Bush Is Off to a Rocky Start in His Handling of All Things Californian

So what if President Bush has opposed electricity price controls sought by California officials? Or that he has proposed cutting aid to states for incarcerating illegal immigrants convicted of crimes? Or that he has visited 26 states in his first 100 days in office--but not the most populous?

Bush really does care about California, the White House insists, even if the state preferred Al Gore on election day. Administration officials said they have done a lot and plan to do more to lessen the electricity turmoil expected this summer.

“I don’t think he’s treated California any differently than any other state,” said Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa).

Some Californians feel otherwise.

“The Bush administration’s treatment of California started at indifference, moved to neglect and has now reached actual harm,” complained Phil Schiliro, chief of staff for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has asked three times for a meeting with Bush to discuss the energy crisis. Her response from the White House: a form letter with her name misspelled.

Bush has called for requiring public agencies to buy costly earthquake insurance, a measure opposed by California lawmakers of both parties. He has proposed cutting an earthquake preparedness program. And he provided no money in his proposed budget to clean up a pile of uranium processing waste in Utah leaking into the Colorado River.

“That’s our water supply,” political analyst Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said. “What kind of message is that?”

John J. Pitney Jr., associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, said Bush’s apparent indifference makes political sense.

“It’s hard to argue that Bush should spend any political capital in California,” he said. “The 2000 election suggested that he cannot carry the state no matter how hard he tries. The Republicans have already lost several House seats and have probably hit rock bottom. . . . From a purely political angle, there’s little point in giving California any money or attention that could otherwise go to more competitive states, such as Florida.”

But Jeffe, senior scholar at USC’s School of Policy, Planning and Development, said Bush’s failure to visit the state is hurting GOP efforts to rebuild itself in California. “We are ground zero for the kind of Latino outreach that he said he wanted to do.”

And veteran California Republican political strategist Kenneth L. Khachigian said Bush at least needs to prepare for the electricity problems predicted for summer.

“If you get three or four days of successive blackouts, air conditioners going out, traffic lights going out, a second bankruptcy--whether he wants it or not--it’s his problem,” Khachigian said. “It would be wise for him to have a proactive stance, not just reactive.”

Tough Act to Follow

Some political analysts have suggested that if Bush becomes too involved in California’s troubles, what is now Democratic Gov. Gray Davis’ problem could become Bush’s. But, Khachigian said, “there’s a fine line between taking responsibility for a problem and claiming that California isn’t part of the United States.”

In dealing with heavily Democratic California, Bush has made this much clear: He is no Bill Clinton.

Bush has a hard act to follow. When Clinton was president, he visited California often and rewarded it with federal largess. And California in return showered him with buckets of campaign dollars and electoral votes.

But Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton) said California will benefit from Bush’s presidency too. “As Californians bear a disproportionately higher tax burden, they stand to benefit greatly from the president’s tax relief plan.”

While House spokeswoman Claire Buchan assured that Bush will visit California soon. His wife already has done so.

As proof that California is on their mind, administration officials point to the three Californians in the Cabinet--Ann M. Veneman of Agriculture, Norman Y. Mineta of Transportation and Anthony J. Principi of Veterans Affairs--and others in top White House jobs.

Bush also has appointed California Latinos to high-level posts: Huntington Park Councilwoman Rosario Marin as treasurer, Los Angeles entrepreneur Hector V. Barreto Jr. as head of the Small Business Administration and former San Mateo County Supervisor Ruben Barrales as deputy assistant for intergovernmental affairs.

Critics said that a Californian at the top does not guarantee that the Cabinet departments will develop California-friendly policies. The proposed Agriculture budget, for example, provides only $5 million--not the $15 million that California lawmakers said they need--to fight the glassy winged sharpshooter, an agricultural pest that threatens the state’s wine industry.

A spokesman for Veneman assured that additional funding will be considered, if requested by California lawmakers. And Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who assailed Bush for missing opportunities to help California, nonetheless expressed confidence in Veneman. “She’s going to keep pounding away to make sure that the California wine industry gets what it needs.”

Some Good News

Though he has proposed cuts in some programs that are important to California, Bush has taken some actions that please state officials. He has proposed a permanent research and development tax credit--an action that would particularly benefit Silicon Valley.

His proposed budget includes additional money to crack down on illegal immigration and drug smuggling and unsafe trucks crossing into California from Mexico. And he has proposed increased funding to reduce backlogs at immigration offices.

In one area, Bush even bested Clinton. He proposed $14 million to clean Lake Tahoe, more than the $3 million recommended by Clinton last year.

And although he has drawn flak for proposing cuts in programs to promote energy efficiency and alternative fuels, his proposal to boost assistance to low-income families for insulating their homes and reducing their utility bills would nearly double California’s allocation, to $8 million next year.

No Bush policy has been more criticized in California than his approach to the state’s energy woes--particularly his adamant opposition to price controls. Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Davis, said Bush and his aides “got off to a strong start” by extending federal orders sought by the state to keep power flowing into California.

“Since then . . . they’ve been AWOL,” Maviglio said. In a reference to price controls, he added: “They’re skirting around the edges of the problem without taking the bold action they need to take.”

“The feds are the only ones who can step in and bring some sanity to the cost of electricity in California,” Thompson said.

Administration officials said they have taken steps “from our first hours in office” to address the energy crisis. They said they have responded favorably to all the state’s requests except price controls, which Bush contends would discourage the building of power plants.

While some seek to portray Bush’s opposition to price controls as unsympathetic to California’s plight, a number of California’s House Republicans also oppose price controls. And even those who support them argue that the issue misses the larger point.

Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego), an advocate of price controls, nevertheless said: “I agree with the administration that the state alone remains responsible for solving this crisis.”

Added Rep. Mary Bono (R-Palm Springs): “I don’t believe [Bush] should bear the brunt of responsibility that the Clinton administration left over.”

Tim Ransdell, executive director of the California Institute for Federal Policy Research, doubted that Bush would ignore California. “California represents one-eighth of the nation. One in eight Americans can’t be ignored.”