMENTO — Soon after Jerry Brown was elected governor in 2010, he invited the state's top budget official, Ana Matosantos, to lunch at his office. He had just two months to prepare his first plan for tackling California's $26-billion deficit.

He asked his assistant to fetch the budget director a sandwich. Then, Matosantos said, the incoming governor of one of the world's largest economies ate a single hard-boiled egg, sprinkled with salt.

Brown's dietary discipline was a hint of the regimented approach he would take to California's staggering financial problems, which he had promised to fix by pushing the state back into the black.

"I don't go to the theater. I don't golf. This is what I do," Brown told Matosantos.

For previous governors, California's budget was quicksand. Gray Davis, a fellow Democrat, was recalled by voters as state finances imploded following an energy crisis. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger limped out of office with rock-bottom poll numbers, leaving a pile of debt.

But on Brown's watch, deficits have become surpluses, helped along by tax hikes the governor persuaded voters to approve. More money is being pumped into schools.

University tuition has stabilized.

Budget standoffs that once dragged through the summer are now wrapped up by the June deadline, lending the Capitol a new sense of orderliness. And on Wednesday, the governor called a special legislative session to prod lawmakers to pass his plan for saving money and paying off debt.

That record, which will be a major part of Brown's reelection campaign, is due partly to good fortune. California is benefiting from a nationwide economic recovery that has helped flood the state with revenue. Brown is also blessed with a Capitol dominated by fellow Democrats and a 2010 rule change that lowered the number of votes needed to pass a spending plan.

"Somehow he managed to get all the stars aligned," said Norton Francis, who studies state finances at the Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

But California's finances remain vulnerable in some ways, as Brown's main challengers in the June primary — Republicans Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official, and state Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of Twin Peaks in San Bernardino County — have noted.

Brown keeps pushing for a $68-billion bullet train whose funding is in dispute. And although some debts are being repaid, others are growing as the state fails to allocate enough money for long-term funding of teacher pensions and healthcare for retired state workers.

The governor has acknowledged the gap. "By no means are we out of the wilderness yet," he said in January, although he has not detailed any plans to address those ballooning costs.

When Brown was inaugurated in January 2011, California was a punch line for jokes about government dysfunction. The state had $35 billion in debt — equivalent to more than one-third of general fund spending — that it had accumulated by borrowing money and delaying payments when it was short on cash.

Brown warned then that there would be more pain ahead.

"Choices have to be made and difficult decisions taken," the septuagenarian governor said in a speech when he was sworn in. "At this stage of my life, I have not come here to embrace delay or denial."

Unlike Schwarzenegger, Brown did not convene blue-ribbon panels to recommend ways to overhaul California's finances — ideas that mostly went nowhere. But like his predecessor, he cut aid to the needy.

Providers in the state's healthcare program for the poor are now paid less. Welfare payments are lower, and fewer families receive state-subsidized child care.

The governor's decisions paved the way for his 2012 tax-hike campaign, a defining moment of his term.

Brown had promised to seek voters' blessing before raising taxes, but he failed to win the needed Republican support to put the issue on the ballot. So he used the initiative process, asking Californians to increase income taxes on high earners for seven years and raise the sales tax for four years.

View the original article here

U.S. Senate race in Hawaii pits opposing wings of Democratic Party

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who was appointed to continue the term of late Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, is facing a tough challenge from Inouye's protege, U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii). (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press / December 27, 2012)

HONOLULU — In primaries across the country — in Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi and other states — Republicans are locked in a heart-and-soul battle between purists and pragmatists clashing over what it means to represent the party, its philosophy and core values.

Here in Hawaii there's a similar fight over power and purpose, but this one is between Democrats. It's a fight for a U.S. Senate seat, a rare enough prize in a state that has elected just six people senator since statehood in 1959. But it is also a battle over age and gender, over ethnicity and identity, over old grudges and new tensions.

Rivalries and historical resentments often surface in Hawaii politics — sometimes years later, like a bottle cast to sea — and the fierce contest between appointed Sen. Brian Schatz and his fellow Democrat, Rep. Colleen Hanabusa, is no different: The two ran against each other in a 2006 congressional primary, and they both lost.

The latest contest arises from the death of Democratic Sen. Daniel K. Inouye in December 2012, less than a month shy of completing his 50th year in the Senate. Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie ignored what was presented as Inouye's dying wish, that the senator's protege, Hanabusa, be named his successor, and instead appointed Schatz, the lieutenant governor and a former head of the state party.

In choosing, Abercrombie cited seniority as an overriding factor. Schatz is 41 and Hanabusa is 62, which suggests — actuarially speaking — he could serve many more years and gain more clout for a state that has counted for decades on a generous ladling of federal largess, thanks to Inouye's power and longevity. After tourism, the U.S. military is Hawaii's biggest source of income.

"Go to Washington, bring federal dollars home," said Randy Perreira, head of the Hawaii Government Employees Assn., the state's largest and most powerful union, which has endorsed Schatz. "That's the game."

Abercrombie's mention of age led Hanabusa to accuse the governor of sexism, suggesting his comments insulted women who devote themselves to family and start their professional careers later in life. (Hanabusa has no children but practiced law for several years before launching her political career.) "We make choices," Hanabusa said in an interview. "We have to."

Another fault line is race and ethnicity. Asians make up the largest segment of the population, about 4 in 10 residents, followed by whites, at just over 25%. Nearly a quarter of the population identifies itself as being of two races.

A generation of Japanese American World War II veterans, including Inouye, helped break down long-standing economic and social barriers that had once favored white plantation owners and businessmen and, with the help of organized labor, converted pre-statehood Hawaii from a Republican-leaning territory into today's Democratic stronghold.

Within the party, however, there has long been a divide between pragmatists and a smaller group of activists, typically younger, whiter and more ideological. For years, Inouye and Abercrombie represented those wings; now, it's Hanabusa and Schatz.

They took opposite sides in the bitter 2008 Democratic presidential contest: Hanabusa, like Inouye, backed Hillary Rodham Clinton. Schatz, like Abercrombie, was an early and ardent backer of native son Barack Obama and ran his successful Hawaii campaign.

Philosophically, though, the Senate contestants are largely in sync. The National Journal, which annually rates congressional members by ideology, has Schatz tied with two others this year as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Hanabusa, who was elected to Congress in 2010 after serving as state Senate president, consistently ranks among the more liberal House members.

There are differences on some issues, among them Hanabusa's support for limited drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reminiscent of Inouye's long alliance with Republican former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, who pushed to open oil production there. Schatz opposes it.

Hanabusa also opposed forcing drug companies to pay the federal government a rebate for bulk purchases under the Medicare and Medicaid programs and voted to support the Simpson-Bowles commission, which, among its proposals, suggested raising the age for Social Security benefits to help cut the federal deficit.

Hanabusa said she opposed changes to Social Security but supported the commission's model as a starting point for discussion. Indeed, members of the Democratic House leadership also backed Simpson-Bowles.

Still, the Schatz campaign raises those examples to question Hanabusa's fealty to the Democratic Party's principles. His first TV ad featured the senator in a homey setting with his elderly father-in-law, vowing to protect Social Security. Hanabusa, who has raised only about half as much campaign cash as Schatz, has yet to begin her TV advertising.

Schatz said the race should be about performance, favorably comparing his year-plus in the Senate with Hanabusa's House record. He says his endorsement by President Obama — a rare intervention in a primary — and support from Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, along with much of the rest of the party establishment, means he can deliver in ways the congresswoman cannot.

"That's what I want to make this election about," Schatz said in an interview.

Hanabusa said she would have "the same kinds of relationships and opportunities afforded to me as well" if elected to the Senate. Sounding a rare note of bipartisanship, she said it was important to work across the aisle, as Inouye did. "Times change and majority status changes," she said. "What doesn't change is relationships that are built."

Much of the drama surrounding the race so far has focused on a letter, ascribed to Inouye on his deathbed, seeking Hanabusa's selection. Abercrombie has questioned the authorship and said Inouye told him, privately, to use his best judgment in filling any vacancy.

"I wouldn't want the Senate race to get lost in this question of what Sen. Inouye wanted or didn't want," Abercrombie told The Times this month.

With so many cross-currents, there seems little chance of that. Polling is difficult in Hawaii, a state with one of the worst turnout rates in the country. But all sides agree the race is exceedingly close and will probably stay that way to the end.

The outcome probably won't affect the fight for control of the Senate. Whoever wins the Aug. 9 Democratic primary is overwhelmingly favored to win in November and serve the remainder of Inouye's term. Then, it is expected, the incumbent will seek a full six-year term in 2016.

mark.barabak@latimes.com

View the original article here