California Update: The 50-50 Proposition

As California enters the final phase leading up to its Nov. 4 special election and a vote on Proposition 50, plenty of unknowns surround the fate of the controversial ballot measure that would redraw California’s congressional districts to offset a Republican-led gerrymander in Texas.

Hoover senior fellow Lee Ohanian and distinguished policy fellow Bill Whalen, both contributors to Hoover’s California on Your Mind web channel, discuss the tactics and messaging behind Prop 50 (does a pair of governors playing starring roles mean too much Gavin Newsom, too little Arnold Schwarzenegger?), why the upscale town of Calabasas ended up as a toxic waste site for Los Angeles fire debris, the failure of a prominent former legislator to gain traction in next year’s governor’s race despite her compelling life story, plus the travails of UCLA’s football program – what the Bruins’ struggles on and off the field say about the state of college football in the Golden State.

Recorded on September 30, 2025.

Episode Transcript

(00:04):
- It is Tuesday, September 30th, 2025,
and you are listening to Matters of Policy
and Politics, a HooverInstitution podcast devoted
to governance and thebalance of power here in
America and around the free world.
I'm Jonathan Movroydis.
I'm sitting in the chair of Bill Whalen,
the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter,Distinguished Policy Fellow
and journalism so thathe can answer questions
and provide commentaryabout California policy
and politics in which he's well versed.

(00:25):
Bill Whalen, in addition
to being a WashingtonPost columnist, writes
for Hoover's, California on Your Mind.
Web Channel Whalen is joined today
by Lee Ohanian HooverInstitution, Senior Fellow
and Professor of Economics,
and the director of the EdFamily Program in macro economic
research at the Universityof California Los Angeles.
Ohanian also writes about thepolicy, policy environment
of the Golden State forCalifornia on your mind.

(00:46):
Good day gentlemen. Let's talkabout the latest developments
in policy and politicsin the Golden State.
The last time we recordedgentlemen in August,
the legislature wasfinalizing Proposition 50
for the November 4th special election.
So let's pick up where we left off.
The main, the main themehere being the uncertainty
of it all in August, EmersonCollege poll shows 51%

(01:06):
to 34% favoring theupcoming ballot measure.
However, ballot measures havehistorically started high
and finished low at thetime of the election
of at the time of election.
Bill, do you have aprognosis for Proposition 50?
- My short and smart answeris if I do, Jonathan,
I would collect all ourmoney and hop a plane
to some country whereyou can bet on this stuff
and, and make a killing.
No, it's really, it's prop 50

(01:27):
and it's kind of a 50 50proposition in this regard.
It's a special election
and a note to Californiawho may be getting tired
of politics right now, this isour fifth statewide election.
Now in the last six years,
if you include this specialelection on November 4th,
and then the recall effortagainst Governor Newsom back in
2021, so five outta six.
So forgive Californiafor being a little tired

(01:48):
of politics right now,but a hard one to predict
because it's a special election.
So we don't know what theturnout model will be.
So that makes polling a little tricky,
which makes pollsters decideshould we go for likely voters
or registered voters, andthat could change numbers.
The 51 34 number you mentioned,Jonathan, is intriguing
because it does show majority support,

(02:08):
but as you mentioned,initiatives start high
and tend to finish low.
So maybe there is a, a sortof a skeptical rush at the end
and kills the thing.
And then messaging, which I want
to get into here in a few minutes,
both sides are making a very calculated
risk here on the yes, on 50 side,
the YES campaign is the one that wants to

(02:30):
redesign California'scongressional districts add five
more democratic seats.
Their message is pretty muchentirely anti Donald Trump anti
maggot, maybe a potent message in a state
where Donald Trump has never received
40% of the statewide vote.
The no side little complicated
'cause there is not one no campaign,
but a couple of no campaigns
and their messaging sort

(02:50):
of is all over the map, if you will.
So Lee
and Jonathan just kind of a big roll
of the dice come November 4th.
Who knows? Maybe Lee knows
- Well, yeah, who knows?
It's, I was gonna sayI'm two minds on this.
I think I've, I've changed,I'm one mind on this.
I wish it wasn't happening
because this biggest state in the country,

(03:13):
and it's gonna be completely
and blatantly gerrymanderedwith the potential to go
to 48 out of 52 house seatsto be Democrat, right?
And this is not a partisan,this is not a partisan issue,
it's just an issue about makingsure people have reasonable
set of representation.
Last general election, Ibelieve close to 40% voted

(03:34):
for Trump in California.
Believe it or not, those 40%should have more of a voice
than 8% of the house seats.
Bill, you know, I've seen,I've seen some inter,
at least I believe, twointerviews with Schwartzenegger.
Do you see him politically?

(03:55):
Do you see him being ableto move the needle on this
because the money beingraised, it looks like it's
much more money being raised on,
on the yes side than on the no side.
- Yeah. So I do have somenumbers on the, on the money.
This is last week. So not,
not entirely fresh, but relatively fresh.
The yes side governor Newsom's side Lee,

(04:16):
they've raised about $77 million.
The no side, the twono campaigns combined,
about $35 million Lee
and 30 million of that comesfrom Charles Munger Jr.
For those not in California,who don't know who Mr.
Munger is, he is a physicisthere at Stanford University,
and he is the namesakeson of Charles Munger Sr.
Who is the famed investorat Berkshire Hathaway. Mr.

(04:39):
Munger puts money intoCalifornia politics on occasion.
He put a lot of money into theoriginal redistricting plan
back in 2008,
which created the independentRedistrict Commission,
which Proposition 50 isnow putting on a hold.
So think about this for a second.
You have this Democraticpower play in California.
You have Republicans
who desperately wanna hold onto the House

(04:59):
of Representatives, which iswhat DRI is driving this train,
because what Californiais doing is they countered
what Texas is doing, which is trying
to take away fiveDemocratic seats in their,
in their mid decade gerrymander.
But yet you only see $5 million outside
of Charlie Munger being raised.
So what's going on here?
One thing that's going on, Kevin McCarthy,

(05:19):
the former speaker of thehouse from Bakersfield,
California, said he wouldraise a hundred million
dollars to kill this.
The last I checked, he'sraised about $5 million.
And so it's, you know, thatjust might be politics,
the quid pro quo of politics.
What can a former speaker
or former member of Congress do
for you in return for giving money?
So the yes campaign hasthe money advantage,

(05:40):
but money doesn't necessarily by you love
to steal the line from the Be Beatles
to translate into California politics.
I can point you to initiatives galore
that have outspent like crazy,
but have also lost, as you will.
The Arnold Schwarzeneggerquestion fascinates me
because he was governor,left office in 2011,
has not really been deeplyinvolved in California politics.

(06:03):
Lee and Jonathan, he's beenmore involved in national
politics in terms of tone
and tenor of Republicansin the era of Trump.
Now here he is divinginto a California matter.
And why is that? Becausehe, it was under his watch
that we created the independentRedistrict Commission.
It's a big, big deal inthe Arnold legacy world.
You know, the people versusthe powerful, yada yada yada.

(06:23):
And you see him on TV now.
But if you look inside polls,
when you ask Californiansabout Arnold, the Emerson poll,
the Emerson College poll, the one
that showed a 54 51 34 race,about 66% of Californias said
that Arnold doesn't reallymove the needle for them.
That doesn't speak wellto his stature right now,
15 years out of office,

(06:44):
but it's maybe not a quantitybit of quality argument.
Lee and Jonathan, maybe hecan move those independents
who the no campaign needs,
or maybe he can pulla few Democrats aside.
So, yeah, so this is yetanother angle on this,
which Prop 50, whichfascinates it's, yes, it's a,
it's a question of GovernorNewsom's attractiveness since he
is the star of the yes ads.
And it's a question of ArnoldSchwarzenegger's lasting

(07:05):
legacy in California.
- Oh yeah, it is interesting.Newsom is really the face
of this, and Yeah, it seemsobvious that this is an avenue
for him to think about.
2028, there's a Ugo poll.
It is recent, just fourweeks ago that had,
that was a national poll.
The sample size was not huge.

(07:25):
So that's, you know,
so treat this statistic I'm gonna give you
with some caution, but hisunfavorable was at minus 10.
So this is a special election,
like primary special elections attract
those on the extremes.
You know, you can look at whathappened in the New York City
in the, in the mayoral race.

(07:46):
We've got, you know, mom Donny, who
in my opinion should not be on the ballot,
but I think that's because the,
the extremes came out to vote.
So I suspect it'll be the same thing here.
I, I'm curious as towhat the turnout will be.
This has changed inthe state constitution,
so I hope people dolook at this carefully.
But you know, the moreI look at California

(08:08):
and Bill, you know, you
and I have done this over the years now,
I really worry about voter engagement
and just how seriously votersare considering the ballot
propositions that they're looking at.
But this lit, this ischanging the constitution.
This will blatant, this isblatant gerrymandering, right?
What I, I sometimes thinkwhat would happen if, if the,

(08:31):
if the, if the federalcourt who's evaluating
the lawsuit in Texas,
if the Texas redistrictingwas, was overturned, I wonder
what would, I wonder what it would,
what would California do?
And I suspect that it wouldjust continue to, to do this.
It it was, it was, it was Arnold's baby.

(08:53):
I think it was an, an exceptional,
I think from all perspectives,whatever party you're in,
I think it was the rightthing to do back in the day.
And I, I, I worry verymuch about the state
and what, how this will evolve
and what people will, willthink about the state in terms
of democratic representation.
If this does get passed,I'm gonna, you know,
if I was a betting man right now,

(09:15):
I would bet against it just
because it is such a major change.
It's a constitutional change.
And you know, the old saw,if it ain't broke, don't,
you know, don't fix it.
I think a lot of voters areprobably in that category,
but it's, it is hard forme to say, I, I hope I,
I hope it doesn't pass justfrom the standpoint that

(09:36):
it seems ridiculous to have astate that would be literally
92.3% democratic representation.
And I would say the samething if it was, if it, if it,
if the tables were turned and, and they,
and it was the otherparty involved, right?
- Keep, keep in mind Lee and Jonathan,
when we talk about turnout in California,

(09:56):
this is not your mom anddad's election in this regard.
We have gone to all mailballots in California.
So this is not like anelection of 25 years ago
where you'd think, oh my gosh,
this is gonna rain on election day.
Or people give polls, things like that.
Today is September the 30th.
By October the fourth,
you should be receivinga ballot in the mail.
So you have in theory, amonth to vote on this thing.

(10:17):
So it's a question of civicengagement, which gets back
to the, what I'm fascinatedwith the messaging thing.
How angry or Californiais with Donald Trump,
how do they see red like theNational Democratic Party
and whatever comes outtaDonald Trump's master mouth has
to be wrong and he'sa threat to democracy.
This is fascism, yada, yada yada.
You guys have all heardthis ad nauseum by now.
So are Californians somotivated in their dislike

(10:38):
of Donald Trump that GavinNewsom could get 50% plus one
of the people who voteon the November 4th two
to go his way.
Now, I wrote a column for,
or a California remind a couple weeks ago
and did offer thisthoughtly, which gets into
what you just suggested a very bad
word to see in California.
Ballot measures is the word temporary.

(11:00):
And here I take you back, lead
to something which you'revery familiar with,
which is taxation in California,
you might remember back in 2012,
we had a temporary taxincrease on the ballot,
I think it was Proposition 30 Lee,
which raised the upperbracket of California.
And it was a temporary taxincrease to last only four years
to get us through a verybad budget situation.
What happened to 2016 LeeProposition 55 goes on the ballot

(11:24):
to extend the temporarytax increase through 2028.
What's gonna happen in2030, Lee, there'll be
yet another extension ofthat temporary tax increase.
Long story short, it's here to stay.
So you look at Proposition 30
and the idea that this isonly a temporary change to
how we do redistricting in California,
that once we get into thenext decade with a new census

(11:46):
and Donald Trump out ofthe way, that we'll go back
to the independent commission.
But Lee, what's gonnahappen if this thing passes?
What's gonna happen tothose five Democrats
who are now sitting in office?
Are the democratic powersthat B gonna say bye-bye.
Thanks for doing this, but theindependent people are gonna
now drive you out of office.
I'm not sure. So I'mwilling to cynically bet you
that come 2030

(12:07):
or 2032 if,
especially if say JD Vanceis in the White House.
And so he can argue theMAGA revolution continues
that California Democrats will come up
with a rather flimsy argument.
They'll say, well, look atredistricting is going on all
over the country right now.
Republicans are playing hardball.
The same logic is, now we have to do this
to counter what they're doing.
I think you could probably wave bye-bye

(12:28):
to the independent redistrictcommission altogether.
I would not be surprised at all.
So buyer beware about, aboutthe word temporary on this fix.
The other thing whichI would point out here,
forgive the ran some
of the advertising on bothsides here is just really
silly or outrageous.
Choose your word here thatno side talks about of about
how voting for this isa vote for open borders.

(12:50):
That's a really pretty wild stretch.
If you're somehow suggestingthat voting for this,
which increases the Democrat's chance
of getting in the house, is somehow gonna
return us to open borders.
I think not DonaldTrump's still in office.
So really kind of a kindof a false argument.
But on the yes side,what do they talk about?
This protects independent redistricting.
What notice this protected,how does it fortify false add?

(13:11):
So both, both sides are playing fast
and loose here. Lee, Jonathan,
- William, when, when youlook at the, the composition
of voters within the state,
there's still a substantialnumber with no party preference.
And I, I hope I, I hopethat those in the middle
will will see through this.
And I do share yourconcerns about the temporary

(13:33):
aspect of this.
If it does go through, Iwould bet that, you know,
for the rest of my lifetime
that we would not see theindependent redistricting
commission come back.
You know, the, the way I lookat the electorate, there's
probably one out of fourvoters I think that probably
where newsom's rantsdo resonate with them.

(13:57):
And if Republicans vote
Republican turn out, ifthey return their mail,
ballots is high
and those in the middle aresufficiently worried about this,
that they either don't vote or,
or vote no, then, then I couldeasily see this going down.
But it really kind of boilsdown on to how, you know, to

(14:18):
how many are really are gonnasend those are gonna send
those mail-in ballots back.
The cost bill is just extraordinary.
The last number I sawwas 282 280 2 million.
And just imagine whatwe could do for schools
or you know, you name the public policy
that we're deficient in
and add in 282 million plus, you know,

(14:41):
the over 100 million that'sbeen spent on the campaign,
- Right?
Here's what directconcern is crazy about the
California Power Establishment.
If you read the actual initiative,
if you read the ballot argument,
what does it say about the cost?
A few million dollars.
It doesn't get to $200 million,
it just says few million dollars.
- Yeah, it's, it is,
it is a little bit mis I meanit's technically correct,
but it's mis it is in my,

(15:01):
it is in my opinion, it's misleading,
- Completely misleading
because the practice is
that the state bails out local costs.
So this is assuming the statewill not bail out local costs.
So again, a another misleading thing,
the other interesting thinghere is what's gonna happen
to Gavin Newsom based on
what happens on November the fourth,
or if this is California the month
after November 4th is thevotes keep getting counted.
'cause you know, thisthing may not get settled

(15:22):
for a few weeks in California fashion.
You keep hearing this languageabout how this is a make
or break moment for Gavin Newsom.
If he doesn't win this,somehow he is torpedoed
as a presidential candidate,
how horribly embarrassing,blah blah, blah.
And I think I talkedabout this on the last
podcast, baloney.
He is, you mentioned polls,Lee, he is at the front

(15:45):
of the Democratic fieldright now based simply on
what he's been doing the pastfew months, just soaking up a,
a lot of oxygen in the,
in the democratic fieldfighting against Donald Trump.
Now we can talk about how dignified it is,
how gubernatorial it is,how statesman, like a lot
of it he's doing right now.
But he is singing atune that Democrats love
because they want somebodyto fight Donald Trump,

(16:07):
even if it's in the samekind of crude manner
that Donald Trump likesto practice politics.
So here's my theory here.
If this thing passes
and Gavin Newsom can deliverfive seats to their house
and the Democrats end upgetting the house next November,
yeah, he's a hero and that'sa, that's a tailwind for him.
If Gavin Newsom loses in California,

(16:28):
the Democrats don't get the five seats.
I think he still gets credit outside
of California for trying.
He may get dinged inCalifornia for losing.
You'll see editorials saying, thanks
for a tremendous waste of time.
Now focus on your day job.
He'll still be in a verypowerful position in Sacramento
though, even though he would be wounded.
And why is that? It's thesame reason why you see groups
that normally would opposeProp 50 backing off it

(16:50):
because you have to deal
with an incumbent governorregardless of the outcome.
And incumbent governors carry a lot
of juice in Sacramento when itcomes to getting money spent,
bills passed and so forth.
So I, again, I just Lee, I don't see
how Newsom really loses here.
- No, I I I agree Billy, it is,
it's there's a sense fromwhich it's a win-win for him.

(17:10):
- Yeah. - And I think that'swhy he's really putting all
his eggs in this basket.
It also illustrates anotheraspect of his governorship,
which is what would the positive vision
that he could run on he isportraying, you know, he's going
to the mad saying, I'mthe guy fighting Trump.
I'm the guy fighting mags.

(17:31):
I am the person who on, on Twitter, on x
who is, who is mocking the president.
And, and that's a hundredpercent of his plan right now.
He's not going on saying, here's
what I've done for California.
Look how many, look how muchbetter the schools have become.
Look how much better the roads are.
Look how much more water conveyance on

(17:53):
water storage we have.
Look how we have made life better
for the median voter in California.
And there's, there's none of that.
And I think it also highlights where the,
where the National Democratic Party is.
- Yes.- In terms of, you've got a guy who's,
who's a 10 point unfavorable, who seems
to be the leading candidate right now

(18:14):
and you know, try to get yourhead around that nationally,
there's the Democratic party is
and Republican party arepretty evenly split at about 25
to the low thirties.
No party preference again isthe dominant portion of voters.
I don't see anything he's doing right now
that's gonna resonate withthem at the national level.

(18:36):
You just have to have, you haveto have not only a vision of
what you're gonna do for the country,
but you have to, you haveto point to a track record.
20 years ago you could pointto do some track record,
I think as, as mayor of SanFrancisco where he could say,
Hey look, I did gaymarriage look, I put a lot
of homeless on buses and sentthem home to their families
and actually very few came back.

(18:57):
That would be a trackrecord you can point to,
but I don't see thoseaccomplishments for him now in his,
in his seventh year, wewe're about a year from the,
the election things move here glacially.
So I just don't see the potentialof them being, being able
to deliver on any
of those previous campaignpromises ranging from

(19:18):
homelessness to housing, both
of which have gotten worseunder, under his watch.
So interesting, interestingpolitical times.
- He is a smart politician, Lee
and Jonathan, I cantell you, having worked
for a California governor back in the day,
when you go from year seven to year eight,
you commission a couple ofpeople to look at the record
and you look at everythingyou promised along the way.

(19:39):
So you go back to your first campaign
and your second campaign,you look at your state
of the state addresses, youlook at your budget addresses,
you look at promises made
and promises kept plain and simple.
And you come up with a tally sheet.
And so I'd argue that 2026 reNewsom will be an exercise in
trying to check a few of those boxes have
been checked so far.
But the other thing whichintrigues is Gavin Newsom has a

(20:00):
rather chameleon-like approach to politics
and what have we seen in thepast year from him at various
points, he has been very conciliatory
with Donald Trump trying tobe nice with Donald Trump.
And he has gone 180 degrees
and been just an, has justan absolute Trump baher.
He has lately gauged in theissue of disgruntled young men

(20:20):
just feeding off of theCharlie Kirk shooting.
And before that he was doingpodcasts with Charlie Cook
and Steve Bannon againtrying to be an open arms guy
before going to this current basher
form that he's in right now.
So now he has discoveredthe plight of young men,
which is very interestingbecause his wife,
the first partner, JenniferSiebel Newsom has quite the
track record of bashingmale toxicity in her

(20:41):
documentaries and her body of work.
So kind of instant contradictionthere, if you will.
So the point is who knowswhat he gloms on to next.
Sure. Finger wedding, a lotof it goes on in politics.
You look at when Bill Clintonran for office in 1992, ran
for the presidency, a lotof finger wetting there
and kind of tasting whichway the winds were blowing.
But Clinton's smart enough tokind of recognize what it took

(21:02):
to get 270 electoral votes.
This is the question with Newsom,
for all the attention he is getting, Lee
and Jonathan, the bumps in the polls,
the talk about being the2028 Omni and so forth.
Is he really puttinghimself in a better position
to campaign in, you know,purple states, you know,
battleground states acrossAmerica, which Lee ties into
what you just said about California.

(21:24):
What does his recordlook like in California?
I have this working theorythat the 2028 election
of Gavin Newsom is involvedcould look very much like the
1988 election in
that you would have a vicepresident on one side,
JD Vance playing the role
of George HW Bush versus a governor
or former governor GavinNewsom in this case playing the
role of Michael Dukakis.

(21:44):
Newsom is a stronger campaigneron any day than Michael
Dukakis a different personality.
But Lee and Jonathan, theapproach would be the same
for the Republican campaign.
You would just deconstruct the home state.
And so whereas the Bushcampaign first went
after, you know, Massachusettsat Boston Harbor and,
and then went after Willie Horton
and things like that, youwould see I think a very smart
Republican campaign picker barCalifornia with homelessness,

(22:07):
with poverty, with, you know, just,
you know, the high speed rail.
Just, you know, the notionof government gone bad.
- Yeah. So, you know,
I think it'd almost be likeshooting fish in a barrel
for the Republicans particularlyadvances the candidate.
He's a very high IQ guy.
He's quick, he sees through things,
he's a really good debater.
And, and some of the, youknow, some of it in terms

(22:28):
of nuisance future dependson who else, who else,
who else rises in on the Democratic side.
If it was somebody likeAndy Becher that, that's,
that's a candidate who canpoint to, Hey, I'm a Democrat,
I'm running Kentucky
and Kentucky's a red state soI can reach across the aisle.

(22:48):
It's not, it's not evenreaching across the aisle.
He says, I can get stuffdone. That's nonpartisan.
People appreciate the way it's been money,
- He trying to present arational argument to a party
that's convinced it's 1935 redux.
We're in Nazi Germany, so,
- Sure.
Yeah. And, and if that's the case,
then they're gonna lose again, speaking
- Speaking which, yeah.
And speaking of 2020, getting back

(23:09):
to the messaging on Prop 50,I see ads with Governor Newso,
I see ads with senator,
maybe gubernatorialcandidate Alex Padilla.
We'll get to that in a minute.I don't see a OCI don't see
20, 28 people showingup here in California.
So what did the Romans sayabout the Mediterranean Ma
Norstrom?
This is kind of the manostrom for Gavin Newsom, my
California.
- Well, gentlemen, let's talkabout wildfires in this state,

(23:32):
Lee, you explained your recent column
for California on your mindthat the Palisades fire,
the most destructive firesin Los Angeles County.
History left behind a scar
that is measured not onlyin the 50,000 acres burned
and 18,000 homes incinerated,
but also in the 2.6 millions tons
of waste those homes became, that mountain
of ash has become anightmare for the Kardashians

(23:52):
and every person livingin Calabasas, California,
about 40 miles northwest ofLos Angeles, where debris
and ash from the fires havebeen dumped into a landfill
that sits within thecommunity of 23,000 people.
Lee, how did Calabasas endup as a proverbial wasteland?
- Well, you know, Johnson,it is, it is interesting.
Calabasas has become, I guess,you know, the, you know,

(24:13):
today's version of ofBeverly Hills or Bel Air.
A lot of the celebrities who do not want
to be an LA property,
but who wish to have to livein a very nice community
of May Calabasas their home.
Several of the Kardashians,Justin Bieber, will Smith,
John Travolta,
and this is a community thathas a, that has a landfill.

(24:37):
The landfill in Calabasas is open
for things like ordinarytrash landscape trimmings.
If you wanted do, if you want to toss,
use a batteries in the landfill.
No can do. But one day,
one day people in the Palisades woke up
and they found that the landfillwas being, was accepting

(25:00):
debris from the Palisadesfire, which according
to New New York Times story has
a lot of, I'll just say hastoxic material within that.
And the Calabasas Landfillwas never intended
to be a toxic waste dump.
The closest toxic waste stump is,

(25:21):
I believe about 175 miles away
is EPA monitored EPA managed.
This is an area where therearen't very many people, if any,
that's where that debris should be going
because there is asbestos,there's lead, there's arsenic in
that debris as you'dimagine coming from the fire
that melted, you know, ev batteries

(25:42):
and houses that were builtlong ago that had lead paint
that had other tox materials,
but officials chose not tosend that to toxic debris
to the 175 mile away landfill.
They sent it to Calabasas,they sent it to Simi Valley,
they sent it to Smar

(26:03):
because it was just much more expeditious.
And what was interesting aboutthis is that no matter who,
who you were in Cal in, in Calabasas,
whether you are the Kardashians,who I believe know Newsom,
some people in Cal, in Calabasas,
I think personally no RFK Junior,

(26:23):
who expresses a lot of concernsabout environmental issues
and, and people's health.
Nothing really worked for themother than to file a lawsuit.
Ultimately, what they wantedto do was to test the debris
because,
and this is where itgets just heartbreaking,

(26:45):
the debris from thosefires was not fully tested
for toxic materials.
Right. And if, if youdon't know that it's toxic,
then you say, okay, let's,
let's put it in thelandfill in Simi Valley
or Calabasas or Somar.
Well, the people inCalabasas finally prevailed.
They were allowed to test it.
And voila, ris there weretoxic materials in there.

(27:09):
Now the issue becomes, well,are we gonna dig up those?
You know, I, I think I can't,I can't recall whether it was,
I think, I think the amountdump was in the billions
of pounds over a billion pounds.
So now what do people that cancalabasas to you do they say,
okay, well let's dig it up and,
and then move it somewhere else.
Well, you're gonna haveall that dust flying

(27:30):
around the Calabasas.
There are people who are moving out,
they're worried about Calabasaspotentially becoming a
cancer cluster.
I would have the sameworries if I'd lived there
and I don't know if I would move or not.
But this is, this is justheartbreaking in my opinion.
And just imagine if theprivate sector did this,

(27:50):
if the private sectorfilled put into landfill
toxic materials, they sort
of pretended they didn'tknow it was toxic.
They tried to shut down anypushback from the community.
It brings back memoriesof Aaron Brockovich.
Exactly the old moviewith Julia Robs, well,

(28:12):
Aaron Brockovich is a neighbor, Calabasas,
Aaron Brock Fish took a shot at this.
And you might say, if AaronBrock Fish can't do it, then no,
no attorney can.
So I feel for those people,Calabasas Smar, Simi Valley,
it seems like their rights were abrogated
and they have no, they have no recompense.

(28:34):
And this, this is agovernment that doesn't seem
to be able to protect usfrom natural disasters.
And they don't seem tobe able to be willing
to protect us from the fallout of that.
Even when there were optionssuch as taking that debris
to the EPA toxic waste dump, you know,

(28:55):
over a hundred miles away.
Yes, it would've cost more.
Yes, it wouldn't have beencleaned up quite so quickly,
but in my opinion, it justreally was the wrong thing to do.
- Lee, can you explain how the,
the power structure works here?
Is this the county governmentdeciding where the waste goes
and the county government therefore
trumps the local government?
Is there a state government role

(29:16):
or could the state government come in
and change the decision?
- Well, you know, that'san interesting question.
People were trying to figure out, well,
how is Calabasas picked?
It is, it is close, you know,it is close to the Palisades.
It's just over, just over the hills.
Some said county government picked it.
County government says no.

(29:36):
The Army Corps of Engineers picked it.
The Army Corps of Engineerssaid one, we got a sheet of
where we're supposed to take this stuff
and Calabasas was on there.
So, so it's, again, it's alittle bit like, you know,
hide the p under the walnut shell.
I believe the, you know, I,
I think the state could have intervened.
The state government chose not to,

(29:57):
- I don't know if yousaw it Lee, but Jonathan,
but the LA County supervisorstasked the McChrystal group.
This is General StanleyMcChrystal's group, to do an
after action report of the fires.
And they found thefollowing that their quote,
outdated policies, inconsistent practice
and communications vulnerabilities.
And they add, quote, the process
to communicate in evacuation decision

(30:17):
of the public was slow, convoluted,
and involved multipleleadership roles across county
level departments.
What did you say, Lee? Rismy question to you, Lee, is
we don't know if Los Angeleswill go up in flames.
We know that at some pointit will go up in flames. Why?
It's in a fire zone, plain andsimple, just like adventure.

(30:37):
We'll get an earthquake, eventually we'll
have mudslide problems.
This is how the world treats California.
But Lee, what do you thinkwould be different about Los
Angeles the next time around,
other than presumably themayor will not go off to Ghana.
If there's gonna be trouble,
- What will be different?
Yeah, there'll, there'll be,there'll be another awful fire.
I mean, you just look downthe list every five years
or so, there's an awfulfire in Los Angeles

(30:59):
and you know, sometimes theMalibu this time in Palisades
and the heat and fire in Altadena.
And what will bedifferent depends on who's
in the mayor's office.
If, if Rick Caruso, who ran as a Democrat,
if he'd been elected over bass
and the polls were getting close
when bass, when the electionoccurred a couple years ago,

(31:23):
you know, bill,interestingly, Obama, Clinton,
Biden Harris all came
to strongly support bass.
And they're, and they cameout, several of them came out.
Hillary Clinton came outto do campaign event with,
with Karen Bass, Rick Caruso's,
the Democrat was persona non gRED to them.

(31:46):
He was waiting for the fire.
He was not in Ghana, he was waiting
for the fire at his newPalisades development.
He had commissioned privatefirefighters who had enough time
to drive out from Arizona
to be in the Palisadeswhen the fire broke out.
It all really boils down to leadership.

(32:07):
And I think people havenot fully appreciated just
how awful this was.
And the McChrystal reportbill, which you cite is damning
county officials are trying to,you know, wallpaper it over.
It's obvious. There'sjust a lack of a lack
of prioritization and there'sa real issue of competence.

(32:28):
You know, bill on this, on the, I think
among the county supervisors,
there's one fellow about ayear ago who was on tech,
either Tech talk or Twitter,talking about Ho Chi Minh
and the communist leaders.
And you know, no, you don'thave time in your hands
to, to do that.

(32:49):
We have inadequate protection,
just grossly inadequate protection.
So yeah, it'll happen again, bill.
And if the same kindof people are elected,
it'll be the same typeof, same type of response.
And I was looking atthe Palisades dashboard,
the housing dashboard of, of about 7,500,

(33:11):
about 7500, 7400 structures were destroyed
or damaged.
Out of those, do youwanna take a guess at, at
how many single familyhomes have been rebuilt
for, let me rephrase it.
At the rate we'repermitting at the rate we're
permitting rebuilds.
Do you wanna take a guess athow many months it'll take

(33:32):
before all of those 7,400,
7,500 homes will be, will be completed.
- Go, go for it Jonathan. Take a guess.
- At at at the rate we've seenso far in the nine months,
you wanna take a guess of howmany months, Jonathan, you not
to put you on the spot, man, but
- I can't even, I can'teven begin to guess.

(33:53):
- Okay. 25. 25%.
- Okay, well if you said 25%, then
that would be about four years.
Okay. You wanna take, youwanna take another guess? Okay.
- Four. Okay. 12 and half.12 point half percent.
Is it over 10%?
- If we, if, if, if the permittingcontinued at the rate it
has now there's somegood reasons to believe

(34:16):
that it will speed up.
But if it did continue at the rate it has,
I think it would takesomething like 15 to 20 years.
- Oh well,- Yeah.
So one thing the countyhas become very aggressive
with is brush clearance andbrush clearance citations.
And this story caught my eye the other day
'cause I gets kind of a windowinto the crazy post-fire
world that is Los Angeles.

(34:37):
So brush clearance citations
through Los Angeles is a reorstory have increased by 37%
to 14,840 compared toalmost 11,000 in 2024.
And Reuters goes on theincrease in citations
after news reports of 16,000acres in high fire severity
zones that required inspection
and proposed budget cutsthat would lead to the loss

(34:57):
of three people in the lad'sbrush inspections unit.
So here we have, we havethese terrible fires
and this Los Angeles decideswe're gonna cut our budget
for checking on ininspecting on people's brush.
'cause part of the problem isyou have brush around your,
around your home, the brushcatches fire makes a bad
situation worse.
So the county decides to cutback on on its inspection units

(35:18):
and then once it's caught cutting back on
it, it overcompensates.
And what caught my attentionwas this wonderfully dry quote
by somebody who says veryupset local homeowner
who said quote, sorry,your house burned down,
but go clear your brush,you're gonna be fined $750.
So you've lost your home,you're trying to recover,
you're trying to go throughthe chart remains of your home.
And along comes Los Angelesis gonna nail you with $750.

(35:40):
Fine if they find brushand they don't like it.
Kind of reminds me back whenI lived in Washington DC Lee
and Jonathan and occasionally get blasted
with a terrible snowstorm.
And then the city ofWashington, DC the, the,
the district governmentwould be slow to respond.
About a day or two later,the plows would finally come
through and what would the plows do?
The plows would plow the roads
and bury cars on theside of the road in snow.

(36:02):
And then the cops wouldcome along after that.
They'd issue a ticket on your car,
which is buried under three feet of snow.
So this, this kind of reminds me of
that getting a $750 love notefrom the city on top of that.
And I think now Mayor Basshas apologized to that
and said that they won'tfind people center $50.
But you know, Lee, it'sjust a portrait of a, of a,
of a local government
that just the right hand doesn't even

(36:22):
know what the left hand is doing.
- Yeah, I mean it's almost, you know,
Saturday night live level silliness.
Yeah. There and,
and you know, ironicallythe LA fire department
wanted to wanted within their budget
to staff two full-time,two full-time units

(36:44):
for brush removal in the Palisades.
There's a lot of Chaparralthere, which has a lot of,
which has substantialoil in, in the within it.
And therefore it's, it's just,it is, it's an infer waiting
to happen that was declined,
that was denied within LAwithin LA City, you know,
14 billion or whatever it is, budget.

(37:07):
And you know who was clearing the brush?
It was team volunteers were
clearing the brush.
And again, this just allgoes back to priorities.
Government's first priority is to protect
and just within LA is justwhether is protecting from the
national disaster

(37:27):
or dumping toxic filleddebris in your backyard.
The government I thinkis just failing ally.
- Yeah, words not saidoften on this podcast,
but maybe Los Angelesneeds to look to Sacramento
for wisdom in this regard.
The state government has theOffice of Emergency Services.
I know from when I workedin government many,
many years ago, OES was always very busy
because they're the people likefema, the federal government

(37:49):
who have to respond to natural disasters.
But our OES was alwaysvery quick to respond.
We had good people running it.
And I think if you'rethe mayor of Los Angeles,
that's probably one of thefirst things you wanna do.
If you wanna change it around, look at
what your emergency structureis in la, maybe you need
to create an OES if there's not one there.
And you have to think longand hard about hiring somebody

(38:09):
who just can really kind of kick fanny
and take names at the top of that
because clearly you're gonnabe banging a lot of heads
around Los Angeles to make the city work.
- And Bill your calling thisweek covers the governor's race
in which there are 18 declared candidates.
You examined the chances
of former state assemblyman Ian Calderon,
a millennial just shy, just a month shy

(38:29):
of his 40th birth birthday,who is running as a millennial.
You also mentioned TonyAtkins, former pro tem
of the state Senate who droppedout of the race yesterday.
And you also raised theprospect of a wild card
and US Senator Alex Padilla.
Bill, what does it taketo separate yourself
and assume position asdominant front runner
for statewide office?
- Well, 18 people in this race,

(38:51):
that's not county Kamala Harris
and a lady Kuna Lakas whodropped out of the race.
So Lenny Kuna Lakas isour lieutenant governor
and it's not countingSenator Padilla who may
or may not get in, but he shouldbe making a decision soon.
It's the clown car ofAmerica's gubernatorial races.
Not to insult hardworkingclowns everywhere
by luck them into politicians.
But it's how many more peoplecould run in this race.

(39:14):
My angle with Tony Atkins was this,
for those not familiar shehails from the San Diego area.
She is a former assembly speaker
and state senate President Pro Tim.
She has a very compelling life story.
She grew up very poor in Appalachia.
They didn't have indoor plumbing.
She was the first person in her family

(39:35):
to graduate from college.
It's a real kinda likeArnold Schwarzenegger
who grew up under veryimpoverished conditions in Austria.
There's a real kind ofbootstraps message here.
And she is openly gay.
She is the first lesbianpresident of the Senate
and I think the second lesbianspeaker of the assembly.
Yet, if you look at the pollsright now in the clown car

(39:56):
raced, she is sittinganywhere from one to 2%.
So the question is, what's going on here?
I started thinking about this
after I read Kamala Harris' book,
or I read the ex Arizona Under
of the Stomach to read the whole thing.
107 days is the name of the book.
And by the way, and thebig news out of that was
that she agonized over whether
or not to put Pete Judi, PeteBodi on the ticket last year,

(40:19):
the transportation secretarywho's also openly gay,
but she decided againstit why she didn't think
that America had stomach awoman of mixed race married
to a Jewish man and thenbringing along a gay candidate.
On top of that, shethought it was too much
for America to stomach.
So my first thought was,is Tony Atkins problem
that California is justa bastion of homophobia

(40:40):
and she can't getanywhere 'cause she's gay?
And the answer is no. If you look at
where California is on thetopic of sexuality right now,
we have changed a lot overthe last 15 to 20 years.
Back in 2008, we had a verycontentious ballot measure,
proposition eight, thedefinition of marriage.
It said very simply, marriageis between a man and a woman.
And it went on the ballot,a huge fight over it.

(41:01):
And it passed a very bad moment.
Lee, Jonathan for Gavin Newsom,
because he was the star in the ads,
the star in the no campaign,the yes campaign ads.
Because remember Newsom famously came out
after a a state supreme court decision
and said it's kind on whether you like it
or not, it was kind of newsom
and full throttle obnoxiousness.
And it really helpedpush that thing over the,
over the finishing line.

(41:22):
You fast forward now to 2024
and the ballot measure proposition three,
which strikes the Prop eight language
and just says that everyonehas a rec to be married if they
so choose other words,it's both hetero and, and,
and same sex at the same time.
And it passes overwhelmingly,California is moving just
as politicians are moving.

(41:43):
Barack Obama was against gaymarriage when he ran in 2008.
Switched his, changed his mind in 2012.
Donald Trump for the wholeconservative MAGA agenda.
Donald Trump doesn't have anyproblems, same sex marriage.
He's always kind of dodged.
If you look at his administration,
he has a gay treasury secretary,I think they call them the,
a gays in the administration.
Just gay men and gay women,A powerful positions.

(42:04):
So getting back to TonyAtkins, is she stuck in
that position because of her sexuality?
No, she's stuck in that position
because of the nature ofCalifornia Governor's races,
which are very muscularaffairs leader, Jonathan,
if you have name recognition
and if you have special interest money
and you also have special
interests, it can turn out the vote.
You're in the catbirds position
and right now she lacks the money

(42:25):
and that she has one labor
endorsement, not much in that way.
So she's stuck in that one to 2% position.
And getting back to AlexPadilla, if he jumps in the race,
I think like in 2024 whenNancy Pelosi pushed money in
Adam Schiff's way in the Senate race,
you'll see money pushedin Alex Padilla's race.
Why is that? NationalDemocrats hate Katie Porter.

(42:46):
Why she went to Congress
and trashed earmarks mostthe general pain in the butt
to Nancy Pelosi and the powers that be.
They don't want her tobe California governor.
They will back Padilla
and Padilla's buddies with Governor Newsom
who will put his muscle behind that
and probably get special interest.
So even though Padilla is notvery strong in polls right
now, I imagine once he got in,
you would see that take off as well.
So anyway, it's a lot oframbling on about Tony Atkins,

(43:08):
but I'm just very fascinatedby the idea that somebody
who has a very compelling life story,
who would've a veryinteresting narrative if she
became a serious contender.
First the state's first gay
governor, she's not getting anywhere. Lee,
- No, Tony Atkins has justnever had any traction.
And it really does boildown to name recognition.
She, she's not known outside district.

(43:30):
I mean, no, literally no one knows her.
And I think she had about,I think she had about
$4.2 million per campaign.
That's not gonna be enoughto go where she needs to go.
And I, I think voterswant somebody who's gonna,
who's gonna do a good job.
At the end of the day, they,they don't care about their

(43:51):
sexuality or their political preferences.
They just wanna know theycan get the job done.
And that really, I think,highlights just the, what it seems
to me is really just a patriot system.
Now, within the Democraticparty within California,
it's who gets anointed?
I mean, years ago, GavinNewsom was anointed.

(44:12):
Kamala Harris was anointed.It began with Willie Brown.
And once you get into theDemocratic party machine within a
one party state, a lot of doors open up.
And Kamala Harris went into the Senate
and Gamon Newsom, hetried run for governor
after Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown decided

(44:35):
that he wanted a second shotat Newsom, invited his time
as Lieutenant governor.
So now we're in a situationwhere you have a lot of names
with almost no recognitionother than there's a little bit
of recognition for Katie Porter.
And one reason is
because she lost in the US Senate race

(44:56):
where Adam Schiff won.
So people at least know, know her name,
they don't know the names,essentially of several
of the other candidates via OSA is,
is running and yet via OSAis long removed from his days
and is as an LA politician,you know, bill, what, what what

(45:19):
what makes me just sodisappointed is that,
is that I would think that,you know, if you want that,
if you wanted to win, you needto take a chance, you need
to separate yourselffrom the other Democrats.
None of 'em have done that.
You know, they all do Regerpledge to take on Donald Trump.

(45:41):
They all do Reger pledge tomake the state more affordable.
But then they also talk about, well,
we're gonna preserve thestate's bullet train,
which again is just is in my opinion,
throwing good money after bad.
They want to provideundocumented immigrants
Medi-Cal healthcare benefits.
And without going into thesocial cultural immigration

(46:05):
aspects of that, that is dollars
that is gonna strain the budget.
You have a budget
that is risen over 60% sinceGavin Newsom entered office,
and yet the essentials are not getting,
are not getting done.
There's a sense in which they're trying
to kinda out immigrant EE each other.

(46:30):
Yeah, Tony Thurman talked about that.
I think he's probably also,
and I'm guessing thethree to 4% range bill.
Yep. Yes. And Zary er has talked about the
importance of immigrants.
So I didn't, you know, Ihaven't seen anything from,
from the candidatesthat makes me think that

(46:50):
California would fare betterunder them than they have
under, under Governor Newsom.
They all talk about, well,we're gonna build more housing.
Well, Gavin Newsom said he was gonna make
housing a Marshall plan.
He, he's roughly 20, 25% below
what his, what his goalwas to put it differently.

(47:10):
You look at California housing starts,
it really doesn't lookany different now than
before when Newsom Newsom took office,
despite all these new laws being passed.
Bill, I agree totallywith you about Porter.
She's not well liked in DC Shehas a difficult personality.
She is, she te shetaught law at uc, Irvine,

(47:33):
she comes across, I wouldsay she has a personality of,
of a consumer advocate.
Let's fight big business,let's fight corporations.
Let's try to represent thelittle person when they're
getting, you know, messed overby big business interests.
That's not what Californianeeds right now.
There's nothing wrong withbeing a consumer advocate,

(47:54):
but there's just so many other issues
and she's pledged, she wouldsign a SB 79, which is,
in my opinion, a terrible housing bill.
It would destroy local zoning laws
and permit high densityhousing within a half a
mile of transit stop.
So people who,
who invested their life savingsin a single family home,

(48:16):
you, you know, if SB79 is signed by Newsom,
you might have, you might have a house,
you might have a multi-storyhousing unit right next to you.
And that's not gonna say,that's not gonna make move the
needle whatsoever in termsof California housing.
It's, it is, I dunno, it isdepressing when you look at the
dance card on the Democraticside, it is depressing.

(48:38):
Bill there, was there what,there was a recent debate
between, between the candidates,
but I don't believe eithereither Republican was
part of that, were they?
- No, it was a Democratic roadshow.
You know, it's interestingly,if you, getting back
to Ian Calderon in hiscampaign, as Jonathan mentioned,
he is, he turns 40 in October
and he's pushing very hardthe whole millennial vibe

(49:00):
because he's runningagainst an older field.
And actually, if you lookup the average age average
of California governors,
Jerry Brown was 36 whenhe was elected in 1974.
He was the oldestelected governor as well.
But the average age in recenttimes is about mid fifties.
So it was kind of a sweet spot there.
So Conone is ahead of that.
He was ahead of that whenhe was at the legislature.
You know, think he was theyoungest majority leader in the

(49:22):
assembly as well.
If when he first gotin, he put out a video
and pushed very hard on thenotion that, you know, I'm young
and I get it, people are getting squeezed
and they're getting squeezedby bad decisions in Sacramento.
That's kind of thumbing themachine. But here's the problem.
He's a product of the machine.
His father was in the legislature.
He has two uncles whoare in the legislature.

(49:43):
His stepmother is occupyingthe seat he wants occupied.
So he is a Colorado slashKennedy in that regard.
And so he's not really an outsider either.
So if you're looking fordiese, if you're looking
for somebody who'sgonna hold up the candle
and let you down the capitol
and show you what's wrong,I don't think that creature,
at least on the democraticside, is in the field.
- You know, Billy, it'sinteresting when you mentioned

(50:05):
Padilla, he is Californiase senior senator.
He's made, you know, he'smoved the needle a bit.
He is, had some bills.
Bills he introduced and passedinto law that would seem
to be a really politicallyrisky move for him
to become governor ofCalifornia when it's not
obvious that he would win.
I suspect he would if he entered,

(50:27):
but oh my God, talk abouta thankless job right now.
- Well, but figure it this way, Lee.
He's in the United States Senate,he's on the minority side.
The Democrats are not gonnaget back the Senate in 2026.
The numbers just don't add up.
If you look at 2028, it's not much better.
And so it's Republicansenate for the time being.
So there he is on the minority side,

(50:47):
which means he can't really investigate,
he can't really have any showboat moments.
What's his big moment
as a senator was getting putdown on the ground and, and
and handcuffed when he wastrying to crash a what?
A what was it? A, a femaNo, it was A-A-D-H-S
press conference with Kirsty.
That's his moment. As asenator, you can't really point
to any legislative accomplishments.

(51:07):
He's kind of a nothingburger in that regard.
So why not get out of that job
and go become governor for eightyears and see what happens.
So I, you know, I do the moveto, I worked for Pete Wilson
who made the same move in 1990.
It's part of a larger trendin politics, by the way,
where you're seeing senators on both
persuasions bailing out early.
Jodi Ernst in Iowa, she'sleaving after two terms.

(51:29):
If you know the Senatehistorically, what happens
after, as a senatesenator wraps up his, his
or her second term, they go back
and figure how to break theircampaign pledge, promising not
to serve more than two terms,some phony listening to her
and so far, but she's had it
after 12 years in Washington,Marshall Blackburn,
you're seeing her going back to run
for governor of Tennessee.
So the Senate is not what itused to be, which was centris

(51:53):
and collegial and abunch of guys hanging out
and playing squash andsitting in the sauna talking
about the world problems.
It's angry, it's partisan.
There's a lot of vendettapolitics going on back and forth.
And so if Ira Padilla,
I'd probably think about comingback here and running too.
The problem though, Lee, is
that I'm not sure if the guyreally will be a good governor
or not, because again, you gotta show
me what's he accomplished.

(52:14):
- Yeah, the what surprises me is that, is
that there's no one on thatslate as far as I can tell, that
has absorbed
and absorbed the messagefrom November of last year
that maybe has read Ezra Klein's book
and has said, you know what?

(52:35):
I, we do need some new ideas.
The status quo has failed miserably,
and I'm gonna be the guy orthe gal to move the needle
- Now.
But, but again, Lee, the,the, the angry beating pulse
of the Democratic party isnow turning on Ezra Klein.
If you, if you look at what's happening
to him in social media, he'sgetting flanked by Democrats
- As well.

(52:55):
Is that right? Is that right? Yeah.
You know, it's interesting,I haven't read the book.
I read a review of thebook written by a guy
who knows some economics
and it liter, you know, it literally is
some prominent Democratsin 2025 rediscovered
what Adam Smith had to say about
how an economy works backin 1776 in his famous book,

(53:15):
the Wealth of Nations,
- In a previous incarnation,
Gavin Newsom was embracingthe abundance agenda.
So too, I think it sounds like Lee
and Jonathan at Lee's gonna miss Gavin
Newsom when he leaves office.
- I really hope we don't,
because that means we're in,we're gonna be in bad shape.
- Gentlemen, let's cap off this podcast
by talking about UCLAfootball, which I'm sorry
to say Lee is oh four.

(53:37):
They fired their, their coach
Deshaun Foster, and they're in danger
of going entirely winless this see season
a couple weeks ago in an emptyRose Bowl, they lost by 15
to a New Mexico team.
It paid $1.5 million to come to Pasadena
schools have enlisted accomplished sports

(53:58):
and business executives andUCLA grades to find a new coach.
Should have follow the Stanford model.
It could bring in AndrewLuck, someone like Andrew Luck
to serve as the football's game manager.
But, but the bigger questionis, can California public
universities play the same gameas current powerhouses deal
with, with NIL money?
You know, you see current state,

(54:19):
state schools like the TechUniversity of Texas, Ohio State,
Texas a and m, and theOregon, Oregon Ducks
and LSU are all state schoolsthat, you know, play a,
play a bigger game with in the NIL Ali.
Why does UCLA have a spending problem?
- Yeah, UCLA has a spending problem and,
and that's on top of our $1.2 billion bill

(54:39):
that the Trump administrationis, has, has delivered to us.
You know what, we'vejust, we, meaning UCLA,
I've been there, you know, 25years, we have just made a lot
of bad spending decisions.
We've, I believe the athleticsdepartment is in deficit
to the university by overa hundred million dollars.

(55:01):
I don't know if that's the exact number,
but we have hired many coaches
and we have fired many coaches.
And when you fire 'em,there's a buyout contract
or there's a buy clause withinthe contract that says, okay,
you get fired and we've gottawrite you a million, you know,
several million dollar check.
So that's, you know, that'shappened for a number of years.

(55:24):
UCLA football, you know,
probably hasn't beensystematically relevant since that,
since going back tomaybe the 1980s or 1990s.
Believe it or not. We didhave a ten two season about 10
or 12 years ago.
But, but that was a littlebit of an anomaly. Yeah.
So we've, yeah, we'vehired football coaches,

(55:46):
we fired football coaches,we've hired basketball coaches,
we fired basketball coaches.
We, we owe them a lot of money.
And by gosh, you know, whenyou pay somebody a million
and a half dollars tocome to your home stadium,
they're supposed to, I'm sayingthis ally, they're supposed
to lay down the loops.
I suspect that, you know, ifyou go on, if you go on StubHub

(56:06):
or one of the ticket, one ofthe ticket platforms, the day
of the UCLA game, I, you,
you can probably buy tickets for $10.
You look at those dronevideos of the Rose Bowl,
which can hold over 90,000.
And I wonder if
full paying customers, ifthere are more than 15,000,

(56:28):
we, we are, we are, we are done in,
and Jonathan y we candefinitely, you know,
state school can definitelyplay the anal game.
Most of, most of the topfootball schools now,
as you mentioned, you can putOklahoma in their Alabama,
Georgia, Florida, they've,
these are all schools that,that are state schools

(56:51):
and there's no reason whythey, you can't play the game.
But when your athleticsdepartment is in deficit over a
hundred million dollars and theuniversity's saying a one is
facing a $1.2 billion bill from the,
from the administration, it's hard to,
it is hard to write checks.
So I suspect, yeah, I suspectwe very well could go winless.

(57:14):
That would be, that wouldbe very grim for, for us.
But that's very, that's certainly,
that's certainly possible.
- Now in fairness, UCLA,
there could be a biggerLos Angeles story here.
UFC lost its first game
of the year over the weekend to Illinois.
And now the, the, the powers
that be are already lookingat Lincoln Riley, they're kind
of embattled head coach
and thinking if they'regonna get rid of him,

(57:36):
those from Miller Collegefootball note, Lincoln
and Riley was very successful in Oklahoma.
USC backed up the truck,dumped 'em in a pile of money
and brought 'em out to California.
But if they were to can him Lee
and Jonathan, they're lookingat about a $70 million buyout.
Some people say 60, but FC 70 as well.
So, ouch, welcome to that.There's my question for you, Lee.

(57:57):
And that's one of the culture of UCLA.
One way that you could improvethe UCLA's football existence
is to put a stadiumcloser to the students.
You know, good luck gettingstudents to go all the way out
to Pasadena, to, to,you know, go to a game.
Part of the collegeexperience is tailgating
and then staggering your wayin and outta the stadium.
Not so at Pasadena.

(58:17):
In fact, there's been talk,I think about moving UCLA
football games to the SoFiStadium in, in Inglewood,
but this'll still be thesame transportation problem.
Question for you, Lee.
Is there any, is there enough space in
that very crowded UCLA campusto build a football stadium?
Maybe something like what?Stanford has a modest stadium,
50,000 people, but Lee,the culture of UCLA

(58:38):
and sports, I don't thinkit's a football mad school,
maybe not a sports mad school.
What would happen, how wouldyour fellow faculty members,
how would the powers that bereact if somebody said, well,
you know, we're gonna build a football
stadium here on the campus.
- Yeah, you know what, there's a,
there's a practice facilityon campus for football.
- Yeah, - I think it isdifferent now, but for years.

(59:01):
Do you know how long that,that practice field was?
- No.- 80 yards. Oh gosh.
We didn't even have a practicefield that was regulated.
That was regulation. Yeah.
UCLA has to figure out what it wants
to be from a sports standpoint.
Way, way back in the day,in the day of, you know,

(59:22):
John Wooden and NCAA championshipafter NCAA championship
and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton
and Foot, and at the sametime football with, I mean,
I'll take people way back.
There's a phone named Tommy Prothro.
We had a Heisman Trophywinner named Gary bein.

(59:43):
I've had the pleasure to to meet
- Jackie Robinson.
- Jackie Robinson. So,and it was good for UCLA
because USC was very strong in sports.
UCLA was very strong in sports.
They would play each other in football.
I mean, as a kid, as a kid growing up,
growing up up la I mean thecity literally would shut down
on, on Saturdays and everybodywas tuned into S-A-U-C-L-A.

(01:00:06):
That's, you know, that'skind of an afterthought.
Now, as I mentioned, youprobably have to go back
to the days of when TerryDonahue was coaching UCLA
or the days of, I was gonna say Bob Talia,
but you know, Troy Aikman,
when Troy Aikman transferredfrom Oklahoma to be quarterback
and, you know, mul multi,multiple times Super

(01:00:27):
Bowl winner for the Cowboys.
That was 35 years ago. Sothe students aren't engaged.
There needs to be, there needs
to be a stadium that you can walk to.
In my opinion, that's what is needed
for a successful interactionbetween, between students and,
and, and the team.
And, and if you don't have that,I think it becomes somewhat

(01:00:47):
of a sterile, sterile experiment.
'cause you know, you look atAlabama, Oklahoma, or Texas
and you see the colors, yousee the kids are so fired up,
you know, you, again, you lookat those drum video footages
of UCLA and it's justsomething totally different.
We have no, we have no roomfor the 80 yard practice

(01:01:08):
practice field.
But yeah, there wouldn'tbe much if it could be done
and, you know, if youcould build it, you know,
in less than 25 years
with all the environmental
regulations you have to go through.
Yeah, I don't think facultywould be particularly,
particularly excited about this.
The faculty sentiment.

(01:01:29):
Now, I think the UCLAis, is one that's, yeah,
football is not the top.
Football's not in the top of their minds.
Says it might be at Alabama,Georgia. Oklahoma, Texas.
- So we'll leave thelisteners with two questions.
We'll, prop 50 pass orfail on November 4th,
and will the Bruins have a win by then?
- The Bruins having a win,
I believe is much lessthan the probability of

(01:01:53):
prop 50 passing.
I'm gonna, I'm, I'm, I I'msaying no on prop 50 passing.
I think, I think Republicanswill turn out in on
mass to vote against it.
I think there, I think enough,
no party preference will vote against it
or simply not engage.
I'm kind of thinking it'sgonna be kind of a 52, 48 type

(01:02:14):
of type of outcome.
But yeah, the Bruin,we could do zero, zero,
and zero and 12.
I hate to say it, butthat's just the way it is.
- But the Bruins will still be winless
and I think Prop 50will pass, but narrowly
after a couple weeks of votecounting, which will add
to the general frustration ofthe California public water,
is it takes so long to count votes,

(01:02:35):
- You know, where the mosttechnologically advanced state in
the most technologically advanced country.
And somehow, somehow it takes two weeks
to count votes. Go figure.
- As always, gentlemen,this has been an interesting
hour of timely analysis.Thank you for your time.
- Thank you guys. Fun fellows,we never, we never run out
of topic, savvy to talk about California.

(01:02:57):
- You've been listeningto matters of policy
and politics, the HooverInstitution Podcast,
devoted governance and balance
of power here in Americaand around the free world.
Please don't forget to rate, review,
and subscribe to this podcastwherever you might hear it.
And if you don't mind,please spread the word.
Get your friends to have a listen.
The Hoover Institution hasFacebook, Instagram, and X feed.
Our X handles at Hooverins. That's at Hoover, INST.
Bill Whalen is on x. Hishandle is at Bill Whalen ca.

(01:03:18):
And Lee Ohanian is also on X.
His handle is at Lee under Ohanian.
Please visit the Hooverwebsite @hoover.org
and sign up for the Hoover daily report
where you can accessthe latest scholarship
analysis from our fellows.
Also, check out Californiaon your mind for
where Bill Whalen and LeeOhanian frequently write.
Again, this is Jonathan Movroydis sitting
in Bill Whalen's chair this week.
He'll be back for anotherepisode of Matters
of Policy and Politics.
Thank you for listening.

(01:03:40):
- This podcast is a productionof the Hoover Institution,
where we generate and promoteideas advancing freedom.
For more information aboutour work, to hear more
of our podcasts
or view our video content,please visit hoover.org.