idea

SACRAMENTO — One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back. And bravo for her.

The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge. That’s unusual for a politician. It’s normal to promise the moon without specifying how to get there.

She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen.

The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce.

And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

But at least there’s a potential governor who’s advocating tuition-free higher education and proclaiming it to be a priority.

Why is this Democrat, a UC Irvine law professor, pushing the issue? Tuition cost doesn’t show up anywhere on voter lists of important concerns. But California’s high cost of living is a gigantic gripe. And “affordability” these days is one of the most overused words in any politician’s vocabulary.

“When we talk about affordability, there’s lots of talk about the problem, but people want to hear what [candidates] would do about it,” Porter told me over coffee last week. One thing she’d do is eliminate much of the tuition at public universities.

Another reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education.

But that was 66 years and nine governors ago. A lot has changed.

Actually, tuition-free public higher education was a California birthright long before Gov. Pat Brown’s master plan.

Policymakers regarded tuition-free college as a sound economic investment. It was in the state’s self-interest to produce highly educated innovators and skilled professionals to grow the economy. The middle class expanded, with people landing good-paying jobs that resulted in higher tax revenue for state coffers.

That didn’t mean college was free — and it wouldn’t be under Porter’s plan. There’s still housing, meals, books and annoying fees.

But Sacramento switched priorities in the 1970s, spending tax money on other things: enhanced welfare, healthcare and specifically K-12 schooling.

Free tuition existed before the creation of Medi-Cal healthcare, which now eats up 20% of the state general fund. It also was prior to Proposition 13 in 1978 that dramatically cut property tax revenue for K-12 schools. The state felt obliged to make up the difference.

Naysayers contend California can’t possibly afford to educate students today without their paying tuition. Nonsense. The state could happily afford it long before we expanded into the world’s fourth largest economy. It’s about priorities.

And today, free tuition could be the PR tonic California needs to brighten its faded image across America. It could attract middle-class families to California and keep those already here from fleeing.

Porter promised a return to yesteryear in a speech that was a far cry from old-time political rhetoric. Addressing more than 2,000 delegates at a recent Democratic state convention in San Francisco, she held up a whiteboard with two words in large letters: “F— Trump.”

And she led the delegates in shouting “F— Trump.”

That was a bit of a turnoff for this old traditionalist, who thinks politics has gotten too coarse and foul-mouthed.

I asked Porter what prompted the profanity and whether she had any regrets.

No, she answered. Candidates were allotted only four minutes to speak and “I was economical with my time.

“I wanted to be very clear in the first 15 seconds that I would fight Trump. I wanted the other three minutes and 45 seconds to be about all other stuff.

“Some people just want to talk about Trump because they don’t want to talk about our own problems.”

Plowing into her speech, she quickly promised to “deliver single-payer healthcare, less-expensive housing, free childcare for all, zero tuition at our UCs and CSUs, and [elimination of] income tax for those earning less than $100,000.

“Those are real affordability solutions.”

Right. But no specifics. How does a state wading in red ink afford all that?

I pressed her when we met later. She didn’t have time for details at the convention, she said. But this is her plan on tuition:

Free tuition only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college.

Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students. Kids are better educated in their first two years at community college anyway, the UC professor said.

Many liberals complain that free tuition would waste tax money on rich kids who don’t need it.

“I’m a believer in universal programs” that don’t base eligibility on income, Porter said. “Something I learned in Congress. You know what never gets cut? Universal programs such as Social Security and Medicare.”

Anyway, she added, “Kids from really wealthy families go to Harvard or USC or other options.”

Public school tuitions are bargains in California compared to other states and private universities.

At UC, annual tuition is roughly $14,900 and at CSU it’s around $6,500. Without tuition, UC would lose roughly $5.9 billion and CSU $3.7 billion, state budget officials say.

But under Porter’s plan, the universities would lose much less. They’d still collect tuition from freshmen and sophomores and hefty levies from non-Californians. Also student aid could be cut back if kids weren’t saddled with tuition.

Hiking the corporation tax from 8.84% to 9.5% “would generate way more than I need for tuition-free,” Porter said. “I would use any extra money for free childcare.”

Political promises often aren’t worth a nickel. But tenacious and feisty Porter’s free tuition pledge might be worth at least a few bucks. And, maybe some votes.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Veteran Rep. Darrell Issa decides not to seek reelection in new Democratic-leaning district.
Internal combustion: Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out.
The L.A. Times Special: Yes, Republicans have a chance in California governor’s race. Here’s our expert analysis.

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

For casting director Gabriel Domingues, putting together the ensemble of “The Secret Agent” meant materializing characters inspired by director Kleber Mendonça Filho’s recollections.

“It’s not that he was showing us a picture and saying, ‘They must look like this.’ They were ideas of memories that could change,” Domingues says of the Brazilian period thriller about a father on the run during an interview at The Times newsroom. One of the nominees for this year’s inaugural Academy Award for casting, Domingues appreciates how politically charged Mendonça Filho’s films are. His narratives are often fertile ground for an eclectic mix of performers.

And there are no throwaway roles in “The Secret Agent”: “Even the small characters represent ideas about Brazilian life and its contradictions,” Domingues adds.

To honor his large cast, a “panorama” of his country’s people, Mendonça Filho includes a montage at the end of the film in which each actor is acknowledged individually. The director thinks of this as the cinematic equivalent of a curtain call or final bow at the end of a stage production.

“Gabriel tries to find an interesting mix of experienced actors and people that we can discover,” says producer Emilie Lesclaux about Domingues, with whom she’s worked on multiple projects. He first collaborated with Mendonça Filho and Lesclaux on “Aquarius” as a casting assistant.

Domingues believes working on “Aquarius” was instrumental in developing his casting method, which involves searching for the least obvious option to cast the character. He prides himself on doing the shoe-leather work of looking for fresh, compelling faces in cities where others might not think to look — those without a prominent arts scene, for instance.

Gabriel Leone as Bobbi/Abdias  (Victor Juca)

Hermila Guedes as Claudia  (Victor Juca)

Luciano Chirolli as Henrique Ghirotti  (Victor Juca)

Roberio Diogenes as Euclides Cavalcanti  (Victor Juca)

Tânia Maria as Dona Sebastiana  (Victor Juca)

Joalisson Cunha as Frentista  (Victor Juca)

Isabel Zuaa as Tereza Victoria  (Victor Juca)

Kaiony Venancio as Vilmar  (Victor Juca)

That’s not to say the entire cast was discovered. Mendonça Filho had lead Wagner Moura in mind from the outset, while others sprung to mind as he wrote the screenplay: Maria Fernanda Cândido, a famous soap opera actor, as a crucial ally to Moura’s character; and the late Udo Kier, who had previously appeared in the director’s blood-soaked film “Bacurau,” as a German Jewish immigrant who lived through World War II.

The filmmaker admits that envisioning parts with a specific person in mind is “dangerous.” “I can write a character thinking of you, but I never know if you will want to make the film,” says Mendonça Filho. “And I grow attached to the image.”

Among the other supporting roles, the most challenging to cast, the team agrees, was that of Euclides, the sleazy police chief. Though the character is “repulsive,” it also required an edge of charisma to make him more emotionally layered. Eventually, they came across actor Robério Diógenes. “Robério has studied the clown art in the theater, and he’s a very funny guy, so he adds a component of ridiculousness to this character,” Domingues says.

For Vilmar, an impoverished man hired as a subcontractor for a murder, Mendonça Filho had in mind a real-life contract killer he’d seen in a 1970s TV program. The actor had to convey a certain ambiguity not often afforded to people of a lower social class. There’s no doubt Vilmar is acting out of necessity, but he is not entirely without agency since he negotiates his payment. Domingues found the ideal embodiment of this complex character in Kaiony Venâncio, an actor from the city of Natal who had mostly worked in short films.

Then there’s the scene-stealing Tânia Maria, who plays the endearing, chain-smoking Dona Sebastiana. The 79-year-old talent first appeared in “Bacurau” as an extra. “I just could not help thinking of her,” says Mendonça Filho about casting her in his latest film. “I even pre-ad-libbed many of her lines knowing what she might say.”

Before finding her way onto the screen, Tânia Maria has long made a living as an artisan handcrafting rugs. “I never thought about being an actress. I only thought about sewing,” she says with an endearing smile. “All of this came as a surprise.”

Igor de Araujo as Sergio  (Victor Juca)

Joao Vitor Silva as Haroldo  (Victor Juca)

Robson Andrade as Clovis  (Victor Juca)

Maria Fernanda Candido as Elza/Sara Gerber  (Victor Juca)

Alice Carvalho as Fatima  (Victor Juca)

Thomas Aquino as Valdemar  (Victor Juca)

Licinio Januario as Antonio  (Victor Juca)

Udo Kier as Hans  (Victor Juca)

And though she’s still sewing, her acting prospects look bright. She’s already appeared in another film, “Yellow Cake,” premiering at the Berlin International Film Festival this month. That Tânia Maria also recently starred in humorous local commercials for Burger King and Heineken is proof of her current status in Brazilian pop culture — as are the Dona Sebastiana costumes that have become popular during this year’s Carnival.

“I can’t go out on the street without people stopping me. They ask me for autographs, for photos, they want to talk to me, they ask me questions,” she says in Portuguese via an interpreter while on a video call from her home. “I make time for everyone, and I’m enjoying all of it.”

Undaunted by what she calls the most challenging aspect of acting — memorizing the lines — Tânia Maria is eager to continue exploring this unexpected new facet. “I don’t want to stop because I’m not old! I’m waiting for more invitations to move forward in acting,” she says.

The success many of the actors have found thanks to “The Secret Agent” very much pleases the filmmakers, but it also has a major downside.

“That’s all that we want for the people that we work with, that the film is good for them and their career,” says Lesclaux. “But for us, it also makes things more complicated for the next film because we will want to work with them, and they might not be available.”

The former Top Gear presenter admits he was blindsided by what he now sees as one of the gravest dangers facing young people, confessing “I simply had no idea”

Jeremy Clarkson has confessed he was caught off guard by what he now considers one of the greatest threats to young people today, admitting, “I simply had no idea.” In his column for The Sun, the former Top Gear host revealed that while he previously worried about conventional teenage dangers, he overlooked the fact that the most damaging influences were already accessible through their mobile phones.

Looking back on his time as a father, Clarkson explained: “When my kids were teenagers, I worried about them taking drugs and going on motorbikes, and I simply had no idea that the real danger was lurking in their telephones.”

His remarks follow the Government’s plans to strengthen laws targeting the distribution of non-consensual intimate images online. Earlier this week, Sir Keir Starmer announced intentions to bolster legislation requiring tech firms to delete such content within 48 hours of being flagged.

However, Clarkson maintains that the rapid pace of online sharing renders that timeframe impractical. “This is laughable because if someone uploads a topless picture of you, all your friends will see it within 48 seconds,” he stated. “Forty-eight hours on the internet is about four million years,” reports the Express.

The Prime Minister has positioned the proposed reforms as a key element of a wider effort to tackle online abuse directed at women and girls. Through an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, social media companies that don’t meet the two-day deadline for removing content could be hit with substantial fines or potentially banned from operating in the UK.

Starmer, who previously held the role of director of public prosecutions, said his past work gave him insight into the “unimaginable, often lifelong pain and trauma violence against women and girls causes.” He added: “As Prime Minister, I will leave no stone unturned in the fight to protect women from violence and abuse.”

Characterising the internet as an emerging frontline, Starmer stated: “The online world is the front line of the 21st century battle against violence against women and girls. That’s why my government is taking urgent action: against chatbots and ‘nudification’ tools. Today we are going further, putting companies on notice so that any non-consensual image is taken down in under 48 hours. Violence against women and girls has no place in our society, and I will not rest until it is rooted out.”

Clarkson, 65, doesn’t question the gravity of the problem. In fact, he believes it goes even deeper than politicians realise. He highlighted the HBO drama Euphoria, featuring Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney, as a stark illustration of the challenges confronting today’s teenagers. “What Starmer needs to do is watch a TV show starring Zendaya and Sydney Sweeney. It’s called Euphoria and God knows what possessed me to tune in — teenage angst and a lot of male nudity is not my thing normally — but Lord, I’m glad I did,” Clarkson remarked. “I know it’s a drama but if only half of the issues are real, society has a serious problem.”

For Clarkson, the programme highlighted how online culture has amplified adolescent experiences. He outlined the troubling aspects he believes have become widespread: “The bullying. The d*ck pics. The revenge porn threats. And a very real sense that if you say or do something that is considered out of line by an ‘unseen woke police force,’ that’s you done.”

While he acknowledges that Starmer is correct to concentrate on social media’s effect on teenage girls, he doubts whether a 48-hour takedown requirement is adequate in reality. “Starmer is right to be thinking about the effect social media has on teenage girls. But suggesting that a platform must take down revenge nudes and deep fake pictures within two days demonstrates he does not understand the scale of the problem.”