Putting California Spin on Clinton Policies

It is one of the prevailing pieces of conventional wisdom that President Clinton had better pay attention to California if he wants a second term in office.

The state is wheezing economically and is as sullen as a former champion on a losing streak. Yet with its massive bundle of 54 electoral votes and sheer political heft, it cannot be left to stew too long.

If you’re from Arkansas and now call the White House home, it’s best to approach California cautiously. Cuts in the defense budget are causing the aerospace hegemony to unravel. Federal base-closing decisions are forcing whole regions to re-imagine their economies. And, of course, the new taxes.

In such a booby-trapped political landscape, it’s prudent to have a guide who knows the local lore.

Enter Tom Epstein, California’s political ombudsman on the White House staff.

*

One of three special assistants in the Office of Political Affairs, Epstein knows about Tijuana sewage flows, water distribution rules, automobile smog inspection laws and other arcane California subjects. He can talk environment, insurance and health care reform.

His turf encompasses the three Pacific Coast states, but the focus is on California.

Along with being conversant in local issues and knowing who to call, Epstein helps develop strategies for federal departments whose policies stir up political dust in the state, such as Interior, Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

He massages the California schedules of Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Vice President Al Gore and Cabinet secretaries to maximize the political benefits to the visitors and the visited.

And there are numerous administrative chores entailing briefings, news conferences, correspondence and invitation lists.

“It’s a very broad and expansive role,” Epstein says. “People come to us who can’t find help elsewhere in the White House.”

Epstein, a veteran of 20 years on the California political scene, calls on an extensive network of contacts to keep him current. “I know a lot of staff people, and I read a lot of newspapers,” he says.

Born in Pennsylvania, Epstein, 41, attended UCLA Law School and has worked for Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky and former California Rep. Mel Levine.

Tours in the Jimmy Carter press office and the Administration of former Gov. Jerry Brown added to his political reach. He was chief of staff for John Garamendi the state senator and served as deputy state insurance commissioner for consumer protection and communications for Garamendi the insurance commissioner.

Epstein also worked as a volunteer adviser to state Treasurer Kathleen Brown, cementing relationships with two likely Democratic rivals for governor.

“That’s one of the reasons I got the job,” Epstein says. “I was perceived as neutral (in that contest).”

*

Beyond the administrative necessities, of course, lies the more weighty function of divining the best course on a wide range of touchy issues. Immigration, which has become politically radioactive as the state’s economy stalls, provides a good example of how Epstein’s office works to find the proper niche for a hot issue.

“I flagged immigration early on,” he says. “I helped stimulate discussion and tried to raise the issue to the highest levels.”

One result was Clinton’s recently announced plan to crack down on illegal immigration by hiring 600 more Border Patrol agents, tightening visa-granting procedures and speeding up asylum hearings.

“We received some bipartisan support and most of the editorial reaction was positive. We were very pleased,” Epstein says.

The Administration plan placed Clinton in a centrist position as some California politicians staked out more aggressive positions. This week, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson outlined a controversial plan to deny U.S. citizenship and public education to the children of illegal immigrants.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) recently called for National Guard troops to assist the Border Patrol, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a fellow California Democrat, called for a border-crossing fee to finance more agents.

The Clinton plan walked a careful middle road and did not overly offend--or please--anyone. But it did show that the White House had engaged the issue.

Which gives rise to the question: Is the best policy merely that which is politically palatable?

Epstein replies, in practiced tones: “Good policy makes good politics, not the other way around. You aren’t going to have a successful political solution until you take some action . . . but it must be accepted by the vast middle” of the citizenry.

In terms of political difficulty, “this was a seven,” says Epstein. Tackling the problems of employer sanctions, fake identification cards and expanded border fences “will be a 10.”