politics

SACRAMENTO — It’s probably time for California to reform the outdated “reform” that could be leading us into an absurd November election with no Democratic candidate for governor allowed on the ballot.

The absurdity is that Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in California by nearly 2 to 1. But the voters’ choices for governor could be restricted to just two Republicans — both disciples of President Trump, who is despised in this state.

We’d be electing our first GOP governor in 20 years.

The odds against this scenario are high. But it’s an increasing possibility.

It’s conceivable because of a crowded Democratic field of candidates and a 2010 reform placed on the ballot after a late-night deal demanded by a Republican state senator — Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria — in exchange for his vote to pass a stalled budget and tax increase.

The compromise led to voter approval of California’s unique top-two open primary. The top two vote-getters advance to the November runoff, regardless of party. It’s called an open primary because voters can choose any candidate, no matter their party.

So two Democrats or two Republicans might be the only choices in November — in statewide, congressional and legislative races. That doesn’t happen often, but it has a few times.

It doesn’t reflect the current reality of American politics, with voters sharply polarized between Democrats and Republicans. They want to vote for someone from their own party and are not interested in choosing among two perceived evils.

We should consider returning to a primary system that produces party nominees — one Democrat and one Republican — to give voters a more varied selection in November. Maybe even allow a third or fourth candidate to emerge from minority parties.

It’s too late to change for this year, but we could for future elections. It would require voter approval.

For the present, we’re saddled with the unwieldy dilemma of there being eight major Democratic candidates and just two Republicans. If the combined Democratic vote is splintered among the eight Democrats in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans could end up finishing first and second.

Political data guru Paul Mitchell, who has been running primary election simulations, pegs the chances of a Democratic lockout at 20%.

“There’s only a one-in-five chance, but you don’t want to see a one-in-five chance with something this important,” says the statistician, who works mostly for Democrats.

“To be safe, the Democratic Party needs to have a candidate polling at 20% or more. And none of the Democratic candidates are half way there. It’s scary.”

Mitchell bases his assessment on a poll released last week by state Democratic chairman Rusty Hicks, part of an effort to pressure low-polling Democratic candidates to step out of the race.

The survey showed both Republicans leading the field — former Fox News host Steve Hilton with 16% and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco at 14%. At 10% each were three Democrats: Rep. Eric Swalwell of the San Francisco Bay Area, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter and wealthy climate activist Tom Steyer. No other Democrat registered above 3%. There were 24% undecided.

The straggling candidates need to ask themselves, Hicks says: “if you’re polling 1% to 2%, do you have a path to get to 20?

“All of these candidates are experienced. They know in their gut when they’re viable or not.”

Mitchell says, “A lot of folks are now looking at why we have a wacky system that causes [a party chair] to tell candidates they should drop out of a race.”

Yes, it does smack of being undemocratic even if it’s practical politics.

Mitchell says the top-two system should be scrapped.

Hicks agrees.

“Things that were promised [by top-two promoters] have not been delivered,” the state party chairman told me. “It’s time to consider going back to the kind of system voters like.”

Appealing to the middle

I called around and got different views from veteran Democratic strategists.

“It was sold as reform, but it’s not reform. It’s a distortion of the process,” one former political consultant told me, asking for anonymity because of his current employment. “Everybody thought it would yield more moderate, consensus candidates, but that’s not what’s happening.”

Consultant Steve Maviglito, who ran the 2010 campaign against the top-two system, says it’s undemocratic because it risks not giving voters “a chance to cast a ballot for a candidate they have some belief in. That’s what our system is built on.”

The grand theory, he notes, was that candidates would be forced to appeal to the middle.

“Just the opposite,” Maviglio argues. “Democrats want a strong Democrat and Republicans want a strong Republican. The only thing in the middle of the road is a dead armadillo.”

Moreover, he points out, the top-two system has been manipulated by Democrats — including Sen. Adam Schiff and Gov. Gavin Newsom — to boost a Republican in the primary to guarantee a non-competitive, easy election in November.

That’s a bit sleazy.

“The top-two has actually been hugely good to Democrats,” says Democratic strategist Garry South. “They need to think this through. Since the top-two primary was implemented, there have only been three same-party runoffs for state office out of 26 races — all three of them Democrats.

“The current specter of two Republicans [in November] is not the fault of the top-two primary system. It’s due to every Democrat and their brother — or sister — taking a flier and filing for governor.”

“Never,” replies consultant David Townsend when asked whether the top-two primary should be junked. He ran the ballot campaign authorizing it. Townsend insists today’s Legislature contains more moderate Democrats because of the top-two and that they provide a check on the liberal majority.

That’s true to some degree.

OK, we could leave the top-two system for the Legislature and scuttle it for statewide offices.

The thought of being limited to a choice between two Republicans — or two Democrats — for governor is unacceptable and un-American.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: USC cancels gubernatorial debate amid uproar over candidates of color being excluded

The L.A. Times Special: It’s been decades since California had a governor’s race like this one. That was a shocker

Until next week,
George Skelton

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

ABOARD THE CRESCENT — There’s something melodic about watching the sun rise over a rural stillness broken only by the rhythms of steel wheels on tracks. Or so we tell ourselves.

In this case, being aboard a train at all owed more to politics than poetry.

Congress and President Trump were mired in their latest budget stalemate, one rooted in his immigration crackdown and the tactics of federal forces he has sent to U.S. cities. But this impasse has upended a foundational constant of American life today: easy air travel.

In Atlanta, my hometown airport, cheerfully marketed as the world’s busiest, had descended into organized chaos. Unpaid federal employees called out from work, leaving a diminished security staff to screen travelers frustrated by hours-long waits in line. I wanted to get to Washington for the NCAA basketball tournament. So I eliminated the risk of a missed flight and booked the train overnight and into game day across a 650-mile route.

In this fraught moment in U.S. politics, I slowed down and thought about things we take for granted. Who ever ponders the conveniences of that 20th century innovation, the airplane, that makes 21st century hustle possible? We book and board. An unconscious, first-world flex of modernity. It’s even rarer to grapple with the inconvenience.

My decision had taken me further back, to the 19th century and another defining innovation: the long-distance train.

A 14½-hour weekend train ride is time aplenty to appreciate how completely politics, economics, social strife and fights over identity and belonging have always affected the order of our lives, including how, when and where we move around in these United States. But Amtrak’s Crescent also allowed me to see the expanse of our collective experience.

I traversed the urban, suburban and rural breadth of East Coast America. I learned how other travelers came aboard. And in that, I found the portrait of people, past and present, who refuse to be as paralyzed as some of their elected leaders.

Convenience on the railways

There is little glamour late night in a crowded Amtrak station. Children are up past bedtime and tended by frazzled parents. Older adults struggle with luggage and stairs.

Airports are not red-carpet affairs either, of course. But there is a certain cache to Delta’s Atlanta-Washington flights. They typically take about two hours gate to gate. They often are slotted at a midpoint gate of the concourse nearest the main terminal. That is almost certainly a nod to members of Congress who use it, but who have lost some airline perks during this extended partial shutdown — which as of Sunday is the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

In normal circumstances I can get from my front porch to Capitol Hill or downtown in as little as 4½ hours. Security lines these days could at least double my overall air travel time.

The train is still longer, and time is money, we are taught. But certainty has value, too, even if it means an 11:29 p.m. departure. And at the Amtrak station, there were no standstill lines, no Transportation Security Administration agents, no ICE agents as stand-ins.

Passengers who arrived mere minutes before departure made it on board and found seats quickly — assigned in boarding order, not predetermined zones that yield jammed aisles. There’s no in-seat service or satellite TV. But even coach seats, the lowest Amtrak tier, are as spacious as airline first-class — and there is Wi-Fi, so it’s not the 19th century or even 20th century after all.

On board, I heard one crew member joke, “I’m no TSA agent.”

The pathways of history

As a boy in rural Alabama, I counted train cars and wondered where they were headed. I’ve since read diary entries and letters from my grandmother and her sisters recounting World War II-era weekend trips to Atlanta.

The South’s largest city has a historical hook too. Originally named “Terminus,” Atlanta developed in the antebellum era as a critical intersection of north-south and east-west rail routes. That is what drew Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman for one of the Civil War’s seminal campaigns that helped defeat the Confederacy.

A century after the Civil War, Delta chose Atlanta for its headquarters rather than Birmingham, Ala., which was the larger city as of the 1960 census. The company’s decision was tied up in tax breaks for the airline, named for its crop duster origins in the Mississippi Delta region. According to some interpretations, Delta’s decision was made easier because of the more overt racism of Alabama’s and Birmingham’s leaders as they defended Jim Crow — a code that, among other acts, allowed states to segregate the passenger trains that predated Amtrak.

On this night, I heard many languages and accents, notable given the role that immigrant labor played in building the U.S. rail system and especially striking now with immigration — legal and illegal — at the forefront in Washington, my destination. I saw faces that reflected U.S. pluralism, a different mix from what my grandmother and aunts would have seen a lifetime ago.

The array of voices celebrated the freedom and ease of rail travel. So did Agatha Grimes and her friends after they boarded in Greensboro, N.C., as part of a long weekend trip to celebrate her 62nd birthday.

“I got stuck in the Atlanta airport last week,” Grimes said, as her group laughed together in the dining car. “It’s just nuts.”

Beretta Nunnally, a self-described “train veteran” who organized their trip, said, “There’s no worry about parking. No checking bags. You come to the station, you get where you‘re going, and you come home.”

An era for planes, trains and automobiles

Still, that is not as easy in the United States as it once was.

Just as politics, economics and subsidies helped expand U.S. railroads, those factors diminished the network as auto manufacturers, oil companies, road builders and, finally, airline manufacturers and airlines commanded favor from politicians and attention from consumers.

Riding hours across rural areas, I noticed the junkyards where kudzu and chain-link fencing framed rows of rusted automobiles. I saw the farmland and equipment that helps feed cities and the rest of the nation. I awoke to see the night lights of office towers in Charlotte, N.C., and its NFL stadium. I saw vibrant county seats — and I thought of countless other towns like them that are not thriving as they sit disconnected from passenger rail and far from the Eisenhower-era interstate system that we crossed multiple times on our way.

In each setting, voters — conservatives, liberals, the extremes and betweens — have chosen their representatives, senators and a president who now set the nation’s course.

When I arrived in Washington, I paused to enjoy Union Station’s grand hall and its Beaux Arts appeal, and I lamented how much splendor has been lost because so many striking U.S. terminals have been razed. I stepped outside and looked up at the Capitol dome.

While I had slept, the Senate managed a bipartisan deal to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except immigration enforcement. As I continued northward, House Republican leaders rejected it. The stalemate continued.

The president, however, took executive action to pay TSA workers, and their paychecks may resume within days, though long airport lines may continue awhile longer.

I was a weary traveler but renewed citizen. I had a game to get to. And the train rolled on.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Buried in the fine print of the massive deficit-reduction bill is–of all things–a brand new social program.

The new program will cost $1 billion over the next five years–somewhat less than the Clinton Adminstration had requested, but still a substantial sum in this era of tight budgets.

Supporters, including Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, insisted that some provisions in the new program actually would save the government money in the long run. Even many of the program’s supporters questioned that assertion, however, although they insisted that the money is worth spending in any case.

The family preservation and support program–along with expanded spending for childhood immunization, tuberculosis prevention, food stamps, “empowerment zones” intended to help inner cities and the earned income tax credit for low-income workers–represents the flip side of the massive budget cutting and tax-raising efforts of the bill. All told, those social programs–aimed in large part at helping families with children–will receive an additional $29 billion from the bill.

“The President’s long-term investments for kids and families have been very well supported by this bill,” said Shalala.

The social-program funds not only were key to keeping some of President Clinton’s policy initiatives alive, they were crucial to winning support for the budget in the heavily Democratic House, where liberal Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus had threatened to vote against the budget bill unless it contained money to back up at least part of Clinton’s promise to “invest” in programs for the poor.

“There are a number of important features in this bill that represented the basis for many liberal and progressive Democrats to feel they could support the overall budget,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

The survival of the family preservation program, which at several points during the long budget negotiations seemed likely to die, would mark the end of a long legislative road. The program would give money to the states for early intervention and support programs for troubled families. It has passed the House three times and was approved by both chambers last year as part of another piece of legislation ultimately vetoed by then-President George Bush.

Supporters of the program argued that, by intervening early, social workers can help troubled families before their situations deteriorate so much that the state has to place children in costly foster care programs.

Skeptics, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), argued that the ability of social workers to accomplish those goals has never been proven. At one point during budget talks, Moynihan derided the program as “welfare for social workers,” several participants said.

But other legislators argued that, even if the program does not save money by avoiding foster-care placements, it will provide badly needed help for children. “This creates early intervention to keep children from being abused,” said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), who was the program’s chief sponsor in the House.

The program “has been pared down a good deal, but at least we got it,” Matsui said.

The birth of this new program is an object lesson in how legislators and Administration officials can use the arcane rules of the budget-cutting process to advance other items on the legislative agenda.

Over the years, Waxman has become a master at that art. This time around, he engineered a new $200-million program to expand the number of tuberculosis patients who can receive federal Medicaid benefits over the next five years. He also played a key role in winning money for the Administration’s proposed child immunization program, which would receive $585 million under the budget bill.

Although immunization has been a high priority for Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Waxman and other supporters of the program had to overcome opposition not only from congressional conservatives but from some White House officials who were willing to accept much lower dollar amounts for the program as they sought to hit their deficit-cutting goals, according to Administration and congressional sources.

Under the tuberculosis program, people who are poor but not otherwise eligible for Medicaid–primarily single men without children–and who have active tuberculosis can receive government-supplied out-patient services if the state they live in decides to participate. Public health officials said they hope that the additional money will reduce the rapid spread of the disease by targeting a group of people who often do not receive care.

The immunization program has two major components. The first part will provide $500 million over the next five years to pay for vaccinations for 2.6 million children whose families lack insurance. The money also will cover the 6.5 million children now covered under Medicaid, relieving the states of a financial burden.

The second part of the bill, which has drawn howls of outrage from drug manufacturers, would allow all states to buy vaccines in bulk at the price manufacturers provide to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–something 11 states now do. The CDC has negotiated steep discounts from the prices that drug companies charge private pediatricians.

SACRAMENTO — In an unusual post-election attack, Carson’s Democratic Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd has sent 100,000 letters asking voters in Republican Assemblyman Pat Nolan’s Glendale-area district whether they would back a recall of the GOP lawmaker, who is a target of an FBI investigation into Capitol corruption.

Peter Kelly, state Democratic Party chairman, said Saturday that the party-financed letters were sent to counter a direct-mail campaign orchestrated by Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson of La Habra and five dissident Democrats known as the “Gang of Five.”

Johnson’s efforts are aimed, in part, at pressuring four other Democrats who won close elections last month in conservative and moderate districts to oppose Assemblyman Willie Brown’s reelection as Speaker when the Legislature reconvenes Monday.

Cost About $100,000

The mailers, sent out early last week at a cost of about $100,000, were highly critical of Brown and urged voters to tell their legislators to “pull the plug” on the San Francisco Democrat.

Kelly said the Republican direct-mail effort “is clearly an escalation of normal political battling in the state.” Democrats, he said, “can’t sit back and let people take shots without retaliating.”

Typically after the fall campaigns, there is a lull in partisan political activity. It is rare, if not unprecedented, for a personal attack to be mounted by an incumbent against a colleague, especially less than a month after the Nov. 8 election.

Floyd’s letter is the latest maneuver in the jockeying that has followed an election in which Republicans lost three Assembly seats, prompting Nolan to step down as GOP leader. The lineup in the 80-member Assembly is 46 Democrats and 33 Republicans with one vacancy.

Despite Republican losses in the election, the post-election warfare may mean that Brown clings to his speakership by a slim margin.

Floyd and Nolan have been at odds since 1986 when Nolan and others allegedly prepared phony endorsement letters from President Reagan and sent them out on behalf of six Republican Assembly candidates, including Floyd’s GOP challenger.

Charges Not Sought

In September, Sacramento County Dist. Atty. John Dougherty announced he would not seek criminal charges against Nolan. But Dougherty said Nolan had asked his staff to lie to White House officials about how the letters were prepared. Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp said last week that he is still reviewing the case–a process which could take several more months.

Meantime, Nolan has been among five elected officials who are targets of the FBI’s sting investigation into political corruption at the state Capitol.

Floyd, in his letter, noted that Nolan has “been making a lot of headlines lately” regarding the sting and the presidential endorsement letters. As a result, he said in the letter, there have been calls by voters “for Nolan to step down from his Assembly seat.”

Bob Haueter, a Nolan aide, said he is unaware of any recall movement, noting that Nolan won reelection last month with 58% of the vote in the heavily Republican 41st District.

“It’s obvious that this is Willie Brown reacting through Richard Floyd to the attempts of the Republican leadership to deny him the speakership on Monday,” Haueter said.

Johnson, through his press secretary, described the letter as “an incredible act of weakness and desperation for Willie.”

Reforms Urged

“Even if you assume Willie Brown’s best scenario, he’s hanging on by his fingernails, and there will be no peace until we get some reforms” in the way business is conducted in the Assembly, Johnson declared.

Kelly said that if Republicans continue to blast Democrats in campaign-style mailings, Democrats would step up the fight, including pursuing the Nolan recall or other actions against GOP lawmakers.

“We’ll leave it to them to figure out who’s going to be next,” Kelly said.

March 29 (UPI) — Amid growing chaos at airports during the 44-day Department of Homeland Security shutdown, Immigration and Custody Enforcement agents have been deployed to airports to help Transportation Security Administration agents — and they may be in for an extended stay.

As Congress has not been able to agree on a bill to fund DHS because of disagreements about ICE unrelated to air travel, TSA agents who have not gotten paid are increasingly calling out of work or quitting their jobs.

White House border czar Tom Homan on Sunday told CNN and CBS News that whether ICE retains a presence at airports will depend when “airports feel like they’re 100% in a posture where they can do normal operations.”

The White House on Monday deployed ICE to airports around the country, where they received training to use TSA equipment and standard operating procedures.

By Wednesday, they could be seen screening travelers, checking documents and assisting TSA agents move lines of people through security, The New York Times reported.

Thursday, Senate Democrats again blocked a bill to fund DHS because it does not include new guardrails for ICE agents carrying out the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

As a result, President Donald Trump said that he would pay TSA agents out of funds approved in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill, in addition to sending ICE to assist at airports.

Over the last 44 days, thousands of TSA agents have called out sick and nearly 500 have quick their jobs during the second shutdown in a year that has prevented them from being paid on time, The Boston Globe reported.

Homan said Sunday that how long and how many ICE agents will continue to work at airports will depend on how many TSA agents come back, and that he is working with TSA to determine what level of staffing they need as time goes on.

“In an increased threat posture, we need to secure those airports,” Homan said. “ICE is there to help our brothers and sisters in TSA. We’ll be there as long as they need us, until they get back to normal operations and feel like those airports are secure.”

After failing to pass a bill funding any part of DHS, Congress left Washington, D.C., for a two-week recess.

After a wearying 24 hours at work in the midst of chaos over last week’s presidential election, an exhausted Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris took a moment to reflect on her role in the process.

“I feel so historic,” she said. Little did she know.

By ruling Monday that all of Florida’s 67 counties would have to complete their ballot recounts by 5 p.m. EST today–a move backed by the campaign of GOP Texas Gov. George W. Bush–the 43-year-old Republican became an unlikely pivotal player in the closest balloting in America’s history.

Harris contended she had no discretion to extend the deadline, except in the case of a natural disaster. “But a close election, regardless of the identity of the candidate, is not such a circumstance,” she said.

This, from a woman who once told an interviewer that she didn’t like “gamesmanship” in politics. A multimillionaire whose state position is due to be eliminated in 2002, Harris has spent much of her time in office as an influential patron of the arts.

In taking her hard line against time-consuming hand recounts sought by the presidential campaign of Democratic Vice President Al Gore, Harris incurred the icy disdain of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who accused her Monday of a “move in the direction of partisan politics.”

Republicans say otherwise. Former Florida Secretary of State Sandra Mortham, who lost to Harris in a recent primary battle, insisted “she’s doing exactly what her constitutional duties require, no more, no less. To me, this isn’t a political issue. This is whether someone is doing her job.”

The job requires oversight of Florida’s arts, libraries, historical sites and international trade, and supervision of corporate registration, business licensing and elections. It has been largely ceremonial–until now.

“It’s an extraordinary responsibility,” Harris said of her mandate to oversee the recount. “I’m very anxious. The process is so important here.”

Harris has won high marks from both Republicans and Democrats for her support of the arts. There has been speculation in political circles here that Harris might win an ambassadorship or arts post in a Bush administration, whose candidacy she supported.

Harris campaigned for Bush in New Hampshire, was a Florida delegate to the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia and was one of eight co-chairs of his Florida campaign.

“She was a diligent member of the Florida Senate and has been a fairly active secretary of state, from both a cultural and arts perspective as well as a foreign trade perspective,” said Florida lobbyist Ron Book, a Democrat, who helped raise money for Harris when she ran for the statewide office.

Harris’ short term has not been without criticism. She has flown around the world to promote Florida trade, but critics note she has spent more money on travel than Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “I’m not abusing anything,” she said last month. “I’m working my heart out for the state of Florida.”

Harris grew up in Bartow, a small rural Florida town not far from Tampa. Her grandfather was the late Ben Hill Griffin Jr., a citrus and cattle baron who served in the state Senate.

After graduating from Agnes Scott College in Decatur, Ga., and studying art in Spain and philosophy and religion in Switzerland, she went into business as a marketing executive for IBM, then sold commercial real estate in Sarasota. Later, she earned a master’s degree in international trade at Harvard.

After the late Democratic Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles appointed her to the board of trustees of the Ringling Museum of Art, she sought more state money for the institution.

Disgusted with Sarasota politicians who did not have her commitment to cultural issues, she ran for the state Senate in 1994, collecting more than $20,000 in campaign contributions from a Florida insurance company called Riscorp. The firm would later be indicted in federal court for making illegal contributions to 23 candidates for state and federal offices, Harris among them. Harris, who was not charged, said she felt unfairly tainted by the scandal.

“If somebody hands you counterfeit money, how are you supposed to know it’s counterfeit?” she said.

As a state senator, she sponsored a bill that would have required parental notification before girls under 18 could get an abortion. But it was vetoed by Chiles.

Dubbed one of Sarasota’s “most prominent bachelorettes” by the local newspaper, her marriage in December 1996 to businessman Sven Anders Axel Ebbeson made headlines. They married at the Charlotte County government center, where she made her first campaign appearance. Then they flew to Paris.

Harris is worth about $6.5 million, mostly from stock in her family’s agricultural interests–she used $23,000 of her own money to run for secretary of state.

After one term as a state senator, Harris decided to run for statewide office, raising more than $1.5 million.

Harris won the 1988 GOP primary after a hard fight, then defeated her Democratic opponent.

Her first term will be her last. Harris will be Florida’s last elected secretary of state. Voters approved a change in the state Constitution that eliminates the position in 2002.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ascent to the top of California’s political pyramid did not happen overnight. It’s been 23 years since he entered public life as a San Francisco parking and traffic commissioner and more than a decade since first saying he wanted to be governor.

But through an alchemy of hard work, lucky breaks and larger demographic and electoral shifts, Newsom has hit his stride at a unique moment in California. And it is hard to argue with the observation that he is now the most powerful person in California politics.

How long the moment lasts depends on what happens next. Newsom must choose which battles to fight, and which causes to champion. The size of his list seems equal to his enthusiasm.

“The world is waiting on us,” he said after taking the oath, pausing briefly for maximum impact. “The future depends on us. And we will seize this moment.”

That Newsom managed to win the job as the presumptive favorite from wire to wire of the 2018 campaign was, in part, due to his own decision to seize the opportunity four years ago this week. It was then, in the wake of a surprise announcement by Sen. Barbara Boxer that she would not seek reelection, that several prominent Democrats wrestled with whether to jump at the chance that appeared.

For Newsom, that day in 2015 was serendipitous. He had been on a collision course to the gubernatorial election for three years with another political heavyweight, then-state Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris. It wasn’t clear he would win such a showdown. And so four days after Boxer stepped aside, Newsom stepped forward to decline a Senate race and — in effect — announce his intentions to run for governor.

Read Gov. Gavin Newsom’s inaugural address »

The next day, Harris did just the opposite. Newsom simultaneously encouraged his most powerful rival to switch gears and launched his 2018 campaign — all with a speed that meant his political machine would be fully operational months and years before others decided if they wanted to run.

The move also allowed Newsom to take the job of lieutenant governor and expand it from a nothing-to-do way station into a legitimate role of California governor-in-waiting. In 2015, he dug into the policy debate over legalizing marijuana, helping craft the following year’s successful ballot measure, Proposition 64. He challenged the National Rifle Assn. to fight against Proposition 63 and its requirement of new background checks before buying ammunition for guns — even though it crossed paths with a similar effort by his fellow Democrats in the Legislature.

More recently, Newsom used his de facto role as California’s political heir apparent to ramp up his criticisms of President Trump. And he expanded his base of friends in politics, campaigning last fall for the party’s challengers in battleground congressional and legislative races. Some of those new members of Congress left Washington in the middle of a tense federal government shutdown to celebrate his inauguration.

Only a gubernatorial candidate ahead in the polls and confident of victory would have diverted that much time to other efforts. But Newsom likely knew how helpful it could be in the long run. He can count among his assets a handful of important IOUs on Capitol Hill, ones that could pay off long after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — a longtime friend — relinquishes her own place of power.

It can’t get much better for Gavin Newsom as California’s next governor. But it’s almost certain to get worse »

What California’s 40th governor does with his newly expanded influence is one of the new year’s most fascinating questions. History will remind him that there’s a very real chance of overplaying his hand: Former Gov. Gray Davis famously told a newspaper editorial board that legislators must “implement my vision,” and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lurched so far to the right in his first two years that it took twice as long to regain his political footing.

But in an era of indisputable Democratic dominance — Republicans have failed for three consecutive elections to win a statewide race — Newsom’s prowess seems especially important. No one is better positioned to singularly determine the path forward for major public policies, to play political kingmaker or to go toe-to-toe with the president of the United States.

The kingmaker role could prove especially interesting as California’s early presidential primary next March could feature a number of Newsom’s fellow Democrats in the state — including one-time rival Harris — who hope to challenge Trump. An endorsement from Newsom, now the state party’s nominal leader, could carry real weight in a crowded field.

Less likely, but always possible if Democrats are divided by a wide field of candidates: Newsom could put his own name on the ballot using an old power move called the “favorite son” strategy. There, a home state leader pledges to later throw all of California’s delegates toward one of the hopefuls at the national convention. It would be controversial — but conceivable — if his political power endures.

The presidential machinations might not end there. Legislative Democrats were unable to get Brown to sign a law requiring a presidential candidate to release his or her tax returns before being placed on California’s ballot. The bill was squarely aimed at Trump, who has steadfastly refused to do so. Would Newsom agree to put the squeeze on the president and sign the bill?

George Skelton: As California’s new governor, Gavin Newsom needs to address what no one wants to talk about »

Newsom could also take a much more active role in bringing lawsuits against the Republican president and his administration. His predecessor left much of the political rhetoric over California’s four dozen Trump-related lawsuits to state Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra. Or Newsom could simply ratchet up his critiques of Trump, whom he’s called a “disgrace” with a “limited attention span.”

In his inaugural speech, the new governor singled out a host of bogeymen, including pharmaceutical companies and the pay-day lending industry.

“Here in California, we have the power to stand up to them,” he said. “And we will.”

Waging those kinds of battles could further grow Newsom’s political influence, bringing along with it more television interviews, talk show segments and speaking invitations in Washington and beyond.

Still more significant uses of his newfound political power could be on the horizon. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will turn 86 in June, could decide to retire before the end of her newly won six-year term. Newsom would pick her successor, a weighty decision given the Democrats’ lock on statewide races.

Maybe not a bond, but there’s a connection between Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom as governors of California »

Nor is it out of the question that Newsom himself could develop a case of what’s politely been called “Potomac Fever.” The last four governors have all either run for president — Gov. Pete Wilson and Brown — or been talked up as having what it takes to win the White House on the strength of California’s electoral college heft. Depending on what happens in 2020 and whether he’s reelected in 2022, Newsom could use his political muscle to launch a presidential campaign in 2024 at age 57.

Should he choose to remain focused on Sacramento, Newsom will still have enormous political potential. More Democrats than any other time in modern history hold seats in the Legislature, but they all must lobby for the governor’s signature on their bills. Newsom also has line-item veto authority over the state budget. In general, vetoes by the state’s chief executive have become sacrosanct; none has been overturned by lawmakers since 1980.

And if lawmakers don’t bend to his will, Newsom can go around them and take proposals directly to the ballot. The recent record of governors promoting such measures is mixed — Brown won all of his efforts over the last eight years while Schwarzenegger bombed in 2005 only to return with success in 2006 and 2010.

The arrival of each new governor resets the state’s political compass, and some of the resulting dominance — the power of the executive branch — is institutional. But few moments have seemed to find more stars aligned for a single figure to dominate the state than this one.

john.myers@latimes.com

Follow @johnmyers on Twitter, sign up for our daily Essential Politics newsletter and listen to the weekly California Politics Podcast

CONCORD, N.H. — An ad for Republican presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan that features a quick image of the exploding Challenger space shuttle will be redone following criticism of its airing in the home state of one of the crew members killed in the disaster.

Buchanan said Thursday the image of the explosion will be deleted “out of sensitivity” for the family of Sharon Christa McAuliffe, a Concord schoolteacher and one of the shuttle crew members killed 10 years ago this month. The ad contains a clip of the explosion, followed by a photo of Buchanan at President Reagan’s side. The ad aimed to emphasize Buchanan’s service in past Republican administrations.

Sacramento

Frustrated by his fellow Republicans in the state Senate, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger finally is starting to come around — coming around to the recognition that California’s daunting budget hurdle is destructive and dopey.

California is one of only three states — the others being Arkansas and Rhode Island — that require a supermajority legislative vote for passage of a budget. California mandates a two-thirds majority, an inanity given that a 60% vote in elections is considered a landslide.

Republicans — almost always comprising the legislative minority in California — have staunchly defended the two-thirds requirement, contending that it’s what makes them relevant. But too often it makes the entire Legislature look ridiculous.

Every state but California has enacted a budget for the fiscal year that began July 1. California has missed the deadline for 17 of the last 21 years. If the stalemate continues, it “could raise credit concerns,” the bond-rating agency Standard & Poor’s warned Friday.

Because no budget has been passed, some companies that do business with the state are being stiffed. The state has withheld more than $3 billion in payments to vendors, hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, child-care centers, community colleges. . . .

Call it tyranny by the minority in the Legislature.

Schwarzenegger isn’t exactly calling it that, nor calling for the two-thirds vote to be scuttled. But he did take a significant step in that direction last week at a money-strapped adult healthcare center in Santa Maria. There, the governor praised one Republican — local Sen. Abel Maldonado — for being an “extraordinary leader” and breaking party ranks to vote for the budget. Schwarzenegger also tried to generate public pressure on the 14 other GOP senators to follow suit.

The governor was asked why Sacramento can’t ever seem to get its budget work done on time.

“Yes, we have had this mess, as you know, for decades,” Schwarzenegger replied. “I think that everyone now has come to the conclusion — all the leaders — that we must work, as soon as the budget is over, on a system that allows us to have a budget on time.

“If that means we should go and shoot for, as some suggested, a simple majority to pass the budget rather than a two-thirds vote, maybe that’s the solution.”

Schwarzenegger also mentioned an idea that he said former President Clinton gave him. In Arkansas, when Clinton was governor, he and the Legislature agreed on a program priority list. When the state fell short of money, the lowest priority programs automatically were cut.

“It’s all laid out . . . so there’s no fight over it,” Schwarzenegger said.

There would be in California, I suspect. The Legislature is in session much longer, and there are many interest groups with squeaky wheels.

Gubernatorial spokesman Adam Mendelsohn downplayed Schwarzenegger’s seeming tilt toward a simple-majority budget vote.

“He’s just encouraging debate,” Mendelsohn said. “He’s saying everything’s up for debate. . . . It’s frustrating for him to watch the Legislature fail to do its job.”

Actually, the Assembly did pass a $146-billion bipartisan budget with Republican support. It’s only in the Senate that the spending proposal has been blocked by Republicans demanding deeper cuts.

Senate GOP leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine echoes most Republicans in contending that eliminating the two-thirds vote requirement could lead to a taxpayers’ disaster if Democrats controlled both the legislative and executive branches, as they did when Gray Davis was governor.

“Think back,” he says, “if we hadn’t had the two-thirds vote to stop tax increases.”

That typical thinking assumes the two-thirds vote requirement for a tax hike also would be scrubbed. It should be. Lawmakers illogically are allowed to cut taxes with a majority vote but need two-thirds to raise them. The state can go bankrupt just as fast lowering taxes as it can increasing spending, and proved that during the Davis days.

But for the sake of punctual budgets, let’s forget the tax vote. Keep it at two-thirds and merely lower the budget vote.

That gets the support of the Legislature’s most fiscally conservative member, veteran Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks).

Let the majority party rule and be accountable for the consequences, McClintock says. Give ‘em the rope to hang themselves. And with a two-thirds vote still required for tax hikes, he notes, “spending can’t run away.”

The budget two-thirds vote was enacted in 1933 during the Depression. The idea was to hold down spending. It never really worked.

A decade ago, a bipartisan citizens budget commission found that “the vast majority of states that have simple-majority requirements have weathered their budgetary crises more effectively than California. None of these states have produced deficit spending remotely close to California’s.”

The panel concluded: “There is no evidence [the two-thirds vote] does anything to slow the increase in state spending. Instead, it encourages horse trading [and] pork-barrel legislation. . . . Stories abound of ‘buying’ votes to reach the two-thirds.”

McClintock agrees. Normally, he says, “there are a few morally flexible members of the minority party who are bought off with promises of all sorts of lard for their districts.”

This summer, the Senate GOP has been trying to sell its budget votes for legislation crimping Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s ability to block public works projects that don’t control greenhouse gases. This is shaping up as the grand compromise on the budget. Schwarzenegger and McClintock both consider it a good cause, but neither think it should have held up the budget.

“I don’t believe in tying unrelated subjects to any measure,” McClintock says.

But that’s the sort of tawdry horse trading that comes with a nutty two-thirds vote rule — a rule too often abused, as Schwarzenegger is finding.

—

george.skelton@latimes.com

BRUSSELS — The European Union is expanding its powers to track, raid and deport migrants to “return hubs” in third countries in Africa and elsewhere, quietly adopting tactics of the Trump administration that have drawn public criticism across the 27-nation bloc.

The EU continues to tighten migration policies after right-wing parties took power in some countries in 2024. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, from the center-right European People’s Party coalition, has said that the new measures will prevent a repeat of the 2015 crisis caused by Syria’s civil war, when about 1 million people arrived to seek asylum.

“We have learned the lessons of the past. And today, we are better equipped,” Von der Leyen has said. The new policies, known as the Pact on Migration and Asylum, go into effect June 12.

Far-right parties in Europe have praised the deportation policies of President Trump and called for the EU to adopt a similar approach. Human rights groups warn that authorities are already illegally blocking migrants at EU borders and hollowing out their legal protections.

Italy provides a model

The EU already spends millions of dollars to deter migrants before they reach its shores, and has supported tens of thousands of Africans returning home, voluntarily or by force.

What’s envisioned now is an expansion of what Italy has created under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her “tough on migration” stance. It operates two migrant detention centers for rejected asylum seekers in Albania. One currently holds at least 90 migrants, said lawmaker Rachele Scarpa, who said that she found people confused and scared during a recent visit.

In addition, Meloni’s Cabinet has approved an anti-immigration package that would allow the navy to halt vessels in international waters for up to six months if they are deemed a threat to public order, return intercepted migrants to countries of origin or third countries and speed up the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of crimes.

An “informal group” of EU nations including Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Greece are pursuing deportation center agreements, said Bernd Parusel, a researcher at the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.

Kenya is one country they are speaking with, said Tineke Strik, a Dutch member of the European Parliament. Whether consciously or not, the plan is similar to Trump’s deals with nations like El Salvador to take in deported migrants, she said.

Other countries are exploring similar ideas. Sweden’s migration minister has said the conservative ruling coalition approves setting up hubs outside Europe, especially for Afghan and Syrian asylum seekers.

Competing views

During the recent Winter Olympics in Italy, protests erupted over the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to provide security to the U.S. delegation. But others in Europe have praised ICE’s actions in Trump’s deportation campaign and called for setting up similar deportation-focused police units.

In 2024, Belgium passed a law allowing the EU border service Frontex to operate in the country, stoking fears among activists that it could join in on raids.

But Frontex’s mandate covers only borders, said spokesperson Chris Borowski, and the current role in voluntary or involuntary returns for the service includes “coordinating flights, helping with travel documents and making sure fundamental rights are respected throughout the process.”

The European Commission has declined requests to take a position on U.S. immigration policies.

In Britain, which left the EU several years ago, the center-left Labor Party government has made curbing unauthorized immigration a key focus.

In February, the Home Office said that almost 60,000 people had been deported since the government was elected in July 2024. It said 9,000 arrests were made of people working without permission in 2025, up by more than half from the year before.

Raids, surveillance and ‘pushbacks’

Under the principle of non-refoulement in EU and international law, a person can’t be returned to a country where they would face persecution.

But European immigration enforcement tactics include so-called pushbacks, where people trying to cross into the EU are forced back across a border without access to asylum procedures.

Authorities in Europe carry out an average of 221 pushbacks a day, according to a February report by a group of humanitarian organizations. More than 80,000 pushbacks were recorded in 2025, the report said, mostly in Italy, Poland, Bulgaria and Latvia.

“Men, women and children — including individuals in critical medical condition — are routinely subjected to beatings, attacks by police dogs, forced stripping, forced river crossings and theft of personal belongings,” according to the report.

European agents are brutalizing migrants just like in the U.S., said Flor Didden, migration policy expert at the Belgian human rights group 11.11.11. Some, like in Greece, even wear masks, as ICE agents typically do.

“The images are shocking and the outrage is justified,” he said of the U.S. “But where is that same moral clarity when European border authorities abuse, rob and let people die?”

Weakening of migrant protections seen

The groups also have recorded an expansion of surveillance technology like drones, thermal cameras and satellites to monitor people on the move.

Other human rights groups warn of a weakening of legal protections.

The EU’s new migration regulations allow for more police raids in private homes and public spaces and more use of surveillance and racial profiling, said a letter to EU institutions in February from 88 nonprofit groups including the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants.

“We cannot be outraged by ICE in the United States while also supporting these practices in Europe,” said the platform’s director, Michele LeVoy.

Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU migration advocate for Amnesty International, said Europe retains more protections for vulnerable migrants than the United States does but shares much of the political momentum toward harsher policies.

“There’s a level of institutions’ and courts’ independence and human rights compliance in Europe that you can’t disregard,” she said. “But the fundamental political impulse is the same, and I worry that the human consequences will be the same.”

McNeil and Zampano write for the Associated Press and reported from Brussels and Rome, respectively. AP writers Elena Becatoros in Athens, Jill Lawless in London, Paolo Santalucia in Rome, Claudia Ciobanu in Warsaw and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin contributed to this report.

Term limits were supposed to usher fresh faces and new ideas into California’s Capitol and city halls. That was the promise when voters approved the limits for state officials in 1990 and for city of Los Angeles officeholders in 1993. Lawmakers who had turned elected offices into perpetual sinecures would be forced out and eager citizen-politicians, unbeholden to the special interests, would step in. Well, it’s a decade later and the faces are more recycled than fresh.

Witness the Los Angeles municipal elections that will take place April 10. Mayor Richard Riordan has hit his two-term limit. Four of the six leading mayoral candidates are being forced out of other offices and are looking for a soft landing in City Hall. Kathleen Connell cannot run again for state controller, City Atty. James K. Hahn and Councilman Joel Wachs have hit city term ceilings, and Antonio Villaraigosa maxed out in the state Assembly.

The influence of term limits rolls through the municipal ballot. Termed-out Councilman Mike Feuer and Rocky Delgadillo, a Riordan deputy mayor soon to be unemployed like his boss, are vying to be city attorney. Council member Laura Chick is running for controller.

Other termed-out politicos are vying for City Council seats whose current occupants are also termed out. Tom Hayden, whose 18 years in the Assembly and Senate are up, and state Sen. Richard Polanco are trying to parlay their Sacramento expertise into an advantage, arguing that they know how to fight for Los Angeles’ fair share of state money.

In the past, local politicians often moved up the ladder to Sacramento and on to Washington; now they arc back to City Hall as well. It’s a safe bet that this electoral whirl is not what most voters thought they’d get. The professional politicians stay in motion but stay on the public payroll, and when new faces do appear they often come to view public service and its attendant perks as a career rather than an interlude in a career.

The pattern is not new. Yvonne Brathwaite Burke and Mike Antonovich, after stints in Congress and the Legislature, respectively, landed on the county Board of Supervisors, which, with no term limits, is the jackpot for local career pols.

Theoretically, there is an upside to all this churning in that the city could benefit from a politician’s previous experience. Meanwhile, the pool gets shallower in Sacramento. In the mid-1990s the Legislature had its first big term limits-induced exodus. By last year, there had been a complete turnover in the state Senate. The learning curve is now steep on such urgent issues as electricity deregulation, especially for the freshman Assembly members–a third of that house–who are still finding their way to the restroom. In this void, the Assembly speaker and the Senate president pro tem are wielding more power than ever–along with the special-interest lobbyists, permanent players with ample access to expertise and cash.

Ten years after voters approved Proposition 140, the consequences of term limits are still playing out. How much better it would have been to enact campaign finance reform; it was mostly fiscal inequality that kept out new faces. But because incumbent politicians declined to handicap themselves with real reforms, they–and voters–now live instead with a merry-go-round.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a leading Democratic candidate for governor of California, has accused President Trump of trying to sway the election following reports that FBI Director Kash Patel may release documents from a decade-old investigation into the congressman’s ties to a suspected Chinese spy.

According to a report by the Washington Post, Patel has directed agents in the bureau’s San Francisco office to redact the case files for public release. According to the outlet, it’s highly unusual for the FBI to release case files tied to a probe that did not result in criminal charges.

The investigation centered on Swalwell’s ties to a suspected intelligence operative, Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, who worked as a volunteer raising money for his congressional campaign. Swalwell cut off ties to Fang in 2015, after intelligence officials briefed him and other members of Congress about Chinese efforts to infiltrate the legislative body.

Swalwell was not accused of impropriety.

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Through great reporting, we now know the outrageous ends the White House will go to target political opponents,” Swalwell said in a prepared statement Saturday, calling the decade-old story “nonsense.”

“Donald Trump is targeting me. He’s trying to influence the election,” Swalwell said in a post on X. “There is only one reason why: he’s scared.”

Swalwell accused Trump of “desperately trying” to stop him, because he’s now the favored candidate for California governor.

“What Trump wants the most is to have a Western White House. An enabler on the opposite coast,” he said. “A lot of people have bent the knee to this administration. But I will not. And neither will the people of California.”

It’s not the first time Swalwell has accused the administration of targeting Trump’s political opponents.

Last year, Swalwell sued Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, accusing him of criminally misusing government databases to target Trump’s political opponents. Pulte had accused Swalwell of mortgage fraud and referred him to the Justice Department for a potential federal criminal probe. Swalwell dropped that suit this month.

Swalwell, a former prosecutor who ran for president in 2020, announced his bid for California governor in November. Swalwell said his decision was driven by the serious problems facing California and the threats posed to the state and nation with Trump in the White House.

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has endorsed Swalwell for governor, shared the Post story on X Saturday, saying, “This abuse of the FBI is as dangerous as it is unlawful.” Schiff served with Swalwell on the House Intelligence Committee, where they riled Republicans by investigating President Trump during his first term.

Schiff served as the lead manager of Trump’s first impeachment and Swalwell as a manager of Trump’s second impeachment.

“Time and again, the President and his appointees have weaponized the Department of Justice against those who dare stand up to Trump,” Schiff wrote. He added that there was no doubt that Trump and Patel “will stop at nothing to try to tell Californians who their next governor should be.”

The Post story unleashed a flood of critiques from California politicians, including Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. On X, Gomez accused Patel of “wasting resources” on a “closed, decade-old case where Swalwell cooperated with the FBI and was found innocent of any wrongdoing.”

“Reopening it now, right as he leads in the polls and ballots are about to drop, is a political hit-job!” Gomez said. “Trump and Kash Patel are weaponizing the FBI against people they deem political enemies.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released a statement accusing Patel of working at “the behest of the White House” and “wasting the resources of the FBI and perhaps violating the Hatch Act by ordering agents to spend hours preparing a political smear file for a personnel vendetta.”

According to the Associated Press, Fang came into contact with Swalwell’s campaign as he was first running for Congress in 2012. She also participated in fundraising for his 2014 campaign and helped place an intern in his office, the report said. Federal investigators alerted Swalwell to their concerns — and briefed Congress — about Fang in 2015, at which point the California Democrat says he cut off contact with her, the AP reported in 2021.

In 2023, the House Ethics Committee closed a two-year investigation into the allegations of his ties to Fang.

In closing the probe, the ethics committee wrote in a letter to Swalwell that it had “previously reviewed allegations of improper influence by foreign agents and in doing so, cautioned that Members should be conscious of the possibility that foreign governments may attempt to secure improper influence through gifts and other interactions.”

Times staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The House on Monday approved allocating an extra $30 million to community and migrant medical centers, a move aimed at reducing infant deaths.

The bill, passed on a voice vote, requires the Department of Health and Human Services to give spending priority to centers that serve high-risk areas and to population groups with high infant mortality rates.

The bill was sent to the Senate, which passed a similar measure Aug. 6. Conferees will work on a compromise between the two.

The Reagan Administration opposes the legislation. It has proposed instead to test innovative ways of providing services to Medicaid-eligible pregnant women and infants up to a year old.

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the House version last month, several Republican members called it unnecessary and said they found no reason to believe the extra spending would help more newborns survive.

WASHINGTON — In a case that echoes the Jack Abramoff influence-peddling scandal, two Northern California Republican congressmen used their official positions to try to stop a federal investigation of a wealthy Texas businessman who provided them with political contributions.

Reps. John T. Doolittle and Richard W. Pombo joined forces with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas to oppose an investigation by federal banking regulators into the affairs of Houston millionaire Charles Hurwitz, documents recently obtained by The Times show. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was seeking $300 million from Hurwitz for his role in the collapse of a Texas savings and loan that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion.

The investigation was ultimately dropped.

The effort to help Hurwitz began in 1999 when DeLay wrote a letter to the chairman of the FDIC denouncing the investigation of Hurwitz as a “form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees.” When the FDIC persisted, Doolittle and Pombo — both considered proteges of DeLay — used their power as members of the House Resources Committee to subpoena the agency’s confidential records on the case, including details of the evidence FDIC investigators had compiled on Hurwitz.

Then, in 2001, the two congressmen inserted many of the sensitive documents into the Congressional Record, making them public and accessible to Hurwitz’s lawyers, a move that FDIC officials said damaged the government’s ability to pursue the banker.

The FDIC’s chief spokesman characterized what Doolittle and Pombo did as “a seamy abuse of the legislative process.” But soon afterward, in 2002, the FDIC dropped its case against Hurwitz, who had owned a controlling interest in the United Savings Assn. of Texas. United Savings’ failure was one of the worst of the S&L; debacles in the 1980s.

Doolittle and Pombo did not respond to requests for interviews last week. They publicly defended Hurwitz at the time, saying the inquiry was unfair. Hurwitz’s lawyer said Friday that the FDIC had been overzealous. This summer, a judge in Texas agreed and awarded Hurwitz attorney fees and other costs in a civil suit he filed. “They sought to humiliate him,” U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes, said in the ruling. The government is appealing the decision.

In key aspects, the Hurwitz case follows the pattern of the Abramoff scandal: members of Congress using their offices to do favors for a politically well-connected individual who, in turn, supplies them with campaign funds. Although Washington politicians frequently try to help important constituents and contributors, it is unusual for members of Congress to take direct steps to stymie an ongoing investigation by an agency such as the FDIC.

And the actions of the two Californians reflect DeLay’s broad strategy of cementing relationships with individuals, business interests and lobbyists whose financial support enabled Republicans to extend their grip on Congress and on government agencies as well. The system DeLay developed and Abramoff took part in went beyond simple quid pro quo; it mobilized whatever GOP resources were available to help those who could help the party.

In the Hurwitz case, Doolittle and Pombo were in a position to pressure the FDIC and did so. Pombo received a modest campaign contribution. In another case, Pombo helped one of Abramoff’s clients, the Mashpee Indians in Massachusetts, gain official recognition as a tribe; the congressman received contributions from the lobbyist and the tribe in that instance.

Andrew Wheat, research director for Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan electoral reform group based in Austin, put it this way: “DeLay and Hurwitz seem like natural allies in that they have geographic and ideological proximity. Mr. Hurwitz is a guy who has a reputation of being willing to pay to play. And DeLay likes to play that game too, so there’s a natural affinity.”

DeLay announced Saturday that he was giving up his efforts to regain the majority leader position. He was majority whip when he first became involved in helping Hurwitz.

In the Abramoff scandal, members of Congress allegedly did favors for the politically connected lobbyist’s clients — including Indian casinos — and received campaign contributions and lavish free entertainment. Last week, the lobbyist pleaded guilty in separate cases in Miami and Washington in a deal that government investigators hope will lead to more prosecutions. Others involved have also made deals to cooperate, and Washington is braced for new criminal charges to come.

The episode involving Hurwitz and the two California congressmen took place with little public notice just before the Abramoff scandal began to escalate. The Sacramento Bee published a story when Doolittle inserted FDIC investigative documents into the Congressional Record, noting that it occurred at a time when Congress was distracted by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the anthrax episode.

But what lay behind Doolittle’s action, and the actions of Pombo and DeLay, did not become clear until recently, when the government documents and copies of letters between the congressmen and FDIC officials were obtained by The Times.

J. Kent Friedman, the general counsel for Hurwitz’s vast Houston-based holding company, said last week that the FDIC was overzealous in its dealings with his boss.

“Their case was weak from the start. They had a terrible case,” Friedman said. He said anyone trying to connect the congressmen to the fact that the case fell apart would be “attempting to put a bow on a pig.”

The Texas S&L; in which Hurwitz held a controlling interest of about 25% collapsed in 1988 as part of a financial fiasco that took federal regulators years to untangle. The investigation of Hurwitz began in 1995 and continued for about seven years before it was dropped.

After DeLay’s 1999 letter attacking the investigation failed to dissuade the FDIC, Doolittle weighed in with a statement on the House floor in 2001, saying the FDIC investigators were “clearly out of control” and should have “dropped the case, period.”

Pombo, in his own 2001 floor statement, suggested that the banking regulators were using strong-arm methods against Hurwitz, or what Pombo called “tools equivalent to the Cosa Nostra — a mafia tactic.”

Doolittle, 55, an eight-term congressman, represents California’s fourth district, the Sierra Foothills region and the eastern suburbs of Sacramento. He has a consistent conservative voting record, opposing gun control and abortion and siding with property rights, timber and utility interests against environmental groups.

By 2000, he had grown close to DeLay, working with the Republican leader to oppose proposed changes to campaign finance law and restrictions on fundraising. When DeLay was indicted in Texas last year, Doolittle distributed about 100 lapel pins in the shape of tiny hammers as a tribute to the man nicknamed the “Hammer” for his ability to pound congressional Republicans into line.

Doolittle also was closely aligned with Abramoff. Records show that Abramoff gave Doolittle tens of thousands of dollars in contributions and employed the congressman’s wife for other fundraising activities.

Pombo, the son of cattle ranchers, plays up his cowboy roots, often appearing in his district wearing a ranch-hand’s hat and ostrich-skin boots. Forty-five years old, a seven-term congressman, he represents the fertile farming expanse of the Central Valley.

He had impressed DeLay with his fundraising prowess, garnering about $1 million for his 2002 House reelection, which he won easily.

And not long after his role in helping Hurwitz, the GOP House caucus — led by DeLay — helped get Pombo elected chairman of the Resources Committee over several more senior Republicans.

Hurwitz has been a prolific campaign donor since the early 1990s.

He has contributed personally and with funds provided by his Houston-based flagship company, Maxxam Inc., through subsidiaries such as Kaiser Aluminum, and through a company political action committee, Maxxam Inc. Federal PAC.

In the last three federal elections cycles, those entities have given about $443,000 in political contributions — most of it to conservative politicians, including President Bush, for whom Hurwitz pledged to raise $100,000 in the 2000 campaign and also helped during that year’s vote tally deadlock in Florida.

Hurwitz has been generous with DeLay too.

Starting in the 2000 election cycle, the businessman and his committees have distributed at least $30,000 to DeLay and his federal causes, including $5,000 for his current legal defense fund in the Texas money-laundering case.

Hurwitz also contributed $1,000 to Pombo for his 1996 reelection campaign. And through the Maxxam PAC, Hurwitz gave Doolittle $5,000 for his 2002 reelection campaign and then followed up with $2,000 more for his 2004 race.

When DeLay went to bat for Hurwitz, he was particularly critical of reported internal government discussions that would have pressed Hurwitz to settle his obligations for the collapsed S&L; by selling the government vast forest areas and redwood trees in Northern California near Scotia. The forest land was owned by Hurwitz’s Pacific Lumber company

“I am extremely concerned,” DeLay told then-FDIC Chairwoman Donna A. Tanoue, “about the apparent abuse of governmental power and what appears to be misconduct in the form of harassment and deceit on the part of government employees.”

Tanoue responded by telling DeLay “we can assure you that the FDIC lawsuit against Mr. Hurwitz was not filed for political reasons.”

The investigation pressed on, and a year later the House Resources Committee, which had jurisdiction because of the forest area, set up a special Headwaters Forest Task Force and launched its own review. Doolittle was appointed task force chairman, and Pombo one of its members.

Duane Gibson, the committee’s general counsel who later went to work for Abramoff, was named the chief investigator. They immediately subpoenaed internal records from the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which also had responsibilities for S&Ls.;

Both agencies were wary and, although complying with the subpoenas, repeatedly urged the lawmakers not to make the documents public or share them with Hurwitz.

William F. Kroener III, general counsel at the FDIC, warned the committee that Hurwitz and his lawyers were not entitled to see many of the documents.

Kroener told the panel that, should the material end up in their hands, it “could significantly injure our ability to litigate this matter and reduce damages otherwise recoverable to reimburse taxpayers.”

Carolyn J. Buck, chief counsel at the Office of Thrift Supervision, also wrote the committee emphasizing that “we note our objection to any publication or release of these documents.”

The task force was set up for six months, and disbanded in December 2000. It held one hearing, and called FDIC and Office of Thrift Supervision officials as witnesses.

At that hearing, Tanoue defended the FDIC’s investigation.

“I have listened to and considered the arguments made directly to me by representatives of Mr. Hurwitz,” she testified. “However, I have found no compelling reason to take the extraordinary step of … taking this case out of the hands of the judicial system.”

Kroener testified that the FDIC was not interested in a trees-for-debt swap, saying his agency “has expressed its preference for a cash settlement.”

Six months later, in June 2001, Pombo submitted a portion of the subpoenaed documents that filled 14 pages in the Congressional Record.

Six months after that, in December 2001, Doolittle did the same, even though he was no longer a member of the committee. And his submission was much larger — filling 111 pages.

The documents were so voluminous that Doolittle and Pombo had to pay a total of about $20,000 from their congressional accounts to cover the extra printing costs.

The FDIC was outraged over the documents’ release.

Its chief spokesman, Phil Battey, said in a statement to the Sacramento Bee at the time that the publication of the materials was a “subordination … and a seamy abuse of the legislative process.”

Not long afterward, the FDIC dismissed its case, and the Office of Thrift Supervision settled with Hurwitz for about $200,000 in administrative costs.

*

Times staff writer Ted Rohrlich contributed to this report.

Safiya Baidi spent six months living in a 1987 Mitsubishi Galant. She slept in the front seat; her two baby girls slept in the back seat. Food was stored in the trunk.

It was a way to keep orderly the only home she had. Most nights, though, that order was interrupted by her children’s needs.

“They always wanted me to sleep close to their noses, so I put the seat back,” Baidi said. “It was very uncomfortable, but that’s what they wanted.”

On Thursday, the needs of her children led Baidi to join about 150 frustrated tenants who converged on downtown’s Pershing Square to protest the suspension of federal housing assistance to 1,500 families in Los Angeles.

The problem, advocates say, may soon grow worse. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that about 10,000 families in Los Angeles County could be cut from the Section 8 program if the 2005 budget proposed by the Bush administration is passed by Congress.

Officials with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, however, view the proposed budget in a starkly different way.

“The president’s proposal would provide enough flexibility for local housing authorities to still cover as many people with vouchers as it currently does,” said Larry Bush, a HUD spokesman. “In the case of Los Angeles, this will require better management than we have seen to date.”

Section 8 is a federal program that subsidizes the rents of low-income tenants, who pay about 30% of their income in rent. The federal government pays the rest.

In Los Angeles, for example, a family of four with an income of $29,750 is considered very low income. A family of four with an income of $17,850 or less is considered extremely low income.

With her voucher, Baidi would have been able to rent a two-bedroom apartment. She had found a place in Hawthorne. Now that her voucher is suspended, the 22-year-old, who works full time at a hospital, remains in the homeless shelter that took her in after her long stint living in her car.

“My job is minimum wage,” she said, above the chants of protesters. “That won’t get me in anywhere.”

The protests, which included speeches by single mothers, the mentally ill and others in need of housing assistance, was organized by the Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness. State Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sylmar) and Los Angeles Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa joined the group in demanding that Congress, the state and federal government do more to assist those who need housing.

“These are people struggling to find the American dream and our president is trying to take it away,” Alarcon said to the crowd. “I think we need to take away his public housing and kick him out of the White House.”

The program had been supported by previous administrations because they “understood something about Section 8,” he said, calling the program “a path to a better place.”

Earlier this year, officials at the Los Angeles Housing Authority canceled housing vouchers of those who had not yet entered into rental contracts. Officials estimated that about 5,000 subsidized households — families already in rental contracts — might lose their assistance unless help came soon.

Local officials pushed HUD for additional funds, more vouchers or an agreement that certain funds could be used to pay for the vouchers. Federal officials blamed problems on the local agency.

On Monday, HUD and local officials announced the signing of an agreement that averted the loss of assistance to the 5,000 families, but so far no hope has been offered that assistance will be restored to those with suspended vouchers. Those families, about 400 of whom are homeless, according to the Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, have been left in limbo: stuck in hotels, in shelters or on the streets.

One of the protesters, Laura Figueras, spent 10 years living on the streets, mentally ill and unable to care for herself.

She credits a Santa Monica shelter with helping her reform her life. Now her illness is controlled with medication and she has started to imagine herself living in her own home. She is on a list to receive a voucher.

“It took me a long time to get that far,” Figueras said. When she learned about the suspensions “my world fell apart…. I was pretty devastated,” she said. “But I’m not giving up.”

The voucher suspensions and concerns about possible cuts in the program have given rise to the Save the Section 8 Coalition, several organizations that are pushing for HUD “to release emergency funds to honor the 1,500 Section 8 vouchers.” The coalition is also demanding that the program “remain fully funded to at least its current level. No massive cuts as the Bush administration has proposed.”

Stu Spencer, guru of political gurus, towed three old Latino buddies to the side at his annual holiday party. “Here, listen to these guys,” he said. “You don’t need to quote me.” Minutes later he returned with another, and then another. “They’ll tell ya. . . . Hey Manuel, don’t talk his ear off.”

Manuel Hidalgo, 67, East Los Angeles attorney. Frank Veiga, 59, East Los Angeles mortician. Albert Zapanta, 55, executive vice president of the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. . . .

All had one thing in common besides their Mexican ancestry. They’re lifelong California Republicans who are disenchanted with their party. Not just disappointed and discouraged, but downright disgusted.

“I like the [Republican] philosophy, but they don’t like me,” Hidalgo said. “I like ‘em, but I can’t go to the party.”

Zapanta: “The party has too much of a bigot streak in it. And that’s 25 years of Republican activism talking.”

They’ve been working up to this point for years. Proposition 187 pushed them to the edge. Proposition 209 was one more boot. In their view, the policies were bad enough–taking public services from illegal immigrants and dismantling race-based affirmative action. Much worse was the politics.

“187 was racist, bigoted,” said Veiga. “Who’d you see in the ads?”

Not Russians or Asians, he and his friends noted. TV viewers saw Mexicans streaming across the border and were told, in ominous tones, that “they keep coming.” Latinos–even third-generation Americans–saw Republican fingers pointed at them. This year, again, GOP ads pointed to brown skins.

And Latino fingers pointed back–particularly at Gov. Pete Wilson, the wizard of wedge.

“We’ve lost a lot of respect for him,” Veiga said. Added Zapanta: “Pete’s a big boy. He knows what he’s doing.”

*

Playing the race card?

“Pete does not play the race card,” Spencer insisted. “He just got to the point where he believes [the policy].”

Spencer has been a Wilson loyalist for 30-plus years. He won’t criticize him personally. But he does think that the governor’s 187 ads, in the heat of a reelection campaign, “scared the hell out of” Latinos. “The fallout’s going to be around for awhile.”

In fact, Spencer said the dubious duo of 187 and immigrant bashing by conservatives nationally could drive Latinos away from the GOP en masse–just as blacks aligned solidly with Democrats during FDR’s New Deal and, later, the civil rights movement.

Rather than pushing punitive 187, asserted the guru and his Latino buddies, the GOP merely should have attacked President Clinton for neither enforcing the border nor reimbursing the state for its illegal immigrant costs.

Republicans paid the price in last month’s elections. How much of that price is directly attributable to the state ballot props and the Buchanan-style immigrant bashing is only speculative. But clearly it’s substantial.

We do know, according to The Times’ exit polling, that the Latino slice of the California vote jumped 43% between 1992 and 1996, to 10% of the total. In 1992, 51% of Latinos voted for Clinton; this year, 75% did.

Latinos apparently tipped the balance in several legislative and congressional races. A record 14 Latinos were elected to the Assembly, which then elected its first Latino speaker, Cruz Bustamante (D-Fresno).

Bustamante attended Spencer’s party Tuesday night.

*

Pundits and pols everywhere have been expounding on the growing muscle of Latinos. But Spencer has been doing it for decades, mostly to plugged ears.

Although he could steer Ronald Reagan to the governor’s office and the White House and help elect countless other candidates, Spencer has struck out trying to persuade Republicans to focus on Latinos.

“I keep losing every battle,” he lamented. “They don’t get it.”

Spencer, 69, cut his political teeth in East L.A. in the 1950s, organizing Mexican Americans for the party. In the early ‘60s, he opened a community “service center”–precursor to a would-be political machine–and “handed out goodies” like free polio shots. But the GOP shut it down when he left.

“We never have taken advantage of our patronage–judgeships, commissions. You’ve got to get people active and reward them. You’ve got to look at the figures and see that the future of this state is going to be determined by Mexicans. We don’t have to change our basic message–get government off our back, low taxation, family values. . . .

“But I’m past that point. There’s got to be a young Stu Spencer out there somewhere who understands it.”

Expense reports filed over a decade of the Calderon family’s engagement in the California Legislature sheds light on the variety of ways political funds can be spent.

The expenses include $1 million spent at golf resorts, $220,000 on steak dinners, $4,000 for cigars, and $325 for a set of false eyelashes. The filings also show $1.3 million charged on credit cards, where expenses are not itemized and the monthly bill sometimes topped $27,000.

The reports, filed with the California secretary of State’s office, cover 23 political accounts active since 2000 for former Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon, his brothers Sen. Ron Calderon and former Assemblyman Tom Calderon, and Charles’ son Assemblyman Ian Calderon. All hail from the Los Angeles County town of Montebello and have represented districts in or near there.

The reports detail extended stays in spa resorts and hideaways in such settings as Las Vegas, Hawaii, Tahoe and Palm Springs. The getaways are sometimes listed as fundraisers, but also as conferences, retreats and “holiday” events.

The expenses include more than $135,000 spent on trips to Vegas, $115,000 on events at the Bandon Dunes Resort in Oregon, and $101,000 for trips to Hawaii during which Calderon family members sometimes also accepted “gifts” to attend conferences at those locations at the same time, staged by two California foundations that don’t reveal their funding sources or publish public agendas.

Gifts can be a big part of public office. The more than $27,000 the Calderons spent giving away money from campaign contributions includes gift certificates for contributors and staff members, and also more than $4,000 in gifts from one Calderon to another. Those include a $325 certificate for Calderon sister-in-law and campaign manager Leslie Rodriguez at Longmi Lashes, a Beverly Hills eyelash extension salon that touts its celebrity clientele. The “appreciation” gift came from the Assembly campaign of Charles Calderon, who married Rodriguez’s sister and listed Leslie Rodriguez as a campaign consultant.

California campaign finance laws generally give politicians wide latitude on how they can spend campaign funds. Fair Political Practices Commission records show few enforcement actions against Calderon family members. Charles Calderon, fined in 1995 and again in 1998 for misusing campaign funds for family birthdays and vacations, in 2009 was found to have failed to report all gifts, but the commission accepted his explanation and took no action. The commission in 2009 dismissed a complaint that Ron Calderon used three of his campaign funds for personal expenses with a warning that crossing the line between personal and political benefit in the future “could result in an enforcement action.”

ALSO:

Calderon fundraisers double up on limits

Subpoena seeks water agency records

After FBI raid, Sen. Ron Calderon opens legal defense fund

paige.stjohn@latimes.com

WASHINGTON — With the Iran war in its fifth week, support for President Trump is at its lowest point ever, with a growing body of recent polling showing him losing ground with key voting blocs that helped power his 2024 victory.

While public dissatisfaction is evident among many groups surveyed, the decline in support for the president has been most pronounced among Latino voters.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released March 24 found 36% of voters approve of the president’s job performance, the lowest it has been during his second term. The poll found 62% disapproved.

Other polls, such as the AP-NORC poll, placed the figure at 38%.

In all, the president is underwater on almost every single public policy issue. With the exception of crime, which sits around 47% approval, he has recorded no gains in any polled category, according to experts.

On immigration, the president’s marquee issue, approval fell from roughly 45% in late 2025 to 39% in February, according to Reuters.

About 1 in 4 respondents approved of Trump’s handling of the economy, Reuters found, as domestic gas prices surged by more than $1 per gallon after fighting commenced last month. The share of Republicans who disapprove of his handling of cost-of-living issues rose 7 points in one week to 34%.

The shift comes amid growing economic unease and amplified backlash over the war in Iran. About 1 in 3 Americans approve of the military operation, according to a Reuters survey.

And a growing divide among prominent conservatives has emerged over the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The clashes have played out in public and are exposing tensions within the Republican Party, with conservative commentators such as Megyn Kelly openly questioning whether the war is in America’s best interest.

“This is not a foreign policy that makes sense and it is not what Trump ran on. It is, in many ways, a betrayal of his campaign promises, what he sold himself as and of his MAGA base,” Kelly said earlier this month.

Other conservative pundits, including Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, are also opposed.

But the real damage is showing up in the one place Trump can’t afford to lose: his base.

Trump entered his second term buoyed by historic gains with Latino voters. Exit polls indicated he improved his standing with them by more than 20 percentage points in 2024 compared with his 2016 victory, fueling widespread narratives that the demographic was undergoing a durable shift toward Republicans. In all, 48% of Latinos gave him their support in the last election.

Since then, his approval among Latino voters has plummeted to 22%, according to a March 2026 analysis by the Economist.

In a bipartisan poll by UnidosUS released in November, 14% of Latino voters said their lives were better after Trump took office, while 39% said they had gotten worse.

The president’s rapport with Latinos reflects a deep dissatisfaction with economic conditions, according to Mike Madrid, a veteran California Republican political consultant and expert on Latino voting trends.

“Overwhelmingly, this is a function of the economy and affordability,” he said. “Latino voters moved away from Biden-Harris for the exact same reasons that they’re moving away from Donald Trump right now.”

Research and polling suggests Latino voters prioritize cost-of-living issues — such as housing, wages and inflation — over immigration, a topic often emphasized in national messaging.

“It’s not even close,” Madrid said. “Immigration is not even a top 5 issue for Latino voters.”

Madrid suggested the demographic rallying is less a “reversion” and more a reflection of a rapidly changing electorate.

“Latinos have emerged as the only true swing vote in America,” he said. “And they’re rejecting whichever party is in power.”

These volatile, double-digit voting shifts directly contrast more stable voting patterns among other major demographic groups, including the Black and white electorates, where shifts from cycle to cycle tend to be just a few points.

The reason: dramatic turnout fluctuations. Who decides to show out or stay home on election day tends to change by the year. It’s compounded by the fact that there are far more first-time Latino voters than in any other category.

Polling this month suggests Trump is also losing ground among young voters, another group that contributed to his 2024 gains.

More than half of men under the age of 30 supported Trump in that election, helping him turn several swing states.

In just a year, that demographic has cratered by 20 points.

“Trump won in 2024 because of men. They are abandoning him right now,” CNN senior data analyst Harry Enten said Tuesday.

The reversals could have massive implications for the November midterm elections, particularly in competitive congressional districts where small swings could determine control of the House.

Republicans have warned that if they lose hold of their narrow congressional majority, Trump is likely to face a third impeachment.

UCLA political scientist Matt Barreto said movement away from Republicans is already visible in real-world election outcomes, not just polling.

“We’ve already seen in the Virginia and New Jersey legislative and gubernatorial elections really large shifts in the Latino vote, 25 points back to the Democratic Party,” Barreto said. He added that similar patterns have emerged in places such as Miami and Texas, where Democratic candidates have outperformed expectations with strong Latino support.

Latino Democrats who sat out the 2024 election are returning to the electorate, while some Latino Republicans are disengaging, he said.

That dynamic could prove decisive in November. There are more than 40 congressional districts where the number of registered Latino voters exceeds the margin of victory in 2024, Barreto said. Many of them are closely divided between the parties.

“At the district level, the Latino vote is going to make a huge impact,” he said.

Some employees called it the “dash for cash.”

Months after Kaiser Permanente doctors saw a patient, federal prosecutors said, administrators pushed the physicians to add new, false diagnoses to the medical record in a billion-dollar scheme to defraud the government. Kaiser in February paid $556 million to settle the allegations.

“Deliberately inflating diagnosis codes to boost profits is a serious violation of public trust,” said Scott Lambert, acting deputy inspector general for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Kaiser faced further scrutiny a month later when the nonprofit healthcare giant paid $30 million to settle another case brought by federal investigators, this one involving claims it had failed for years to provide patients with adequate access to mental health care.

Kaiser said it settled the fraud case without admitting wrongdoing. It said the mental health settlement did not involve its current practices.

Yet critics have pointed to the repeated legal payouts, saying they reflect how Kaiser has veered from its charitable mission in recent years and is now virtually indistinguishable from its for-profit competitors keenly focused on the bottom line.

That shift has also fueled recent tensions with its employees, who have complained about inadequate resources to address staffing shortages and patient delays.

“Their focus is on profit and in doing more with less,” said Kadi Gonzalez, a nurse who works in Kaiser’s obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Downey. Gonzalez was one of more than 30,000 nurses and other Kaiser professionals who walked out in a four-week strike that ended last month.

The unions said their strike was as much about staffing levels and patient safety as it was about wages.

“The more patients a nurse has, the higher the mortality rate,” Gonzalez said. “We don’t have enough providers.”

The Oakland-based giant insures almost 1 of every 4 Californians. It operates as both an insurer and a provider of care in a closed system that makes it difficult for patients to get treatment elsewhere.

Kaiser declined to make its executives available for comment, but issued a statement disputing the claims.

“Our charitable purpose guides every decision we make,” the statement said. “Driven by our mission, we offer better care and coverage to our members, invest billions of dollars in our communities every year, and work to advance high-quality, affordable, equitable, evidence-based care in communities across the country.”

The statement added that its hospitals are “among the best staffed in California” and that staffing levels always meet or exceed state requirements.

A surge in profits

Founded in 1945, Kaiser has long gained national attention for its managed care model and focus on preventative care.

The nonprofit says its mission is “to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.”

The Kaiser system — the largest healthcare nonprofit in the country — serves 9.5 million Californians. The Times offers Kaiser insurance to its employees.

Last year, Kaiser took in more than $127 billion in revenue, earning a profit of $9.3 billion. The net income was mainly from investments, with a smaller share ($1.4 billion) from its sprawling operations as well as insurance premiums.

Kaiser has continued to hike its insurance premiums faster than inflation.

In 2025, premiums increased an average of 5.1% in Southern California and 8.2% in Northern California, according to Beere & Purves, a general insurance agency. In January, it raised them by another 6.5% in Southern California and 7.1% in the northern part of the state.

Kaiser has been rapidly expanding nationwide. It now has hospitals and clinics in at least 10 states and the District of Columbia, some operating under a separate nonprofit that it created in 2023 called Risant Health.

Kaiser said in its statement that D.C.-based Risant “is a way for us to expand access to high-quality, affordable care to millions more people, in fulfillment of our mission.”

“As a nonprofit, any returns are reinvested back into patient care, infrastructure, workforce benefits, and community health programs—not distributed to shareholders,” it said.

Kaiser said that its annual premium increases were “generally lower” than its competitors.

The surge of money has increased Kaiser’s reserve of cash and investments, which reached $73 billion in 2025 — 68% higher than in 2019, according to its financial statements.

Because Kaiser is registered as a charity, it pays no taxes on its profits or its extensive real estate holdings. After a recent buying spree, the nonprofit system said it had 847 medical offices and 55 hospitals at the end of 2025.

The arm of Kaiser that operates its hospitals and clinics avoided $784 million in federal income tax, $372 million in state income tax and $204 million in property tax in 2024, according to an analysis by the Lown Institute, a healthcare think tank.

In all, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals received nearly $1.5 billion in tax and other benefits by registering as a charity, the institute calculated.

Laws exempt nonprofits from paying taxes with the assumption they will give back to the community.

In 2024, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals provided $963 million in patient financial assistance and contributions to community health programs, but that still fell short of its tax benefit by more than $500 million, according to the Lown Institute.

Dr. Vikas Saini, the institute’s president, said that amount of money could help solve a myriad of California’s social problems.

“If they closed that gap, what would that $500 million get you?” he asked.

In a 2024 study, the institute found that Kaiser had the largest gap between its tax benefits and charitable spending of any of the nation’s nonprofit hospital systems.

Kaiser said in its statement that its combined charitable spending was far more than the institute’s calculation for its hospital arm. It said it not only provided patients with financial assistance, but also spent money on affordable housing, food access, community health and disaster recovery — efforts that totaled $5.3 billion last year.

After the January 2025 wildfires, Kaiser said it provided 2,400 households with financial assistance, opened evacuation centers, deployed mobile health vehicles and provided mental health services to victims.

“We have never been prouder of how we are delivering on our mission for the public good,” the statement said.

As Kaiser has grown, so has compensation for its top executives, which is among the highest of all California nonprofits.

In 2024, Greg Adams, Kaiser’s chief executive, was paid nearly $13 million, according to its filings. At least 40 other executives received total compensation of more than $1 million that year.

The nonprofit has a board of directors of more than a dozen members, with all but a few receiving $250,000 or more a year, according to the filing.

The board helps to oversee Kaiser’s fast-growing operations as well as its $73-billion financial reserve, which healthcare advocates and experts have said is far higher than its competitors and the level the state requires.

“I’m flabbergasted,” Saini said when told of the reserve’s size. “Who decides how big of a reserve is enough?”

Kaiser said it maintained the large financial reserve “to ensure long-term stability, manage emergencies, support major capital investments, and support our people’s retirement benefits.”

And it said senior managers were paid less than most for-profit health plans.

Patients delays, staffing shortages

Some longtime Kaiser members have left for other insurers, citing a decline in care.

Mark Schubb, a Santa Monica resident, had been a Kaiser member since 1995. He said he left in 2022 after experiencing months-long delays to visit his primary care doctor and specialists.

When he complained, Schubb said, “the answer was, ‘Well, you can always go to urgent care.’ “

Gonzalez, the nurse in Downey, said patients often wait three months for an appointment. And when they finally get in, the 20-minute appointment may be double-booked, she said, leaving the physician assistant with 10 minutes to see them.

“They can wait months for an appointment and then they are rushed through,” she said. “Kaiser has the resources to fix these things.”

In one case, 53-year-old Francisco Delgadillo arrived at the Kaiser ER in Vallejo, Calif., in December 2023 with severe chest pain. After an initial assessment, he waited eight hours for care, according to state regulators.

He died in the lobby.

A state and federal investigation found multiple violations, including that Kaiser failed to have a licensed nurse monitoring the dozens of patients in the ER’s waiting room.

Kaiser didn’t respond to a request to comment on the death but has disputed claims of inadequate staffing at its hospitals.

Complaints about a lack of available mental health care go back more than a decade.

In 2023, Kaiser agreed to a $200-million settlement after the state found it had canceled tens of thousands of mental health appointments and failed to provide timely care. The settlement included a $50-million fine — the largest the state had ever levied against a health plan.

Garie Connell, a Kaiser therapist and licensed clinical social worker in Encino, said the system had been rationing mental health care for years, while earning big profits.

“They’ve really lost their way,” she said.

Kaiser said it had “made significant investments to expand choice and access to mental health care over the past several years.” The healthcare provider said it now has more than 35,000 employed and contracted clinicians delivering mental health and addiction care.

Unsupported diagnoses

Kaiser said that it settled the alleged $1-billion fraud case last month to avoid the “cost of prolonged litigation” and that the findings of federal investigators involved “a dispute regarding certain documentation practices.”

In their complaint, prosecutors alleged that Kaiser mined data to find possible diagnoses that could be added to patients’ records to make them look sicker than they were. The patients were in Kaiser’s Medicare Advantage plan, which received bigger government payments for patients with multiple ailments.

Doctors were praised and given gifts, including bottles of champagne, the complaint said, for agreeing to the administrators’ requests to add the diagnoses.

As one Kaiser slide in an internal training session explained, “Medicare Queries: Why Now?”

The slide then provided the answer: “Diagnoses = Revenue.”

Chad Bianco couldn’t fly to Mar-a-Lago, wreathe President Trump in honeyed words, bestow the Riverside County Peace Prize upon him and hand-feed him his favorite dish — a Big Mac? — from a platter of 24-karat gold.

Security, logistics and all of that.

So the Republican candidate for California governor did the next best thing: He confiscated hundreds of thousands of ballots from last November’s special election in a trumped-up investigation of supposed voting irregularities. Never mind the complete lack of evidence or the fact Proposition 50, the subject of Bianco’s investigation, was approved by a clear-cut majority of voters.

The intent of Riverside County’s grasping sheriff was as transparent as a pane of glass. It’s all about trying to win the endorsement of Trump — he of phantasmagorical election-fraud claims — in California’s neck-and-neck-and-neck gubernatorial contest.

Bianco, fellow Republican Steve Hilton and a passel of Democratic hopefuls are bunched together in a contest that remains utterly wide open just weeks before voters start receiving their ballots in the mail.

“Trump’s endorsement would be huge,” said Jon Fleischman, a conservative strategist and former executive director of the state GOP.

“Actually,” he went on, ‘I think it would be determinative” — virtually guaranteeing either Hilton or Bianco finished in the top two in the June 2 primary, ushering them past the rope line into November’s runoff.

If there’s an inside edge in the Trump Endorsement Sweepstakes, it would seemingly go to Hilton.

He’s familiar to the president as a former Fox News host. He’s interviewed Trump several times and the two occasionally text and talk on the phone. Bianco has no such personal connection, which might explain his ballot-seizing stunt.

Steve Hilton could have the inside track on a Trump endorsement, given their personal relationship.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

(The Democrats’ nightmare scenario is both Republicans making the runoff, icing the party out of the governor’s office for the first time since Arnold Schwarzenegger left in January 2011. More on that in a moment.)

A Trump endorsement comes in all sorts of flavors.

As The Downballot recently noted, “His bag of tricks includes dual endorsements, triple endorsements, pre-endorsements, Election Day endorsements, yanking endorsements … belated endorsement of a candidate after initially endorsing just one candidate [and] non-endorsements after promising to endorse.”

There was also the time Trump endorsed “ERIC” when Republicans Eric Schmitt and Eric Greitens faced each other in Missouri’s Senate primary. (Schmitt won and is now the state’s junior U.S. senator.)

Trump’s backing still counts a good deal, even as his approval ratings sink to sub-basement levels. The president remains popular with Republicans and, critically, the kind of GOP loyalists who vote in primary contests, which is why both Hilton and Bianco would welcome a presidential laying on of hands.

There’s good reason, however, to think Trump might pass on endorsing in the governor’s race, or opt to deliver one of his dual he-and-him endorsements.

The GOP’s best — and perhaps only — hope of winning the governorship is the Democratic-freeze-out scenario. So, tactically, Trump’s wisest move may be to bless neither Hilton nor Bianco. Or support both. That would avoid elevating one over the other, which could make it easier for a Democrat to finish among the top two and advance past the June primary.

“I think Trump’s people are smart enough to know that there’s a reason why he may not be served by endorsing a candidate,” Fleischman said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the prevailing wisdom there is we better not endorse anybody, because we don’t want to tilt this one way or the other.”

If Trump were to back Hilton or Bianco, it’s not hard to imagine Democratic interests seizing upon the president’s benediction and putting significant money behind an ad blitz promoting the president’s favorite in hopes of boosting him — and him alone — into the top two.

The move comes from a well-thumbed political playbook, seeking to elevate a preferred opponent, that was used most recently in California by Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff. He helped lift Republican Steve Garvey into the November 2024 runoff to keep from having to face a tougher opponent, fellow Democrat Katie Porter. Schiff easily defeated Garvey.

In this case, Democrats would aim to tee up one of the two Republicans who would almost certainly go on to lose in the fall.

Which is what happened the first time Gavin Newsom ran for governor.

In 2018, his main rival was fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. Two major Republicans were also in the race, John Cox and Travis Allen. There was no real concern about those two nabbing both spots in the June primary. Rather, Newsom and Cox had a shared interest in boxing out Villaraigosa.

So the Newsom and Cox campaigns opened a private back-channel, trading gossip, swapping insights on the race and even sharing some empirical data. One poll, showing Cox getting a bigger boost from a Trump endorsement than Allen, passed from Democratic hands in hopes it would reach the White House and nudge the president into supporting Cox.

Though there’s no proof the survey ever reached Trump, the president eventually threw his support behind the San Diego County businessman, lifting him past Allen in the primary. Cox went on to lose handily to Newsom in November.

This time, with more than a half dozen plausible candidates and no obvious path to victory for any one, it’s every man and woman for themselves.

The same goes for Trump, who may do himself the most good in California, politically, by doing nothing at all.

If he can only resist.

WASHINGTON — President Trump says the United States is winning the war with Iran, even as thousands of additional American troops deploy to the Middle East.

He has pilloried other countries for not helping the U.S., only to say later he does not need their assistance. He has twice delayed deadlines for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. He has threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s energy plants if the vital waterway remains largely shut down and said the U.S. was “not affected” by the closure.

At one point this month, Trump claimed that one of his predecessors — who, he strongly suggested, was a Democrat — privately told him he wished he had taken similar action against Iran. Representatives for every living former president denied that any such conversation happened.

As the war entered its second month over the weekend, Trump’s penchant for embellishments, exaggerations and falsehoods is being tested in an environment where the stakes are much higher than a domestic political fight.

A president who has long embraced bluster and salesmanship to shape narratives and focus attention is confronting the unpredictability of war.

Leon Panetta, who served Democratic presidents as Defense secretary, CIA director and White House chief of staff, said he has “seen enough wars where truth becomes the first casualty.”

“It’s not the first administration that has not told the truth about war,” he said. “But the president has made it kind of a very standard approach to almost any question to in one way or another kind of lie about what’s really happening and basically describe everything as fine and that we’re winning the war.”

Michael Rubin, a historian at the American Enterprise Institute who worked as a staff advisor on Iran and Iraq at the Pentagon from 2002 to 2004, said Trump is “the first president of any party in recent history that hasn’t self-constrained to live within rhetorical boundaries.”

“So of course it creates a great deal of confusion,” he said.

The zigs and zags are the point

To his critics, Trump’s style is a sign that doesn’t have a coherent long-term strategy. But for Trump, the zigs and zags seem like the point, a method that keeps his opponents — and pretty much everyone else — always on their heels.

The approach was clear last week in the hours before he announced the second delay of the deadline for Iran to reopen the strait. Asked what he would do about the deadline, Trump said that he did not know and that he had a day before he had to decide.

“In Trump time, a day, you know what it is, that’s an eternity,” Trump said to laughter from members of his Cabinet.

But investors are unimpressed, with U.S. stocks closing out their worst week since the war began. To some on Capitol Hill, the freewheeling is more frustrating than amusing.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lamented that Trump is “going back and forth and constantly contradicting himself.”

“The administration is winging it,” he said. “So how can you trust what the president says?”

Republicans were not willing to go that far, but their concern was apparent heading into a two-week break from Washington. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said his constituents “support what the president has done.”

“But most of my people are also equally or even more so concerned about cost of living,” he said.

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who sits on the House Budget Committee and is a member of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus, said his constituents were on board with “blowing some crap up.” Nonetheless, he expressed reservations about the prospect of ground troops and said the administration has not provided enough details in briefings for lawmakers. Such sessions, he said, only reveal information you “read in the papers.”

“Taking out bad guys, taking out conventional [weapons], taking out or at least working to take out nuclear capability, pressing to keep the straits open, all those are good things and I’ve been supportive and will continue to be supportive,” Roy said. “But we’ve got to have a serious conversation about how long this is going to go, boots on the ground, all those things, press for further briefings and understanding of where it’s all headed.”

Political risks ahead

While Trump has maintained deep support among Republicans, a poll last week from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research indicates that the president risks further frustrating his voters if the U.S. gets involved in the kind of prolonged war in the Middle East that he promised to avoid. He campaigned against starting new foreign wars altogether, and his reversal on that already has irked some of his longtime supporters.

Although 63% of Republicans back airstrikes against Iranian military targets, the survey found, only 20% back deploying American ground troops.

That reflects the political challenges ahead for Trump, who did not prepare the country for such an extensive overseas conflict. If the war drags on or escalates, pressure on Republicans could build before the November elections, when their majorities in Congress are at risk. Some in the party have said sending in ground troops would be a red line that Trump should not cross.

The administration also will probably need congressional support for an additional $200 billion he seeks to support the war. That amount of money, which Trump has said would be “nice to have,” even as he said the war was “winding down,” would be a tough vote at any time. But it poses particular risks for Republicans in an election year.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that Trump is “right to highlight the vast success of Operation Epic Fury,” the military name for the war in Iran.

“Iran desperately wants to make a deal because of how badly they are being decimated, but the President reserves all options, military or not, at all times,” she said.

Some see ‘logic’ to Trump’s approach

Rubin, the former Iran and Iraq advisor at the Pentagon, said there could be some “logic” to the president’s ever-evolving rhetorical approach to the war. He said Trump’s initial comments about ongoing negotiations, which Iran denied, could “spread suspicion and fear within the regime circles.”

“Perhaps Donald Trump or those advising him simply want the Iranians to grow so paranoid they refuse to cooperate with each other or perhaps they even turn on each other,” he said. “But then again, there’s always a danger with Donald Trump of assuming that his rhetoric is anything more than shooting from the hip.”

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said Trump is not going to be able to fully achieve his objectives, even those that have been clearly articulated — including the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear program — “in the current trajectory.”

And if that is the case, Smith said, the president has the option to rely on his rhetorical skills to simply say the U.S. won — and end the war.

“As I’ve jokingly said, nobody I have ever met or heard of in human history is better at exaggerating his own accomplishments than Donald Trump,” Smith said. “So go knock yourself out and claim this was some great success.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — California has a huge deficit, a looming cash crisis, an angry public and pressure to raise taxes — and in this dismal state of affairs, the state’s minority Republicans see opportunity.

GOP lawmakers hope to use their leverage over the state budget, which cannot pass without some of their votes, to roll back landmark policies implemented by Democrats and the governor. Among them are curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, regulations banning the dirtiest diesel engines and rules dictating when employers must provide lunch breaks for workers.

None of those laws has any direct connection to the state budget; changing them will do nothing to close California’s $15.2-billion deficit. And the Democrats who control the Legislature already have rejected Republican proposals to delay or eliminate the laws through the regular legislative process.

But as pressure mounts on lawmakers to resolve the budget crisis, the GOP’s renewed requests could get some traction. Republican clout grows along with the state’s financial problems — at least during the summer budget season.

“We think the budget is an appropriate place to talk about these issues,” said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). “We are setting them on the table for discussion.”

Runner acknowledges that the proposals won’t help balance the books in the coming fiscal year, but he argues that they would stimulate the economy and thus generate cash for the state over time.

“They are reasonable issues to bring up” now, he said.

Lawmakers are making little progress in those negotiations. Legislators did not meet their June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget, and they are saying publicly that a spending plan is unlikely to be in place by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

The state will run out of cash in September, according to the state treasurer, and finance officials say that borrowing to remain solvent will be extremely tough without a budget in place by July. Securing a loan takes time, and lenders look for an enacted budget as assurance that the state will have enough cash to repay them.

Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for as much as $11.5 billion in new taxes — though they have not specified what they want to tax.

Republicans say cuts in government services and programs are the way to go — though they, too, mostly demur when it comes to specifics.

Republicans have made clear, however, that relaxing the environmental and labor laws would put them in more of a mood to compromise. That position has drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats and activists.

“Using a fiscal crisis to delay and roll back protections for Californians is just wrong,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).

Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern called the GOP lawmakers “a dwindling minority trying to exploit the limited leverage they have.”

Environmentalists are particularly outraged by the Republican call for a delay in the curbs on greenhouse emissions.

The global warming measure is one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proudest accomplishments. It has landed the governor, himself a Republican, on the covers of magazines around the world.

State officials are drafting rules for implementing the emissions caps, which are scheduled to take effect in January 2010. GOP legislators say complying with the rules will be costly for businesses at a time when they already are reeling from the poor economy and higher oil prices.

They want the governor to exercise a provision in the law that allows him to postpone implementation by declaring that it would cause the state “significant economic harm.”

“We’ve got a major downturn in the economy,” said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, leader of the state Senate’s Republicans. “We’re trying to convince the governor to give us more time on this.”

Republicans are making the same case for new rules requiring retrofitting of diesel engines on trucks, tractors and heavy construction equipment. The engines are a leading source of pollution and have been singled out by scientists as a cause of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory problems in California each year.

Supporters of the laws say that the sickness they will prevent and the boost they will give to “green” technologies promise to be far more helpful to California’s economy than a delay in their implementation.

Schwarzenegger has said through aides that he does not wish to postpone environmental regulations and won’t let the budget situation sidetrack his long-term goals. But he also says nothing is off the table.

“We have open doors where everything is on the table,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech last month to the California Peace Officers Assn. “I don’t want to go and say to anything, ‘No.’ ”

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor is interested, for example, in working with Republicans on a relaxation of workplace rules that dictate when employees must be granted lunch breaks.

The governor, an ally of the state Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, is sympathetic to complaints from business owners that some workplace rules cost them money without benefiting employees.

The example most often cited comes from restaurant owners who say they must give their workers breaks at particular times, even if it is in the middle of the busiest shift, when many would rather be working tables to collect tips.

The Legislature must sign off on changes to such laws, something Democrats say they have no intention of doing. Their labor allies say budget season is a cynical time to raise the issue.

“If these were viable policy proposals, they would pass on their own merits,” said Emily Clayton, policy coordinator with the California Labor Federation.

Republicans, she said, “are trying to hold the budget negotiations hostage.”

—

evan.halper@latimes.com