Hewlett Packard has announced that they will be laying off 27,000 people — eight percent of their staff– after losses of over a billion dollars in the last year.
Mitt Romney, though, thinks that HP’s CEO would make a great governor.
Just last week, Romney stated that if HP CEO Meg Whitman had won her bid for governor, the state of California would be in a much better financial situation:
I wish Californians had elected Meg Whitman. She would have been more successful and explained to Californians the need to cut back on spending and eliminate unnecessary programs. There are other states that have very different records. I think it’s interesting that the state with the highest or among the highest tax rates in the nation also has the worst or near the worst deficit.
California does have a devastatingly high unemployment rate — 10.9 percent — but if all of the HP workers who are getting laid off lived in the state, its unemployment rate would be pushed over the 11 percent line.
Meanwhile, the spending cuts Whitman and Romney advocate wouldn’t actually help the state economy. As Center for American Progress economist Adam Hersh noted in 2011, the states that have cut the most spending have shed the most jobs.
Yesterday, Mother Jones identified 21 former CEOs who received more than $100 million in severance packages when they left their posts.
A ThinkProgress analysis of federal campaign finance records reveals that of the 21-person list, only four have been disclosed as donors to 2012 presidential candidates.
Mitt Romney garnered the most endorsements. At least three of those donors have given the legal maximum — $2,500 — to the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign. They were former CVS Caremark Corporation CEO Thomas M. Ryan, former U.S. Bancorp CEO Jerry A. Grundhofer, and former eBay CEO (and unsuccessful 2010 California gubernatorial candidate) Margaret C. “Meg” Whitman.
The only other recipient was former candidate Tim Pawlenty. Ex-Target Corporation CEO Robert J. Ulrich gave $2,500 to Pawlenty’s presidential campaign committee. Pawlenty dropped out of the race and endorsed Romney last September.
Additionally, former General Electric CEO John F. “Jack” Welch Jr. has publicly backed Romney, though he has not yet been disclosed as a Romney donor.
To date, Barack Obama 2012 re-election campaign filings have not listed any of these former CEOs as donors.
A couple of weeks ago, former Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman admitted that the GOP must change it’s tune on immigration if it wants to win elections in Latino-heavy states and districts. “We as a party are going to have to make some changes, how we think about immigration, and how we talk about immigration,” advised Whitman, whose campaign was marked by unprecedented outreach to the Latino community.
It turns out her staffers agree. Hector Barajas, who led Latino outreach for Whitman’s gubernatorial race, and Marty Wilson, a campaign manager for Carly Fiorina’s failed Republican Senate bid, are quoted in the Wall Street Journal today saying that Republicans who don’t incorporate Latino outreach into their campaigns risk “political suicide.” Yet, according to Wilson, the GOP has an even bigger problem: “[Latino] folks don’t like us [Republicans] very much” and that’s largely due to the party’s immigration platform.
Latinos had good reasons not to like the candidates who Barajas and Wilson worked for. Fiorina supported Arizona’s immigration law, SB-1070, and believed that “[i]t isn’t time to have that conversation” on legalizing immigrants through comprehensive immigration reform.
Whitman spent an unprecedented amount of money on Latino outreach. Yet she opted to say one thing in English, and something completely different in Spanish. Ultimately she couldn’t escape the “tough as nails” on immigration persona that served her well during the Republican primary or the undocumented housekeeper who claimed that Whitman hired and exploited her.
Yet, Barajas and Wilson “see an opening.” As Obama faces sharp criticism from some Latino and immigration advocates for ramping up deportations. Barajas has responded by advising the GOP “to train Spanish-speaking representatives to woo Latino voters by talking about Republican ideas for improving the economy through easing regulations and lowering taxes as well as promoting charter schools, areas where GOP views may be likelier to resonate with Latinos.”
Those who are pressuring Obama to use his authority to halt the deportations of undocumented youth and people with children who are U.S. citizens have warned the White House about how the Obama administration’s immigration policies might hurt the President’s prospects in 2012. Yet, others in the Latino community have questioned whether that tactic might ultimately hurt Latinos more than it helps.
Appearing on Fareed Zakaria GPS this morning, former New Jersey Governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman (R) cautioned Republicans against overreaching in the new Congress, noting that they’re already “misinterpreting this election” by “standing up and saying ‘no’ to everything.” “This idea that compromise is somehow defeat, actually is the antithesis of the way this country was founded,” she noted. Whitman ridiculed the GOP goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act and insisted that “most Americans don’t want the health care reform repealed” — “they want it improved, they want it changed, but they feel, basically, there were some basic changes that needed to be made in it.”
Asked about Sarah Palin’s influence on the Republican party, Whitman admitted that she could “see a scenario” under which Palin can become the party’s nominee for president in 2012, but suggested that she would not be voting for her:
WHITMAN: I don’t think she’ll win nationwide…the base isn’t big enough and Republicans should have learned that…you’ve got to start competing for the center. And so far, I haven’t seen a lot of outreach on the part of Sarah Palin for that. She’s more concentrated on that base and energizing them. Which is fine, but it’s not going to win you a general election.
ZAKARAI: Would you support her?
WHITMAN: If she were the Republican candidate? She would have to show me a lot more than I’ve seen thus far, as far as an understanding of the the depth and the complexity of the issues that we face…the fact that she left office before even completing her first term, is just not an attitude that I think is necessarily in the best interest of your constituents, rather what’s in your own best interest.
Watch it:
Whitman also argued that Republicans would have to raise taxes to balance the federal budget but predicted that the party would vote against any measure that could be perceived as an increase, out of fear that they will be challenged in the primaries by “very strong groups with a lot of money behind them.” “The reality is, yes you are going to spend,” Whitman said. “And how they’re going to balance that — are they going to close down the government every time and just do continuing resolutions for budgets? I think they’ll find that’s not an optimal way to proceed.”
Appearing on Fareed Zakaria GPS this morning, former New Jersey Governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman (R) cautioned Republicans against overreaching in the new Congress, noting that they’re already “misinterpreting this election” by “standing up and saying ‘no’ to everything.” “This idea that compromise is somehow defeat, actually is the antithesis of the way this country was founded,” she noted. Whitman ridiculed the GOP goal of repealing the Affordable Care Act and insisted that “most Americans don’t want the health care reform repealed” — “they want it improved, they want it changed, but they feel, basically, there were some basic changes that needed to be made in it.”
Asked about Sarah Palin’s influence on the Republican party, Whitman admitted that she could “see a scenario” under which Palin can become the party’s nominee for president in 2012, but suggested that she would not be voting for her:
WHITMAN: I don’t think she’ll win nationwide…the base isn’t big enough and Republicans should have learned that…you’ve got to start competing for the center. And so far, I haven’t seen a lot of outreach on the part of Sarah Palin for that. She’s more concentrated on that base and energizing them. Which is fine, but it’s not going to win you a general election.
ZAKARAI: Would you support her?
WHITMAN: If she were the Republican candidate? She would have to show me a lot more than I’ve seen thus far, as far as an understanding of the the depth and the complexity of the issues that we face…the fact that she left office before even completing her first term, is just not an attitude that I think is necessarily in the best interest of your constituents, rather what’s in your own best interest.
Watch it:
Whitman also argued that Republicans would have to raise taxes to balance the federal budget but predicted that the party would vote against any measure that could be perceived as an increase, out of fear that they will be challenged in the primaries by “very strong groups with a lot of money behind them.” “The reality is, yes you are going to spend,” Whitman said. “And how they’re going to balance that — are they going to close down the government every time and just do continuing resolutions for budgets? I think they’ll find that’s not an optimal way to proceed.”
This is the last of a four-part Wonk Room series examining the implications for climate and clean energy policy of the 2010 gubernatorial races. Read Part One, on heartland states, Part Two, on Tea Party candidates, Part Three, on Northeast races, or view the full governor-race compilation.
The Western Climate Initiative — a regional cap-and-trade compact between California, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Montana and four Canadian provinces — was established in 2007 and scheduled to go into effect in 2012. There are governors’ races in all the states except Montana and Washington. Republican governors in Arizona and Utah — who are cruising to re-election this fall — have already worked to scuttle their involvement. California’s contribution, the legislation known as AB 32, is under threat both from the Proposition 23 ballot initiative and from Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. The future of the compact rides on the governors’ races this November in California, New Mexico, and Oregon:
Jan Brewer, who assumed the governorship when Democrat Janet Napolitano was chosen as Secreatary of Health and Human Services, officially recognizes the threat of global warming pollution but has pulled Arizona out of any effort to cap its pollution. In her executive order in February 2010 that announced Arizona would not participate in the Western Climate Initiative’s regional cap-and-trade program, Brewer admitted:
Arizona is a growing state whose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been projected to rise, based on historical trends, as Arizona will experience population and economic growth in the future. [Executive Order 2010-06, 2/2/10]
The executive order also ordered the state to “review its adoption of the California Clean Cars Program, in light of national vehicle standards coming into place.” However, Brewer still wants the state to participate in the regional compact to “have a seat at the table” on climate issues.
Brewer’s opponent, Democratic Attorney General Terry Goddard, is much more concerned about the threat global warming poses to Arizona. Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision compelling the EPA to act on global warming pollution and the 2007 IPPC climate report, Goddard wrote that “it is abundantly clear that if more steps are not taken soon to respond to global climate change, Arizona will be among the places paying the biggest price.” In 2009, Goddard defended “the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to grant states the right to regulate global warming pollution from automobiles.”
ThinkProgress filed this report from Costa Mesa, CA.
Speaking at an event last week in Orange County, CA, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said he expected big gains for his party at this year’s election, but said he worried that Republicans would squander the victory, as they had in the past, by nominating a slew of “bad candidates” and having a lackluster commitment to conservative principles:
The American people are about to give Republicans a second chance that we know we don’t deserve, that we haven’t earned. … The American people have every right, and every reason, to blame a Republican president and a Republican Congress for the mess that confronted the Obama administration on January 20, 2009 — let us be honest be about this.
ThinkProgress attended the luncheon at the opulent Center Club in Costa Mesa, which was hosted by the Pacific Research Institute, an oil-funded right-wing think tank.
McClintock — a tea party favorite with a strong libertarian streak — had particularly harsh words for his party’s nominee for governor, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Asked about Whitman following his remarks, McClintock suggested she is not loyal to the “principles of the American Founders,” and said he agrees with her Democratic opponent Jerry Brown as much as he agrees with Whitman:
My loyalty is to the principles of the American Founders. My loyalty to the Republican party and to its candidates extends only so far as they are loyal to those principles. And I don’t see that in the current ticket. Two of the people on the Republican ticket were singularly responsible for biggest tax increase by any state in American history. These are Whitman’s handpicked running mates. [...]
I look at all of these things and I realize I agree with her maybe 20 percent of the time. I agree with Jerry Brown about 20 percent of the time. I agree with the libertarians about 80 percent of the time. So I’m not making an endorsement, particularly for that!
McClintock endorsed Whitman’s opponent during the GOP primary, and publicly criticized her during that time. “I’m afraid that if Whitman were the nominee, the Republican base would have no reason to turn out,” he said in April. His comments yesterday were unusually strong for fellow member of the same party so close to the general election.
And while McClintock expressed strong loyalty to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), he acknowledged that the Boehner’s “Pledge to America” governing agenda was somewhat lacking. During his speech, McClintock noted that conservatives were widely disappointed by the “Pledge,” and ThinkProgress asked him afterwards if there is any validity to their criticism. “There’s a lot of stuff I would have liked to see in it, and there are several things I didn’t like to see in it,” he said. And while saying the purpose of the pledge is to lay out “principles” and not necessarily specifics, McClintock admitted that one specific policy prescription — bringing federal spending back to 2008 levels — “doesn’t nearly anyway nearly far enough.”
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
A key plank in California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s (R) job creation plan is completely eliminating her state’s capital gains tax. Such a move would blow a $4 to $4.5 billion annual hole in the budget over the next five years (and the losses would get bigger after that), but Whitman is convinced that such a move would spur job creation and investment in the Golden State.
“If we eliminate this capital gains tax, what you’ll see is more jobs, more businesses, more tax revenues so we can invest in the things we really want to invest in,” Whitman said during a debate this week. “To the Recovery effort that I have planned, tax cuts are a big part of it.” Whitman doubled down yesterday on Fox News, telling Neil Cavuto, “we’ve got a decision to make. Either, as Californians, we’re going to put our head in the sand and say ‘the weather’s great here, but jobs are going to continue to leave the state’ or we’re going to change our whole perspective.” Watch a compilation:
Whitman portrays this idea as a definite job creator, but the truth is much cloudier. What is certain, however, is that this tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy. 82 percent of the California’s capital gains tax is paid by people who make $500,000 per year. Those people make up just one percent of the state’s population. 93 percent of the tax is paid by people making more than $200,000 per year.
Just 1.5 percent of the capital gains tax is payed by those making between $30,000 and $100,000. Also, California taxes capital at the same rate that it taxes income, making this change even more egregious, as it remakes a system that equally values work and investment, almost exclusively to the benefit of the wealthy.
As for spurring investment, Kirk Stark, a UCLA tax law professor, said, “it’s unlikely that a capital gains tax cut would lead to significantly greater investment in California.” “What we’re talking about here are people buying and selling stocks,” he said. “A lot of capital gains is not related to entrepreneurial activity,” added Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project. “It’s ‘Did I pick the right mutual fund last year or pick Apple stock before the iPad was released?’”
UC Berkely professor Michael Reich noted that the research on capital gains cuts reveals that the “net effect of lower rates on revenues is negative and the effects on economic growth are extremely small at best.” “Eliminating the state capital gains tax would do very little to spur investment in the state,” Reich wrote. “Most California investors’ portfolios are diversified nationally and internationally. Consequently, the vast majority of private income retained by investors would be spent on stock purchases of companies outside the state.”
This is the crux of Whitman’s job creation plan. So if the research is to be believed, that plan leaves a lot to be desired.
Today, Fox News host Megyn Kelly vehemently defended California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R), whose housekeeper of nine years, Nicky Diaz Santillan, came out last week claiming that Whitman employed her for nine years and knew she was an undocumented immigrant, but turned a blind eye. Whitman has flatly denied Diaz Santillan’s allegations, saying she stopped employing Nicky Diaz Santillan as soon as she learned of her immigration status shortly before she decided to run for governor in 2009. However, Diaz Santillan’s lawyer produced a 2003 letter addressed to the Whitman family from the Social Security Administration stating Diaz Santillan’s name didn’t match her Social Security number. The letter included a handwritten note from Whitman’s husband, suggesting the family knew of Diaz Santillan’s status.
In her interview Diaz Santillan attorney, Gloria Allard, Kelly insisted that the Whitman family had no legal obligation to do anything upon receiving the letter:
KELLY: There was a red flag raised and they asked Meg Whitman to follow up on it. But Gloria as you know, legally, legally, she had no obligation to follow up on that letter. And if she had questioned her maid, Nicky Diaz, about her legal status after Nicky had provided her with a drivers’ license and a Social Security Number and asserted under the penalty of perjury that she was in this country legally, Meg Whitman could’ve been subject to a discrimination violation.
ALLARD: Well I totally disagree with you –
KELLY: No, that is a fact! That is a factual statement of the law.
Watch it:
However, the website of Kelly’s employer provides a different interpretation of the law. According to an article posted on the Fox News website in 2007 entitled “What to Do If You Get a No-Match Letter From Social Security Administration” an employer must follow “reasonable steps” outlined by the Department of Homeland Security upon receiving what is commonly referred to as a “no-match letter.” Those steps do include verifying the employee’s documents and asking the employee to resolve the situation. But, according to Fox News, “The bottom line is that the discrepancy will only be considered resolved when and if the information sync with the records of SSA or DHS.” “Discrepancies are to be resolved within 90 days of receiving a no-match letter,” instruct Fox News. “If they are not, the employer can take action to terminate the employee; or ‘face the risk that DHS may find that the employer had constructive knowledge that the employee was an unauthorized alien and therefore, by continuing to employ the alien,’ be found in violation of the law.”
It’s true that by firing Diaz Santillan, Whitman and her husband could’ve opened themselves up to a potential discrimination lawsuit. However, nowhere on the Fox News website is this warning issued. Instead, Fox News coverage of no-match letters usually is reported from an angle that simply presumes that employers will fire employees who can not clarify their immigration status after receiving a no-match letter attached to their name.
Chances are if the tables were reversed and Whitman’s opponent, Jerry Brown (D-CA), was being accused of receiving a no-match letter concerning one of his employees, Kelly would not be so understanding of the legal quandary that no-match letters present to employers.
Finally, Kelly overlooks the irony of the situation. Whether or not Whitman knew Diaz Santillan is undocumented in 2003 or in 2009, and whether or not the Whitman family did the “right” thing concerning the no-match letter, her immigration platform doesn’t line up with her own experiences with the immigration system. Whitman rejects comprehensive immigration reform and a path to legalization in favor of a militarized border and a harsh crackdown on immigrants and those who employ them. “If we don’t hold employers accountable, we will never get our arms around this [illegal immigration] problem,” said Whitman. However, if Whitman can’t even hold herself accountable for hiring an undocumented worker how can she hold others accountable?
Hewlett Packard has announced that they will be laying off 27,000 people — eight percent of their staff– after losses of over a billion dollars in the last year.
