Hannah-Beth Jackson runs an obstacle course. Jason Hodge cruises the ’hood. Mike Stoker waits in the wings.
Those are the images the top contenders in the pivotal campaign for the 19th State Senate District are sending voters in Santa Barbara and western Ventura counties three weeks before the June 5 primary election.
With newly drawn district lines sharply reducing the number of Republican voters, GOP incumbent Tony Strickland decided to run for Congress. Democrats see the open seat as crucial to winning, in at least one house of the Legislature, the two-thirds majority needed to pass tax bills on party-line votes.
“This seat is the firewall for Republicans,” said Stoker, the 56-year-old former Santa Barbara County supervisor and veteran GOP activist.
The race is shaped with Jackson, Hodge, and Stoker arrayed on a liberal-moderate-conservative spectrum, as they compete under new primary election rules by which the top two finishers advance to a November runoff, regardless of party affiliation. The district’s 412,208 registered voters are 43-percent Democrats, 32-percent Republicans, 20-percent decline-to-state independents, and the rest minor-party members. This gives Stoker, the only GOP candidate, a solid base of support to win one runoff spot, as he confidently noted in an interview.
“I’m sitting tight,” he said. “We decided early that if I had to spend money in a primary, I shouldn’t be in the race.”
The sharp conflict between the Democrats pits newcomer Hodge, a 37-year-old firefighter, union representative, and elected member of the Oxnard Harbor Commission, against the 61-year-old front-runner Jackson. A longtime advocate for progressive causes, she previously represented much of the district in the Assembly before losing the 2008 State Senate race to Strickland by just 857 votes.
In a series of recent coffeehouse interviews, Jackson (green tea nonfat latte), Hodge (bagel with butter, cream cheese, and hot sauce), and Stoker (iced tea) discussed some key issues in the race.
TV AND MONEY: Hodge and Jackson are both well financed and have substantial TV ad campaigns. Both are airing bio spots filmed on the beach and filled with platitudes — Jobs! Schools! Pragmatic solutions! — but each also is running an ad designed to portray the other as a creature of special interests.
In Jackson’s, she dons a tracksuit, limbers up on a high hurdle, then dashes through a maze of three guys wielding thick piles of cash and wearing brown-bag masks labeled “oil,” “chemicals,” and “insurance,” before sprinting to a finish line of cheering admirers. The images highlight Jackson’s attacks on Hodge’s fundraising. He has collected about $350,000, and she criticizes the fact that most of his donors are outside the district. A significant slice of his money comes from corporate political action committees based in Sacramento, where his wife, Assemblymember Fiona Ma, is part of the Capitol’s Democratic leadership.
It is telling that Jackson’s ad refers to her as “Action Jackson,” an attempt to overcome the derogatory label “Taxin’ Jackson” that Strickland used to great effect and that Hodge and Stoker both now fling at her. The “Taxin’ Jackson” attack is included in recent mailers from a shadowy independent expenditure committee called the “California Senior Advocates League,” which Ventura County Star political writer Timm Herdt reported is financed by several Republican organizations and corporate interests, including oil and tobacco companies.
Hodge shrugs off Jackson’s criticism, noting that he is not alone in receiving special-interest money. Jackson has raised about $450,000; while most is from within the district, she has received substantial sums from public-employee unions, including the California Teachers Association, the Service Employees International Union, and the California Nurses Association. In a cinema verité–style ad now running, Hodge doubles down on the criticism of Jackson as a champion for taxes. Filmed as he drives through his blue-collar neighborhood, Hodge speaks to the camera, charging that Jackson “raised taxes on teachers” and gave a $500-million “tax break to a handful of companies.”
In fact, Jackson in the Assembly authored a tax credit for teachers, then later joined other Democrats in suspending it as a concession for Republican votes to pass an overdue budget; the “tax break” refers to a package of incentives passed by the Legislature to keep TV and movie productions from moving from California.
Stoker reported less than $5,000 cash on hand in his most recent filing, but had his first major fundraiser last week, raising about $30,000.
TAXING AND SPENDING: Voters in November will decide on a Gov. Jerry Brown–sponsored initiative asking them to raise their own taxes. It would increase the sales tax by 0.25 percent for four years and raise income-tax rates for those earning $250,000 or more to capture between $5 billion and $7 billion in new revenue.
Stoker opposes it and says he will fight all tax increases until there is a “25-percent across-the-board cut” in all operations “except UC and public safety.” Jackson supports the initiative, saying its failure would “decimate education” and promising to fight further cuts: “We have already cut government dramatically. I believe the top one percent are not paying their share.”
Hodge’s stance on taxes has shifted since the campaign began, which he attributes to his “nuanced argument” on Brown’s ballot measure. “I’m a Democrat who doesn’t think that you need higher taxes,” he declared in his first ad and mailers. Hodge said this categorical, anti-tax statement referred to an earlier version of Brown’s plan, which would have raised the sales tax one-half instead of one-quarter cent; he says that was unfair to working people. “I live in Oxnard, where people don’t have money,” he said. “It’s important to have people who come from working-class backgrounds.”
Now, he conditionally supports Brown’s initiative “as part of a comprehensive solution” that should include aggressive collection of unpaid taxes and an unspecified “pro-business … good-faith effort to do true economic reform.” He explained, “I’m actually fairly neutral on it. I don’t like the sales-tax part but support taxing the rich.”
PENSIONS: Amid a crisis in high-cost, underfunded public-employee pension plans, Brown has proposed a comprehensive reform package. It includes raising the retirement age for newly hired workers, prohibiting employees from “spiking” pensions, and a two-tiered system offering new hires a 401(k) fund coupled with a more modest pension than the defined benefit plans of current workers.
Hodge and Jackson, both supported by various public-employee unions, are less than enthusiastic. Jackson supports the anti-spiking provision, aimed at curbing abuses by well-paid employees who bump pay classifications or use accumulated vacation and sick leave to boost pension benefits. She says raising the retirement age should be “on the table” but stops short of endorsing it; she’s against a tiered system to reduce pensions for new workers. Hodge agrees. “I’m not a tiered fan [because] I don’t like the idea of ghettoizing” workers. He “believes strongly in a defined benefit plan” and says the most important step for now is “a more comprehensive audit of the system.”
Stoker backs Brown’s plan, noting that legislative Republicans also support it but that union-backed Democrats have blocked a vote: “It’s a great start. I look forward to working with him on it.”
DEATH PENALTY: An initiative to outlaw capital punishment in California will be on the November ballot, sponsored by a coalition arguing it is ineffective and unnecessarily requires hundreds of millions spent on complex legal appeals for inmates sentenced to death.
Jackson backs the measure “from a dollars-and-cents perspective” and thinks the death penalty is “not a deterrent.” Hodge says, “I’m not against the death penalty,” but adds, “I don’t really have a position” on the initiative. Stoker opposes it, saying capital punishment helps prevent violent crime: “I’m on the biblical side of an eye for an eye.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace







Previous Month



Comments
Neither of these two will help our financial situation. Vote no.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In a very rare occurrence, I agree with JohnLocke here above. Indeed, neither of those two Hodge or Stoker will help our financial situation because they will give away the public store to corporate interests and the oil industry.
Jerry Roberts here needs to turn off his jaded political analyst persona and look at the Hodge TV ad through the eyes of the Average Voter. His ad is confusing and incoherent, and just plain weird. His ad is not only "in the weeds" but down in the rodent burrows as well.
Jackson will win the plurality in June and then smear Stoker in November, hammering him constantly for being the Republican Warrior and Corporatist he is, and proud shill for Greka.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not a fan of Hodge's apparent prevarication and trying to thread the mod needle, but Jackson really needs to come clean about her work on behalf of PXP to start the first new offshore oil drilling project in state waters sinec the SB oil spill. I don't think it speaks well that she was fooled into supporting and advocating for that unenforceable agreement opposed by every environmental group outside of Santa Barbra and voted down by Chiang, Garamendi, and then the Democrats in the Assembly.
greensoftshell (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hodge's endorsements by Nava and support by the insurance industry convinced me to vote for Jackson in the primary. Having conversed her, I do think she is a sincere individual looking for solutions that benefit everyone.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think I will vote for Hodges over the two retreads who would just be more of the same disaster state government has been for years. Stoker and Jackson both the extremes of their party which has led to absolutely nothing being done but gridlock in state government with the track record to prove they are the problem.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
May 17, 2012 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a sorry bunch.
Justice (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2012 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stoker should called "former County Supervisor" only if the words '(*by appointment, not election*)' are included in his honorific.
He has never ignited the imagination of the voters, just the desires of Party leaders who see a pliable and willing foot-soldier for the most retrograde aspects of the GOP.
Finally, may I toss back to Stoker a bit of scripture after his “I’m on the biblical side of an eye for an eye” bit of Mosaic Law (more akin to Sharia than the teaching in the New Testament), and contrary to decades of actual research on the lack of deterrent for the death penalty:
Proverbs 13:3:
"Whoever guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin."
and of course:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38–39)
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not hard!
Hannah-Beth is committed to our district and it's people. She is working to increase jobs, fund our schools, and protect our environment. Stoker is sitting back on his heels -- which is a good preview of how he would operate in office. The Hodge-podge of ideas tossed out by Hodge Is falling flat--as it should.
I urge you to vote for Hannah-Beth!
hopeful (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2012 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The state is facing a financial armageddon. How did we get here and what do we need to do to get out of it? Only one thing is perfectly clear. More taxes are not the answer.
Botany (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2012 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Au contraire, Botany, California's propensity to want everything and pay for nothing is a big part of the problem. Tax reform leading to more tax collected more fairly is a necessity.
hopeful (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2012 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
California has the highest prison and education costs in the country. Our state's pension system is bleeding us dry. We have higher property tax revenues than any other state in the country yet we still can't make ends meet. The decades of political pandering to special interest groups are now coming home to roost.
Botany (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong:
California has the highest prison and costs in the country. -- "Botany"
Not even close. California, at 30th, is below the median in public education costs (take a look at Figure 4 page xiii).
PDF: http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09...
And the biggest cuts in state spending for schools in the past 3 years have been in California, Michigan, and Florida.
As to prisons, please see page 10, figure 4, where you will see the Taxpayer Costs of State Prisons per Inmate, where California trails Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. (Note: this survey lists 40 states, about 1.2 million of 1.4 million US prison population)
PDF: http://www.vera.org/download?file=349...
- - - - - -
California has highest property taxes?
(you said 'revenues' but we are the most populated state, so a per capita is stat allows a meaningful comparison)
Nope.
California is number six.
PDF: http://taxfoundation.org/files/sl_bur...
As to the other points in your comment, I'm in agreement that pensions programs throughout the state are a primary challenge to county and city budgets and many state government pension agreements are becoming unfulfillable promises and need reform (you like the term "Our state's pension system" but I'm sure you realize it's not just CalPERS which must be addressed).
binky (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2012 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
California gives a shamefully low amount of money to public education, and Binky is correct, although I've also read that in terms of "state monies per pupil" Calif. is way below 30th position (among the 50 States), I've read 45th. We are hacking the guts out of public education here, and it's not only shameful but it is economically stupid.
YES, public pensions need to be capped and reformed, but of the over 85 or so "public pension plans" in Calif (CalPERS is only one if the biggest) some do a better job than others. The UC Retirement system has had their workers paying into their own pensions (what a concept!) for the last few years, and UC has upped its own contribution. This needs to happen plus a cap at say $75,000 max.
The prison system is a scandal.
More taxes is part of the answer, Botany, although only with further tightening, reducing prison populations (it is happening), capping and reforming pensions...
Action Jackson all the way.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Our per capita costs are not quite the highest, but those figures don't include our massive deferred pension obligations which are much higher than most other states.
I have to question the sanity of someone who says that being sixth on the most (state) taxed per capita is not high enough. Do we really want to go to number one? Doesn't that tell you that it's spending that's the problem, not taxes? It's much easier for a wealthy person to re-locate to another state than it is to another country. Why should someone that's maintain their official residence in California when they can save a ton of money by going to Texas or Wyoming? You want more taxes? Then it's Taxin Jackson all the way.
Botany (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
'Botany' says: "I have to question the sanity of someone who says that being sixth on the most (state) taxed per capita is not high enough."
Again, wrong. No one said it's not high enough -- YOU SAID it was "the highest."
I accept your apology.
By the way, your timid statement "Our per capita costs are not quite the highest" is also significantly off-base (2009).
-- #30 California per pupil spending: $9,657
-- #1 New York annual per pupil spending: $18,126.
(You really should read the links I'm sharing). And these figures include "Employee benefits."
binky (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Apologies not given. I said highest in absolute terms, not per capita.
Botany (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, but isn't the point that Calif has a shamelessly poor per capita education spending per pupil? You conflate the pension obligation issue -- blown way out of proportion (an example is how hard it is to generalize about over 80 Calif public pension plans) -- with helping young kids learn. Our social safety net is dissolving, the Legislature is in perpetual gridlock, the economy teetering... "Investing" in the most valuable resource we have, the "human capital," in educating our children well for this global economy, in raising a few taxes to support public education.....
Wellllll, I think we all know Action Jackson genuine supports public education, and she will win this thing easily. Stoker was never elected a County Supervisor, he was an appointee. Hodge is a joke.
The bigger issue is will Hannah-Beth really crack down on public pensions, take on the prison guards union, and hold the inevitable and coming tax increases to a reasonable amount?
DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Binky, your link to http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09...
was very good; on pg 8 "Per pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public elementary-Seconary Schools Systems by State 2008-2009" has Calif. spending $9,657 per child...it involves some math to figure out CA's placement since it is alphabetically ranked.... But let's not compare CA to the poorest states in the Union, Mississippi [$8,075 at the bottom with Tenn., Oklahoma, and OH MY Utah at $6353 per kid], look at states with pretty good public school systems:
New York spends $18,126 per child in public school and they openly tell you this is not enough.
Connecticut spends $14,531, Mass. spends $14,118, New Jersey $16,271...it goes on like this.
Starving public education, and crying out about "massive public pension obligattions" is shortsighted, anti-society, and illogical since we will all need well-paid American workers contributing to Social Security...
Support the local tax measures for education, support Hannah-Beth Action Jackson, support Mayor Schneider's proposals.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, "Botany," you said: "We have higher property tax revenues than any other state in the country yet we still can't make ends meet."
"Revenues' highest; check.
Also, California is the most populated state.
So, what can your statement mean?
-- That there is a big pot of money, AND a lot of people upon whom it must be spent. Hardly the damning claim you intended.
Maybe other states have more per person to spend -- and it turns out they do:
::: State and Local Property Tax Collections Per Capita, Fiscal Year 2009:
--- California is #15 at $1,465
--- New Jersey is #1 at $2,663
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/...
Maybe you think -- and it seems like you do -- that California home owners are the most oppressively taxed in the U.S.?
Here's another cool chart for your edification:
:: Property Taxes on Owner-Occupied Housing
as Percentage of Median Home Value,by State Calendar Year 2010
-- California clocks in at #34, an effective rate of .78% (below the US median of 1.14%)
-- New Jersey, #1 at 2.01% -- almost 3 times our effective tax rates! (And again New Jersey beats us! )
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/...
============
All of this is to say, Mr. Botany, that your original statement -- without my generous interpretation -- is essentially meaningless.
Or, you intended to promote an entirely different idea, which was plainly wrong.
I'll leave it to you to solve your cognitive dissonance.
binky (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Binky, are you trying to promote an entirely different idea by focusing on property taxes at #34? The TOTAL tax rate (that's property, income and sales) puts us in 6th place. Why is being #6 too low? Dr. Dan seems to think so. He thinks we should be number 1. Should we be the highest taxing state in the nation or is being #6 already too high?
Botany (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
not #1, just get public ed expenditures up to 18,000 or 20,000 and honor our public pension commitments (after capping and reforming a la Brown, which the Repubs love)
DrDan (anonymous profile)
May 22, 2012 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Mike Stoker waits in the wings."
Stoker would not be running against Jackson or Hodge had "business interests" been successful at securing Stoker an appointmentment to CARB earlier this year:
http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/th...
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2012 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In another comment thread, EastBeach reminds us (and me in particular) that Stoker actually won an election back in the late '80s/early '90s to represent North County's Supervisorial District.
I am in error on an earlier comment I made in this thread (May 20, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.).
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Mike Stoker waits in the wings."
Because no circus is complete without a clown.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
May 28, 2012 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Jackson has raised about $450,000; while most is from within the district, she has received substantial sums from public-employee unions, including the California Teachers Association"
Now it makes sense. Back circa 2000 when she was running for office, I got a flyer from her campaign in the mail. She said she was against school vouchers because it would give money to religious schools, and would take money away from public schools. While there may be other legitimate reasons to oppose vouchers, her "religious" argument is invalid because it is the parents who choose what school on which the money is spent. (Unless Jackson is admitting her prejudice against people who believe in God) Also, if the public schools are worried about losing money by not having as many kids attending, it suggests they are padding the bill per student.
I contacted her twice about this; twice by e-mail, and once by regular mail, and never received a response. Conflict of interest perhaps?
At this point, I'm supporting Hodge.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. Bear in mind her husband is judge George Eskin. While there is no technical conflict-of-interest, it seems judges being so closely allied with (at this point it time--possible) elected officials makes me a bit uncomfortable. Just my opinion.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 29, 2012 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill, I don't think her position on vouchers is invalid due to her point that they would help religious schools with gov't monies: the First Amendment precludes the government using everyone's tax funds to support religiously-affiliated schools. I am all for the Catholic schools and e.g. Notre Dame here in town, but public money vouchers cannot be used at them.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
June 2, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)