I pointed out yesterday that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s (R) job creation plan is based on a tax cut that economists don’t believe will create jobs or boost investment. Rather, it would amount to nothing more than a giveaway to California’s wealthy.

But Whitman’s plan to balance the state budget also leaves a lot to be desired. As UC Berkley economic Michael Reich noted, Whitman’s promise to cut $15 billion from the budget “necessarily implies significant reductions in spending on education, health, and social service programs on top of the deep cuts already made in the past two years.” But you won’t hear that from her, if her interview today with the New York Times’ John Harwood is any indication:

HARWOOD: Every single, at the national level, big deficit reduction package…has involved tax increases, revenue, as well as spending cuts. Is the better part of honesty and candor with the voters of California to say that’s what you’re going to have to do as well?

WHITMAN: I don’t believe we are going to have to do that. I am against increasing taxes on Californians.

HARWOOD: You can close a $19 billion budget deficit just by cutting spending?

WHITMAN: And growing the economy.

Watch it:

In the interview, Whitman named four things that she would do to supposedly save $15 billion (which still wouldn’t eliminate California’s $19 billion deficit). Here’s a look at why they amount to little more than hot air: Read more

Kentucky Republican senate nominee Rand Paul has already made it quite clear that he doesn’t care much for worker’s rights, as he has called for drastically rolling back federal workers protections, including those for mine workers, and has a stated desire to “get OSHA out of our small businesses.” (OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.) During a debate yesterday, Paul made this stance even clearer, saying that he opposed the Employee Free Choice Act because, if it became law, businesses that don’t want to see their workers unionize might have to deal with a union anyway:

Let me interpret for ya. [Attorney General Jack Conway] is for the Employee Free Choice Act, which creates and allows unions to be formed and forced on businesses that don’t want to have unions. Jack is for it, I know it’s difficult to get that out of the answer.

Watch it:

So, in Paul’s mind, if management doesn’t want a union, then the business shouldn’t be unionized, regardless of what the workers want. Either that, or he thinks that EFCA will magically unionize workers who have no interest in being in a union. He’s either ignorant regarding how the bill would work, or in the more likely scenario, he would empower management with veto power over workers who want to form a union and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, or safety standards.

Back in reality, EFCA would simply authorize workers to automatically form a union by signing cards signaling their favor for such a move. Workers are already allowed to form unions in this manner, and have been doing so without controversy for years. In fact, since 2003, more than half a million workers have been organized by majority sign-up, including those at Cingular Wireless, Dow Jones, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Kaiser Permanente.

The only catch is that, in order for this process to proceed, the employer has to give its okay. Even if a vast majority of workers indicate that they want to join a union, the employer can demand an election, giving itself ample time to intimidate or even fire pro-union workers and bring in union-busting consulting firms that specialize in winning unionization elections for the management. (75 percent of employers facing union drives hire anti-union consultants.) EFCA would simply remove this management veto over majority sign-up campaigns.

So does Paul favor unionization only if the employer gives its okay? That would fit into his anti-worker worldview, which, if it actually came to pass, would allow businesses to run roughshod over their employees, with no way for workers to come together and demand a better, safer workplace.

In a debate last night in Kentucky, the Senate candidates were forced to weigh in on the controversy over the Chamber’s foreign funding. Democratic candidate Jack Conway was asked to offer his stance on whether “secret donors [are] trying to influence the elections.”

Conway responded by correctly noting that the local chambers in various Kentucky towns are separate from the actions of the national chamber. Indeed, most of the local chambers operate independently. Noting that his father-in-law was a former head of a local chamber, Conway said, “Our local chambers of commerce do a great job.”

Conway continued that the “larger issue” is that the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s American Crossroads group are “coming in here, and spending, spending, spending, spending, and trying to take your democracy away from you.” He concluded, “I don’t think the U.S. Chamber ought to be in here in support of a candidate [Rand Paul] that’s questioned civil rights and questioned the Americans with Disabilities Act.” (To be fair, local chambers may have supported the Disabilities Act, but the national Chamber did not.)

Republican Rand Paul responded with a full-throated defense of the Chamber:

I see the Chamber as a group that fosters economic development in every community. … In fact, we would encourage you to keep attacking the Chamber because the Chamber is probably more popular than any politician running for office. So please, your side, if you like this — keep on attacking the Chamber. It makes no sense whatsoever. And I think it’s a really, really poor political tactic and untrue.

Watch it:

Paul never explained what exactly is “untrue.” As ThinkProgress has meticulously documented, the Chamber is receiving at least $885,000 from over 80 foreign-based companies, co-mingling those funds into the same account that runs the political attack ads, and righteously refusing to disclose its donors.

Paul seems to be intentionally conflating the local chambers with the right-wing national chamber, hoping the popularity of the independent locally-run Chambers will inoculate him from his connection to the national Chamber. According to a Washington Post analysis, the national Chamber has spent at least $500,000 to defeat Conway, and Rove’s group (American Crossroads) has spent an additional $750,000.

The Chamber has a proud record of defending the outsourcing of American jobs overseas and receiving payments from companies that specialize in outsourcing. Is that the “economic development” that Paul is endorsing?

Moreover, since Paul likes to claim the mantle of transparency, does he think it’s appropriate that the Chamber does not disclose the donors who are funding the political attacks on Kentucky television? According a recent Bloomberg poll, 47 percent of respondents said they would be less likely to support candidates if their “campaign was aided by advertising paid for by anonymous business groups.” 56 percent of voters overall (including 53% of independents) are less likely to vote for a candidate if they know the ads supporting that candidate are paid for by anonymous corporations and wealthy donors.