Mahan Battles Sacramento Special Interests to Curb California Spending

马汉对抗萨克拉门托特殊利益集团以遏制加州开支 圣何塞市长Matt Mahan认为，加州的无家可归、能源和住房危机源于过度监管和腐败的政治激励，而非缺乏州政府财政收入。 圣何塞市长Matt Mahan做客All-In播客，探讨了他竞选加利福尼亚州州长的原因，并将该州日益恶化的问题归咎于失衡的政治激励机制和系统性浪费，而非资金匮乏。他主张推行零基预算、精简监管和严格的结果导向指标，为解决加州的住房短缺、能源价格飞涨、无资金准备的养老金负债及无家可归问题提出了切实可行的方案。在整场对话中，Mahan将自己的竞选定位为务实的“第三条道路”，旨在直面特殊利益集团，恢复该州运转良好且权责分明的政府体系。 加州政府过去六年预算扩张75%至约3500亿美元，但高铁项目耗资逾140亿美元且历时20年仍未交付任何运营线路，表明治理危机根源在于激励机制失效与系统性浪费而非缺乏资金。 (1:51) 圣何塞推行每单元造价仅8.5万美元的快速部署过渡睡眠舱，打破传统每套百万美元的高成本保障房模式，在三年内成功将无遮蔽流浪人口减少约三分之一。 (16:34) 加州住房短缺主要受严苛监管与诉讼生态驱动，尤其是长达9年的建筑缺陷责任法案被诉讼律师滥用，几乎彻底扼杀了作为年轻家庭入门资产的公寓开发市场。 (19:04) 全州面临2500亿至1万亿美元的庞大未足额养老金负债，圣何塞一般预算中近五分之一被历史债务强制占用，凸显出向确定型缴费制改革与风险共担机制转型的迫切性。 (43:46)

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan argues that California's escalating crises in housing, homelessness, and fiscal stability stem not from insufficient revenue, but from broken structural incentives, regulatory paralysis, and special-interest capture in Sacramento. Structural Dysfunction and Outcome-Driven Budgeting (1:51) Mahan emphasizes that California's state budget increased 75% over six years to nearly $350 billion—with state employee headcount rising over 20% despite flat population growth—yet the state still faces a projected $35 billion deficit. He cites public sector execution breakdowns, such as spending $14 billion over 20 years on high-speed rail without delivering an operational line, and notes that 75% of state auditor recommendations are never implemented. In his view, legislative performance is improperly measured by the sheer volume of bills passed rather than concrete real-world outcomes. To counter the dominance of public sector unions, trade lobbies, and trial lawyers, Mahan advocates shifting to zero-based departmental budgeting and using the governor's authority over 3,000 executive appointments to enforce operational accountability. He explicitly rejects a state-level wealth tax, warning that the threat of asset seizures has already spurred over $1 trillion in capital flight, and contends that closing specific loopholes—such as asset-backed borrowing and step-up in basis provisions—is a more viable approach to tax fairness. Housing Supply Bottlenecks and Regulatory Litigation (19:04) Mahan identifies housing affordability as fundamentally a supply crisis, pointing out that annual housing production in California has fallen from 150,000 units to roughly 80,000. In Silicon Valley, an unbalanced ratio of eight jobs created for every one home built over the past two decades has driven severe displacement. He attributes this shortfall to cumbersome building codes, local impact fees that add up to 20% to project costs, and frequent litigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Additionally, Mahan highlights how nine-year construction defect liability laws allow trial lawyers to bring class-action suits over minor flaws, which has virtually eliminated entry-level condominium development across the state. His platform targets a one-third reduction in regulatory construction costs per square foot and promotes modular, factory-built housing to lower unit expenses by 20% and compress project timelines by 50%. Shelter Innovation and Mandatory Addiction Treatment (16:34) California is home to over 40% of the nation's unsheltered population and has recorded roughly 50,000 street deaths over the past decade. Mahan critiques progressive policies that avoid intervention under the banner of civil liberties, arguing that leaving individuals suffering from severe mental illness and addiction to die on the streets is a failure of governance. In San Jose, the city bypassed traditional $1 million-per-unit affordable housing models to deploy $85,000 quick-build sleeping cabins on public land, adding over 2,000 beds and lowering unsheltered homelessness by approximately one-third. While roughly two-thirds of unsheltered individuals accept dignified interim shelter, Mahan notes that the remaining third are often incapacitated by fentanyl or methamphetamine addiction. For this cohort, he advocates for state-mandated intervention, including involuntary psychiatric holds, coordinated law enforcement disruption of drug supply lines, and court-ordered treatment through progressive escalation frameworks like Proposition 36. Unfunded Liabilities, Energy Costs, and Insurance Dislocation (43:46) California faces an estimated $250 billion to $1 trillion in net unfunded pension liabilities across CalPERS and CalSTRS, whose long-term returns of roughly 7% lag the broader S&P 500 benchmark. In San Jose, servicing legacy retirement debt consumes 19% of the municipal general fund. Mahan points to the city’s negotiated reform—which splits investment underperformance 50/50 between taxpayers and municipal employees—as a sustainable model that puts the city on track to eliminate its legacy debt by the early 2040s. Mahan also critiques state energy and climate management, arguing that strict regulations have driven domestic oil refineries to Texas without lowering fossil fuel consumption, forcing California to import tanker oil while residents face gas prices around $5.50 per gallon. Furthermore, state-mandated price controls have caused private insurers to withdraw following catastrophic wildfires, while the state allocates $8 toward emergency response for every $1 spent on proactive brush management. Mahan positions his gubernatorial bid as an executive-led attempt to steer California away from both progressive ideological paralysis and reactionary populism. However, the long-term feasibility of his agenda rests on whether gubernatorial powers—such as regulatory appointments, line-item budget vetos, and public metrics—can effectively overcome an entrenched legislative supermajority aligned with public sector unions and lobbying interests.

圣何塞市长 Matt Mahan 在播客中主张，加州的深层困境并非税收或资金不足，而是体制结构失调与特权利益集团绑架，唯有转向以结果为导向的务实治理才能阻止政治极端化反弹。 体制激励失效与官僚支出失控 (1:51) Mahan 指出加州正处于不可逆的拐点，过去六年州政府预算激增 75% 达到约 3,500 亿美元，全职公务员增加超过 20%，但核心公共成果却停滞甚至倒退，目前仍面临约 350 亿美元的预算赤字。以加州高铁为例，耗时逾 20 年、耗资 140 亿美元却未交付一条可用线路；疫情期间更有超过 300 亿美元失业救济金遭冒领。Mahan 批评萨克拉门托缺乏基于结果的反馈机制，州审计署 75% 的建议从未落实。他提倡推行零基预算（zero-based budgeting），并主张州长应充分运用对 3,000 个监管委员会职位的任命权，追究部门绩效，终结盲目追加人手与经费的惯性。 住房供需失衡与规制诉讼枷锁 (19:04) 加州住房危机本质上是严重的供给短缺。过去 20 年间硅谷的就业岗位与住房增量比例高达 8:1，远超 2:1 的健康基准，导致年建房量从 15 万套骤降至约 8 万套。Mahan 批评加州环境质量法案（CEQA）遭滥用，不仅外部人士可随意起诉阻挠工程，地方市政规费更占到项目成本的 20%。此外，诉讼律师协会长期游说阻碍改革，长达 9 年的建筑缺陷责任诉讼机制致使开发商无法获得融资与保险，实质摧毁了作为年轻人首套房主要选择的共管公寓（Condo）市场。Mahan 提出通过模块化预制住宅将单位成本降低 20%、工期缩短 50%，并将每平方英尺的规制成本压减三分之一。 人道危机应对与问责救助模式 (16:34) 加州聚集了全美逾 40% 的无庇护流浪人口，过去十年有 5 万人死于街头，其中约半数因吸毒过量或自杀。Mahan 批评部分进步派以保护公民自由为名任由严重精神疾病和毒瘾患者流落街头是致命的伪善。在圣何塞，他摒弃了每套造价高达 100 万美元的传统保障房，转而在公共土地上建立每单元造价仅 8.5 万美元的快速部署独立小木屋，三年内新增逾 2,000 个床位，显著压减了街头流浪规模。针对严重成瘾者，Mahan 支持第 36 号提案，主张为拒绝自愿救助且扰乱公共秩序的群体提供法庭强制戒毒或监禁的明确选择，落实非自愿羁押与收治。 能源法规反噬与保险养老金危机 (34:52) 加州的激进绿色能源政策与规制环境导致雪佛龙等能源巨头迁出，本土炼油厂关闭后转而从数千英里外通过油轮进口同等规模原油，既推高了全球碳排放，又使当地汽油价格达到每加仑 5.50 美元（含约 70 美分州税）。在野火风险方面，州府防灾投入失衡，每投入 1 美元用于主动预防，就有 8 美元消耗在被动救灾上；严格的保费价格管制迫使保险公司撤出，将风险集中于脆弱的 FAIR Plan。与此同时，加州公共雇员养老金（CalPERS 与 CalSTRS）面临 2,500 亿至 1 万亿美元的未拨补负债缺口。Mahan 借鉴圣何塞经验，主张确立纳税人与雇员各半承担投资亏损的 50/50 风险共担机制，并逐步向固定缴款模式过渡以防财政崩溃。 摒弃意识形态的中间务实路线 (53:38) 在政治路线上，Mahan 反对对富豪开征财富税，指出此举已引发逾 1 万亿美元资本外流，最终税负只会转嫁给中产与工人阶级；他主张通过堵塞资产抵押借款避税和遗产计税基数重置（step-up in basis）等具体漏洞来优化税制。他同时批评前总统特朗普加征全面关税和煽动移民恐慌，并对州长纽森与联邦政府的党派对抗表达不满，指出两党争斗直接延误了受灾地区 400 亿美元的联邦救灾援助。Mahan 强调两党建制派均有失职，提出应在严格保障边境安全并遣返暴力罪犯的同时，为长期纳税守法的无证移民提供不捆绑即时投票权的合法居留途径。 Mahan 将自身竞选定位于打破民主党建制派"加税增编"路径依赖的务实改革者，警告若政府继续无视绩效考核、无法遏制基本生活成本飙升，加州将不可避免地面临剧烈的右翼民粹主义反弹；但他能否凭借行政任命权与公信力有效抗衡公立工会及诉讼律师等深层利益网络，仍是有待实践检验的严峻挑战。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 All-In Podcast 于 2026 年 3 月 23 日发布。根据页面简介，本期节目围绕圣何塞市长马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）参选加利福尼亚州州长的竞选纲领展开，深度探讨了加州深陷的治理困境、公共部门工会游说、住房短缺与过度监管、能源与燃油税危机、高达万亿美元的养老金炸弹，以及移民改革与民粹主义抬头等核心议题。 ## TL;DR 圣何塞现任市长马特·马汉在访谈中剖析了加州“开支暴增 75% 却换来全面恶化”的制度性病灶，直指体制缺乏问责、官僚滥用监管以及特殊利益集团绑架是阻碍加州发展的核心祸根。他结合在圣何塞以更低成本压降流浪汉露宿率、降低犯罪率的执政经验，主张打破一味增税的传统建制派怪圈，坚决推行以可量化结果为导向的零基预算与行政松绑。在住房、能源、养老金及移民等争议议题上，他反对极端的财富税与空想式全民免费医疗，主张推行精细化风险定价、引入市场竞争与务实的“大妥协”，为加州开辟一条回归常识的中间派务实治理路线。 ## Atmosphere & style 对谈整体洋溢着一种直言不讳、极度务实且充满张力的思辨氛围。主持团队带着硅谷科技投资人典型的结果导向思维与问责锋芒，在税负、官僚低效与政策失灵等痛点上频频抛出尖锐质问；马汉则展现出兼具基层温度与极度理性克制的科技创业者兼执政者风貌。整场交流没有传统政客闪烁其词的表演性辞令，而是在大量详实数据、切身执政案例与深层机制剖析的碰撞中，呈现出对加州现状既痛心疾首又急迫渴望以常识打破僵局的浓厚变革情绪。 ## Bulletin - [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=111s) 圣何塞市长马特·马汉宣布参选加州州长，痛批加州过去6年财政预算激增75%达3,490亿美元，但高铁烧光140亿美元毫无成果、失业保险欺诈流失超300亿美元，形成“持续为失败买单”的机制性错位。 - [16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=964s) 加州聚集全美超40%露天无家可归者，传统保障房单套成本高达100万美元；马汉在圣何塞推行8.5万美元独立睡眠舱并三年新增超2,000张床位，促成露宿街头人口锐减约三分之一。 - [43:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2626s) 加州公职人员养老金系统CalPERS与CalSTRS面临高达2,500亿至1万亿美元的资金缺口，马汉呼吁借鉴圣何塞50/50风险共担机制与20年减负滑道推进制度重构。 - [37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2231s) 面对能源危机与高生活成本，马汉提议暂时停征每加仑约70美分的燃油税以救济工薪家庭，并坚决反对“亿万富翁财富税”，指出该提议已引发超万亿美元资本外流且最终伤害中产阶级。 ## Key takeaways - [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=111s) 加州财政困境本质是激励机制错位与问责缺失，而非缺钱；过去6年预算从2,090亿美元膨胀至3,490亿美元，州审计署提出的整改建议竟有75%从未被执行。 - [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=111s) 《加州环境质量法案》（CEQA）滥用与繁琐行政规费导致基建和住宅开发全面瘫痪，规费甚至占到部分住房项目开发成本的20%。 - [18:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1128s) 建筑质量责任诉讼使开发商面临在项目建成第9年被出庭律师提起集体诉讼的风险，导致公寓开发和融资几乎停滞，抽离了年轻人积累资产的首套房阶梯。 - [12:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=725s) 萨克拉门托长期受公共部门工会及各类游说组织绑架，政客缺乏骨气推卸问责，导致富裕的加州在低收入学童阅读达标率上甚至落后于密西西比州和路易斯安那州。 - [31:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1894s) 无家可归危机根源在于高昂居住成本叠加上瘾与严重精神疾病，将任由病患在街头受苦视作“公民自由”是虚伪的同情，必须通过“第36号提案”（Prop 36）建立强制戒断治疗与执法机制。 - [37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2231s) 加州燃油税累退性极强，在富人转向电动车的同时压垮了长途通勤的工薪家庭；加州应暂时停征燃油税，并通过峰谷电力反向并网等技术创新平衡电网。 - [39:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2357s) 加州房屋保险危机是政府价格管制与防灾失职的直接恶果；全州在火灾应对与前期预防上的支出比高达8:1，应允许基于真实风险的精细化定价并强制清理高危植被。 - [48:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2889s) 加州过去6年人口零增长但政府编制激增超20%，马汉主张推行彻底的“零基预算”，并利用州长对3,000名行政官员的任命权推行成果导向的硬性考核。 - [52:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3142s) 单州推行单一公费医疗系统在经济上不切实际，应通过医疗价格透明化、赋权执业护士（Nurse Practitioners）以及强化预防性护理来扭转成本曲线。 - [55:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3355s) 州级“财富税”只会加速资本外流并将税负转嫁给无法搬迁的中产阶级；更务实的税制改革应堵塞资产抵押避税与遗产继承计税基数重置（Step-up in Basis）漏洞。 - [01:06:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4016s) 州长不能将精力耗费在与联邦政府的表演性政治对抗上，纽森与白宫的恶斗导致400亿美元救灾款滞留，务实执政必须寻找双赢切入点以加速灾后重建。 - [01:09:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4153s) 移民改革应达成“大妥协”：坚决封锁边境并驱逐严重暴力犯罪者，同时为长期守法纳税的无证劳工家庭提供合法工作居留路径（如绿卡，但无需立即赋予投票权）以打消两党政治猜忌。 - [01:14:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4494s) 党内竞争对手普遍陷入“靠增税解决一切”的建制派怪圈，马汉主张加州政府必须“回归基本盘”，聚焦治安、教育、能源与住房等核心民生质素。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=0s) 谁是马特·马汉：从农场小镇、公民科技到加州政坛 节目伊始，主持人带着直截了当的调侃抛出疑问：马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）究竟是谁？为何会突然空降般地宣布参选加利福尼亚州州长？面对这番略带挑衅的开场，马汉坦承自己与千千万万普通加州人一样，对这个“花得越来越多、产出却越来越少”的州政府感到了极度沮丧。他回忆起自己的成长轨迹：他在加州以草莓种植闻名的农业小镇沃森维尔（Watsonville，即知名浆果品牌 Driscoll's 的发源地）长大，出身于典型的工薪阶层家庭——母亲是教师，父亲是邮递员。对他而言，人生的重要转折点是靠工读奖学金考入了一所优秀的大学预科高中，当时他每天单程就要坐两个小时公交车。一路工读读完大学后，他通过“为美国而教”（Teach for America）项目重返公立学校讲台，担任基层教师。 马汉内心里始终有着强烈的公共服务热情，希望探寻如何让城市乃至世界变得更好，这促使他后来扎身科技界整整十年。他专注于开发公民科技（Civic Tech）工具以帮助公众参与民主治理：早期曾参与 Facebook 上的知名应用 Causes，随后创立了被誉为“选民版 LinkedIn”的政治科技平台 Brigade。该平台的核心逻辑是通过将选民围绕共同关心的议题与诉求连接起来，自下而上地凝聚草根力量，以此对民选官员施加问责压力。 在 Brigade 被收购后，马汉决定真正投身公共管理去竞选圣何塞市议员。他亲自敲开了超过一万户选民的大门，尽管常常为了前任甚至毫无关联的陈年旧账挨选民痛骂，但这一经历让他深刻体会到了加州普通民众身上最朴素的常识感。市民们最典型的质问直击灵魂：“如果我每年交两万美元的房产税，为什么我门前这条路过去十五年都没重新铺过一次？”马汉深以为然，正是带着这种常识性的疑问，他决定走进市政厅去打破僵局。 - **成长背景**：加州沃森维尔工薪家庭出身，母亲为教师，父亲为邮递员，依靠工读奖学金读完高中并完成高等教育。 - **职业履历**：Teach for America 公立学校教师；硅谷公民科技创业者（参与 Causes、创立 Brigade）；圣何塞市议员及现任市长。 - **草根经历**：竞选市议员期间逐户敲门超过 10,000 家，深入体察选民在税负与公共服务失衡下的巨大愤怒。 --- ### [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=111s) 暴增 75% 的州财政与“140 亿美元毫无结果”的高铁烂摊子 当被问及加州的运转到底有多失灵、又是如何沦落至此时，马汉神情严肃地指出，加州正滑向一个“一旦越过便再难挽回的临界点”。在过去六年间，加州州政府的财政开支疯狂膨胀了整整 75%，这意味着今年的财政支出比六年前足足多了 1500 亿美元。然而，在这笔庞大的增量资金砸下去之后，公共服务成果不仅没有提升 75%，许多核心指标反而在原地踏步甚至全面下滑。马汉直言不讳：“我们在萨克拉门托（加州首府）面临的根本不是缺钱的问题，而是机制激励错位的问题。”现行官僚体系构建了一种可怕的负向循环：哪怕一个项目被证明毫无成效，资金依然能源源不断地倒进无底洞。 马汉以加州臭名昭著的高铁项目为例进行尖锐对比：如果一家初创公司耗费了整整二十年时间、烧掉了 140 亿美元，却连一个可交付的可用产品都没拿出来，里面的高管和相关负责人早就被开除无数次了；但在加州政府内部，人们根本看不到任何实质性的问责。面对主持人的惊愕追问——“这难道不是公然偷窃吗？十四个十亿美元到底进谁的口袋了？”——马汉剖析道，这并非某种戏剧化的大盗卷包袱逃跑，而是庞大官僚与利益链条层层吞噬的结果。承包商、律所和各类机构借由永无止境的审批程序大发横财。 阻碍加州干成大工程的核心祸根在于被极度滥用的司法与监管机制，首当其冲的便是《加州环境质量法案》（CEQA）。在现行法律下，任何人都可以在 CEQA 框架下发起恶意阻挠诉讼，甚至原告根本不需要是加州本地居民。多年沉冗的环境审查、漫长的法庭拉锯以及深不见底的官僚流程，让任何基建项目都陷入半身不遂。而在住房开发领域，地方政府巧立名目的各项一次性规费甚至能占到项目总开发成本的 20%，导致全州彻底陷入体制性瘫痪。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州基建与住房项目瘫痪机制 accDescr: 描述过度监管与诉讼导致加州重大项目周期拉长与成本飙升的恶性闭环流程 subgraph 官僚审查与法律战 A["立项与设计方案"] --> B["数年环境审查 (CEQA) 与可行性研究"] B --> C["恶意法律诉讼与无休止听证"] end subgraph 资金与时间损耗 C --> D["巨额顾问费、律师费与土地收购成本"] D --> E["建设周期无限拉长与费用超支"] end subgraph 最终恶果 E --> F["成百上千亿美元消耗"] F --> G["零成果 / 烂尾与全面瘫痪"] end ``` --- ### [04:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=263s) 纳税人的钱去了哪里：从百亿欺诈到制度性官僚损耗与圣何塞样本 谈到税负，主持人表达了极大的委屈与荒谬感：生活在加州，叠加联邦税以及宣称是“临时征收”却已持续了整整十一年的加州州税，综合边际税率高达 53%，“我每挣一美元就有 53 美分交给了州政府和联邦政府，我的钱究竟去哪了？”不仅高铁见不到踪影，马路也破烂不堪，难道这庞大的 140 亿美元只是被成千上万个赚两三万美元设计费的小机构瓜分殆尽了吗？ 马汉解释，除了无休止的环境报告、顾问费、地役权购买和社区游说催生的庞大“寄生小产业”之外，加州确实存在触目惊心的系统性欺诈与体制性浪费： 1. **确凿的欺诈犯罪**：在过去约五年的疫情期间，仅加州失业保险欺诈案涉及的流失资金就超过了 300 亿美元；近期实时调查报道更披露，全州甚至涌现出了成百上千家虚假注册、可能根本不存在的临终关怀（Hospice）黑中介，在疯狂套取政府医保补贴。 2. **制度性浪费与编制膨胀**：比纯粹欺诈规模更大的是日常治理中的无序低效。政府体制热衷于不断扩编公务员人手、扩大低效项目规模、向非营利组织发放无底线资助，所有人都在围绕繁琐的“流程合规”转圈，却从来没有人对“最终结果”承担责任。 随后，马汉展示了他在担任圣何塞市长期间的实际改革成果，证明破局之道在于“流程重组与成果导向”，而非盲目加税： - **不加税甚至承受经济周期下行**：在近期受房地产低迷、地方房产税放缓的背景下，圣何塞市在没有加征一分钱税的前提下实现了治理逆转。 - **全美最安全的大城市**：通过果断优化警务治理、削减阻碍流程，圣何塞在降低犯罪率方面领跑全加州，成为全美犯罪率最低的超大型城市。 - **露宿街头流浪汉锐减三分之一**：通过叫停无成效的项目、把资金重新调配给更具性价比的高效收容安置方案，短短几年内使无庇护的街头流浪人员减少了约 33%。 - **松绑住房建设**：通过大刀阔斧裁撤繁琐行政流程、削减阻碍性规费，使得数千套新住宅得以破土动工。 --- ### [07:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=421s) 萨克拉门托的立法怪圈：表演型政治与“资助失败”的恶性循环 话题随后转向加州的立法生态。主持人对比了华盛顿特区国会中两党无休止争吵导致的“立法停滞”，反讽加州的单党绝对垄断更具破坏性：在萨克拉门托，由一党独揽的加州议会每年能打包通过成百上千项新法案，尽管州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）平均每年行使否决权否决其中的 15% 到 20%，但依旧有海量法案生效。 马汉明确表态，如果自己当选州长，他会行使更多的否决权。他痛批如今许多议员彻底丧失了公共受托人意识，居然把“提出了多少法案、提交了多少立法、最终让州长签署了多少条法律”当成衡量自身政治业绩的唯一标准。当人们真正去通读这些每年出台的数百项法律文本时就会发现，它们本质上不过是在不断堆砌行政成本和拉长流程，除了制造障碍毫无增益。 马汉强调，加州下一任州长必须有魄力站在立法机构面前宣告：“我们绝不再为‘失败’继续买单（We're not going to fund failure）。”未来的州政府必须实行强问责制： - **公开设定清晰目标**：每一分钱花出去都要有量化的绩效考核。 - **坚决推行审计整改**：马汉曝光了一个惊人的现实——当前加州审计署提出的官方审计改进建议中，竟有整整 75% 从未被相关部门落实执行。整个体系缺乏向公众负责的反馈闭环。 - **摒弃“表演型政治”与面面俱到的讨好倾向**：特别是民主党内部，往往有一种陷入泛滥同理心的冲动，试图向所有人承诺解决所有问题、在同一时间讨好所有群体。而真正成熟的执政者必须进行战略聚焦：普通民众交税是为了最核心的诉求——高昂的住房负担、高昂的能源成本、公立学校的教育质量以及街区的基本治安。面对开支暴增 75% 却换来全面恶化的现实，如果不敢动刀切除官僚顽疾，空谈同理心不过是昂贵而虚伪的作秀。 ### [09:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=566s) 政府干预的悖论与“财政收入至上”的治理误区 主持人和 Matt Mahan 探讨了政府干预往往适得其反的怪圈：政府试图通过更多干预来建设住房，结果却推高了房价；试图投入更多资金普及教育，反而让学费愈加昂贵。而在加州立法机构中，政客们为了竞选成功，几乎无一例外地高喊“我要做更多事情”，因为这正是获取选票的通行法则。这就引发了一个关键拷问：一个候选人如何能反其道而行之，主张“少管一点”来真正解决问题？ Matt Mahan 借用了一句格言作为回应：“如果你已经掉进坑里，首先要做的是别再继续挖了。”他点名批评了本届州长竞选对手之一埃里克·斯沃韦尔（Eric Swalwell）。斯沃韦尔在近期辩论中被问及对加州前三项施政重点时，竟给出“收入、收入、收入（Revenue, revenue, revenue）”的回答。Mahan 认为，这种思维彻底暴露出对加州制度性崩坏的无知。作为民主党人，必须正视并为当前的治理恶果承担责任，而不是习惯性地将一切问题归咎于缺钱。 作为竞选阵营中唯一的现任行政长官（时任北加州最大城市圣何塞市长），Mahan 指出圣何塞的特殊现实：由于历史原因，圣何塞长期作为北部核心就业区的卧城（bedroom community），缺少大型商业办公税基，受加州 13 号提案（Prop 13）限制，人均税收增长缓慢且绝对值较低，比周边邻近城市低了约三分之一。然而，圣何塞却在收容无家可归者、推动住房建设和遏制犯罪上取得了显著成效。其核心秘诀在于打破惯性，敢于公开设定明确量化目标，并让公众监督每一笔资金是否换来了实际成果。然而，大多数政客因害怕在下次大选中因无家可归率或犯罪率未达标而遭选民问责，宁可不断出台毫无问责机制的新法案，结果因“非预期后果定律”（the law of unintended consequences）让事情变得更慢、更贵。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 传统官僚模式与结果导向治理模式对比 accDescr: 对比传统官僚体系推卸责任导致成本飙升，与以目标和成果为核心的治理体系。 subgraph LEGACY["传统政客闭环模式"] A["竞选承诺：做更多/要更多收入"] --> B["通过海量法案与监管"] B --> C["回避设定公开绩效与问责目标"] C --> D["非预期后果：周期变长、成本暴涨"] D --> A end subgraph ACCOUNTABLE["Mahan 倡导的治理模式"] E["公开设立硬性治理目标"] --> F["优化资金配置与务实执行"] F --> G["公众依据成果实施问责"] G --> H["以更少的人均财政实现更好治理"] end ``` --- ### [12:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=725s) 特殊利益集团绑架、系统性激励错位与教育溃败 对话随后深入探讨了加州政治背后的核心推动力——有组织的游说团体与公共部门工会（Public Sector Unions）。这些团体拥有庞大的竞选资金和动员网络，对州议员、市长乃至州长的选举拥有举足轻重的话语权。Mahan 强调自己并不畏惧挑战任何利益集团，但也澄清不仅是工会，各类行业协会、医生、牙医、石油天然气巨头乃至新兴的科技界，都在萨克拉门托组建了极度专业化、资金充裕的游说机构来拼命维护现状（defend the status quo）。 即便如此，Mahan 直言加州首府萨克拉门托在竞选和游说支出上最大的金主依然是有组织的劳工组织，尤其是公共部门工会。他并不认为工会是不可沟通的铁板一块——例如建筑工会（Building Trades）通常极其务实并支持经济增长，工会维护会员利益本身无可厚非。真正的问题根源在于“毫无脊梁的政客们”（spineless politicians），他们对工会激进的诉求无底线妥协。以教师工会为例，工会往往抗拒设立绩效考核问责、抗拒引入循证教学课程（evidence-based curriculum），甚至反对在课堂中引入更多新技术；而民选官员为了政治献金与选票，不但不敢挺身维护公众利益，反而顺水推舟配合通过有利于工会的法案。 这种系统性激励机制的错位带来了一个令人震惊的荒谬现实：加州作为一个资源极度充沛、理念高度进步的富裕大州，低收入家庭儿童的阅读达标率甚至比密西西比州和路易斯安那州还要差。这不仅是无能，更是一种体制性的深层腐败——议员沦为利益集团的代理人，由游说者直接起草法案文本与友好修正案。Mahan 警告，无论选民属于哪一党派，大众都需要一个能降低住房与能源成本、改善公立教育、保障社区安全的高效政府；如果加州民主党无法迅速觉醒并展现问责与执行力，政治钟摆必将走向极端，催生加州本土的“特朗普式/MAGA 式”民粹主义反噬。 - **游说格局现状**：传统公共部门工会、行业组织（医生、牙医）、传统能源长期主导游说支出，科技界近期才开始起步组织化游说。 - **教育表现对比**：资源丰富的加州在低收入学童阅读达标水平上，竟落后于深南部的密西西比州和路易斯安那州。 - **立法异化流程**：高度组织化的特殊利益集团起草法案原文与修正案，缺乏骨气的政客照单全收以换取选举资金。 --- ### [16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=964s) 走向极端的无家可归危机与 85,000 美元的“圣何塞解法” 在谈到加州如何从“问题未解”堕落到“全美最差”时，主持人列举了一系列沉重数据：加州的贫困率全美第一，失业率居高不下，且集中了全美近一半的街头无家可归者。Mahan 引用祖母的名言“通往地狱的道路往往是由善意铺就的（the road to hell is paved with good intentions）”来剖析这场灾难。加州的问题不仅在于住房市场的彻底失灵，更在于对成瘾和严重精神疾病的长期纵容与认知误区。 加州主流意识形态陷入了一种危险的妄念，误以为任由病患在街头受苦甚至因药物过量横尸街头，是对其“公民自由（civil liberties）”的尊重，反而将强制介入治疗拯救生命视作越界。过去十年间，加州街头有高达 50,000 名无家可归者死亡，其中约半数死于药物吸食过量和自杀。这种对人道主义悲剧的视而不见，更成了某些人拒绝改变政府开支模式的借口。 面对传统体系下建造一套永久性保障房动辄耗费高达 100 万美元的荒唐现状，Mahan 在圣何塞强推转型：放弃耗时耗资的百万公寓路线，转而在城市公有土地上铺设通水电的独立睡眠舱（sleeping cabins），将单套建造成本骤降至 8.5 万美元（全口径成本）。在他担任市长的前三年里，圣何塞累计新增了超过 2,000 张收容床位，成为全州遏制街头露宿成效最显著的城市。但推进该模式时，遭到了激进倡导团体和传统保障房开发商的激烈阻挠。Mahan 强调，政策制定必须依靠数据和事实反馈；如果进步主义理念在实践中被证明彻底失败，就必须果断纠偏。对话最后还提及旧金山实施的“受控酒精计划”（Managed Alcohol Program），对酗酒露宿者免费提供酒精的做法令人难以置信。 | 指标 / 方案 | 传统加州保障房模式 | 圣何塞创新模式（Matt Mahan 主导） | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **单套单元成本** | 约 1,000,000 美元 / 门（Door） | 约 85,000 美元 / 单元（All-in cost） | | **实施形态** | 传统新建永久公寓楼，周期冗长 | 铺设在公有土地、接通公用管线的独立睡眠舱（Sleeping Cabins） | | **核心成效** | 资金快速耗尽，新增床位杯水车薪 | 3 年内新增超 2,000 张床位，大幅削减露宿街头人口 | | **利益阻力** | 获得既得利益开发商与激进倡导者支持 | 遭到传统非营利开发商与教条化意识形态团体的强烈反对 | ### [18:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1128s) 加州住房危机的本质：供给短缺与诉讼勒索 讨论从旧金山街头不良激励措施（如免费发放针具、酒类导致无家可归问题加剧）切入，迅速转向加州的核心痛点——住房可负担性危机。针对“市场上有很多出租和在售房屋，加州到底是房子不够，还是法规和维护成本太高”的提问，马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）给出了明确判断：这在根本上是一个供给问题。从奥斯汀、西雅图到全美数十个市场的经验都表明，一旦消除市场壁垒以满足需求，成本上涨就会放缓，这是基础经济学规律。 然而，加州面临的更大挑战在于制度性障碍导致“根本无法以合理成本建房”。除了区划限制（Zoning）和繁杂的高额行政规费，极为繁琐的建筑规范与无休止的诉讼更是关键祸首。例如在公寓（Condo）建设上，加州近年几乎陷入停滞，其直接原因就是建筑质量责任诉讼（Construction defect liability）。诉讼律师可以在项目建成的第九年介入，只要发现一处油漆起泡，就能提起集体诉讼。律师的核心目的就是谋取巨额诉讼代理费，而萨克拉门托强大的出庭律师协会（Trial Lawyers）游说集团极力阻止任何有利于开发商的法律改革。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州公寓建设停滞的诉讼闭环 accDescr: 解释诉讼律师如何通过建筑缺陷责任诉讼抑制开发与融资 subgraph LegalLoop["建筑缺陷诉讼利益链条"] A["完工第9年寻找瑕疵<br/>（如油漆起泡）"] --> B["出庭律师提起诉讼<br/>赚取巨额诉讼费"] B --> C["出庭律师游说集团阻挠法案改革"] C --> A end subgraph Impact["市场后果"] B --> D["诉讼赔偿风险激增"] D --> E["保险与融资完全断绝"] E --> F["公寓建设全面停滞<br/>年轻买家失去首套房阶梯"] end ``` 这种诉讼文化对全州公共基础设施和青年群体的财富积累造成了毁灭性打击： - **公共服务陷入恶性循环**：许多加州城市因为人行道绊倒摔伤的巨额和解金，耗尽了维修预算，导致未来几年内无法修缮其他路面，进而引发更多的摔伤诉讼。 - **剥夺年轻人的财富阶梯**：公寓历来是年轻人进入房地产市场、建立资产净值并向上置换独立屋的第一个阶梯。由于开发商无法获得项目融资与责任保险，这一晋升阶梯已被彻底抽离。 --- ### [21:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1314s) “安全主义”泛滥与缺乏绩效评估的官僚机器 针对主持人提出加州是否“并非面临住房危机，而是面临监管危机”的质问，马汉完全赞同。监管制度和官僚体系早已脱离服务公众的初衷，沦为萨克拉门托特权利益集团的工具。谈及监管层层加码的心理根源（包括喜剧演员 Adam Carolla 所调侃的过度保护性心态），马汉指出了深层次的制度弊病——“安全主义”（Safetyism）。 在现行体制下，每当社会上出现一起负面新闻事件，立法者的第一冲动就是出台一项新规、增加一套审批流程或附加一笔费用，因为“追求绝对安全”永远是阻力最小的政治表态。由于政府内部从未建立起奖励“实际成果与绩效”的激励机制，官员们只能靠展示忙碌的“表演性动作”（Performativeness）来体现政绩，陷入“大量活动却毫无实质影响”的怪圈。马汉表示，他在圣何塞推行基于公开透明的数据看板（Dashboards），将流浪汉减少 10%、降低犯罪率、加快许可审批等设为硬性指标，直接向敲门走访过的选民负责，以此打破特权集团的利益绑定。 --- ### [24:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1487s) 州长竞选目标：解绑监管与重塑住房对就业的比例 谈及竞选州长后的住房指标，马汉强调单纯设立“建造一千万套”的绝对数字并不科学，核心指标必须是降低单位建造成本以及平衡**就业与住房的配比**： - **失衡的就业住房比**：过去 20 年间，硅谷和湾区创造了举世瞩目的经济奇迹，但每创造 8 个新工作岗位，仅建造 1 套新住房；而一个可持续的健康经济体要求至少达到“每 2 个就业岗位配比 1 套住房”。 - **造价差距过大**：科罗拉多州建设相同标准房屋的成本仅为湾区的一半。加州若不大幅压缩规费、缩减漫长审批周期并简化建筑规范，在住房上永远无法具备竞争力。 - **年化竣工量目标**：加州历史峰值曾达到每年建造 15 万套住房，近年来已从 10 万套滑落至约 8 万套。马汉提出任期内必须重回年均 10 万套以上，并实现住房开工量逐年递增。 - **工业化建造潜力**：通过模块化工厂化建造（Modular/Factory-built housing），单套住宅成本可降低 20%，总工期可缩减 50%。马汉主张通过监管部门职权范围内的改革，将每平方英尺的建造成本直接压缩至少三分之一。 --- ### [26:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1612s) 应对立法机构：州长权力的施展路径 面对加州立法机构盘根错节的既得利益阻力，主持人质疑马汉是否具备绕过立法会单方面推进改革的法定权力。马汉坦言不能指望一蹴而就的“紧急权力”，必须兼顾州长行政手段与立法合作： 1. **预算主导权（Budget Process）**：通过州预算分配杠杆制约开支与政策走向。 2. **否决权（Veto Power）**：坚决否决强化监管壁垒与增加开发成本的不合理法案。 3. **政治讲坛与公开点名曝光（Bully Pulpit & Naming and Shaming）**：利用州长的声望向阻碍改革的议员和利益团体公开施压。 4. **广泛的任命权（Executive Appointments）**：加州州长拥有任命各委员会多达 3,000 名官员的权力，这些行政机构在执行、解释和落地具体监管规定时拥有巨大的自由裁量权。 5. **立法阵营合作**：马汉强调，许多民主党议员同样对当前的官僚低效深感挫败，只要能动员选民认知并提供政绩支撑，推动立法层面的破局依然大有可为。 ### [27:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1671s) 政治激励倒错与打破沉默的政治赌注 在私下交流中，几乎每一位政界人士都会坦承体制已经崩塌、各项政策运转失灵，但公开场合却鲜有人愿意站出来戳破这层窗户纸，直指体制的败坏和激励机制的彻底倒错。被问及这是否是因为政客们害怕得罪金主阶层（donor class）从而失去竞选资金时，Matt Mahan 指出，在加利福尼亚这样一个幅员辽阔、传递政治信息成本极其高昂的州，没有坚实的资金支持就贸然“孤身涉险”（step out on a limb）确实困难重重，大多数人自然会选择稳妥求全的既得利益路线。 然而，打破这种僵局正是他参选州长想要下的赌注。随着社交媒体极大地拉低了传播门槛，政治人物现在完全有能力绕过传统中介，直接面向选民讲述真相。Mahan 直言，在体制内推动真正变革必然要承受污名化的代价——一旦你试图打破现状，反对者就会给你扣上各种帽子，斥责你是“企业走狗”（corporate sellout）甚至是“种族主义者”。他强调，自己唯一的应对之道就是将“北极星”死死锚定在真实世界的治理成果上：住房成本、能源支出、学校质量以及公共安全，这些才是在工薪社区中成长起来的普通老百姓最切身关心的根本问题。 --- ### [29:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1759s) 加州无家可归危机的根源：住房成本与制度性失败 谈及导致无家可归危机（homelessness）的根源，Mahan 认为必须从整个生命周期的脆弱性与宏观经济结构来剖析。在住房廉价且供应充足的地区，即便成瘾和精神疾病的发生率同样很高，绝大多数患者依然能够拥有容身之所（remain indoors）。但加州的现实是，当基准月租金高达 3,000 美元时，哪怕是因为失业、突发疾病、家暴或药物依赖等不可控变故，缺乏储蓄托底的工薪阶层只需遭遇一张意外医疗账单，就会在极短时间内直接沦落到“以车为家”的境地。 加州极端高昂的生活成本结构——冠绝全美的住房支出、全美第二高的能源成本以及最高的汽油价格——对底层民众构成了毁灭性的不对称打击。与此同时，加州的公共政策出现了系统性坍塌：政府不仅亲手破坏了住房供给市场，而且长期没有建设足够的庇护所（shelter）和精神康复床位（treatment beds）。这导致加州虽然仅占全美人口的约 12%，却聚集了全国超过 40% 露宿街头、身处帐篷中的露天无家可归者（unsheltered homeless）。无家可归本应是一个短暂且必须在室内解决的过渡状态，加州却让其演变成了一场持久的露天危机。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州无家可归危机形成链条 accDescr: 展示从高生活成本到个体意外，再到收容体系缺失导致全美最高的露宿街头率的过程 subgraph Macro["宏观高压环境"] A["极端居住成本<br/>（月租约 3,000 美元）"] B["全美最高汽油与能源成本"] C["工薪阶层缺乏储蓄缓冲"] end subgraph Trigger["突发变故触发点"] D["失业 / 疾病账单"] E["成瘾 / 严重精神健康危机"] F["家庭暴力等家庭破裂"] end subgraph SystemFailure["公共政策缺位与后果"] G["收容床位与戒断医疗资源匮乏"] H["露宿街头恶性循环<br/>（占全美 40% 以上露天无家可归人口）"] end Macro --> Trigger Trigger --> SystemFailure ``` - **全美露宿街头集中度**：加州人口仅占全国约 12%，但全美超过 40% 住在帐篷和街头的露天无家可归者都集中在加州。 - **生活成本脆弱线**：当地平均月租约 3,000 美元，工薪家庭在面对突发医疗危机或失业时没有任何缓冲资本。 --- ### [31:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=1894s) 强制治疗、临时安置与第 36 号提案（Prop 36） 针对因严重精神疾病或毒品成瘾而丧失自理能力的人群，Mahan 明确支持采取非自愿强制收容（involuntary hold）进行戒毒与精神治疗。他指出，在圣何塞市中心，商铺玻璃窗屡屡被受芬太尼（fentanyl）和冰毒（methamphetamine）深度控制的人砸碎，这绝非单纯的个人自由问题，而是对整个社区的公然伤害。在提供救助方面，圣何塞已经建成了超过 2,000 个带门锁的独立低门槛临时过渡住房（interim housing），允许受助者携带伴侣、宠物和随身物品，力求给予他们尊严。 这种“在人们所在处给予支持”的模式迎来了分化鲜明的结果：大约有三分之二的人愿意主动接受安置走向康复；但剩下三分之一的人深陷冰毒与芬太尼的重度成瘾漩涡，根本无法做出符合自身生存利益的理性决策。Mahan 抨击那种任由成瘾者在街头、急诊室、监狱和吸毒过量死亡之间无限循环的所谓“同情心”是虚伪的，任其自生自灭绝不是真正的进步主义，政府负有道德责任进行强制干预。 在打击毒品供给与遏制需求方面，Mahan 强调必须“全员出动”（all hands-on deck），调动地方巡警、加州公路巡警（CHP）、国民警卫队乃至联邦工具。但他更看重通过执法机制切断需求端——每帮一个人完成戒毒，毒贩在街头上就失去一个买家。作为加州首位公开支持“第 36 号提案”（Prop 36）的民主党籍市长，Mahan 提倡建立递进惩戒机制：对第三次发生公共场所涉毒违法行为的人，执法部门将给出强制二选一的硬性后果——“要么接受戒断治疗，要么入狱服刑”。当个人的行为已导致市中心商铺倒闭、公园沦为家庭不敢涉足的危险区域时，公共利益必须得到强力扞卫。 --- ### [34:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2092s) 能源政策与监管反噬：加州绿色政策的代价 对话随后转向急剧攀升的能源账单。尽管地缘冲突导致了短期油价震荡，但加州长久以来的绿色能源监管政策早已让油价脱离正常轨道。当前加州汽油税与规费高达每加仑近 70 美分，全州油价飙升至每加仑约 5.50 美元，而全美其他地区的平均价格仅为 3.50 美元左右。为了追求脱碳指标，加州官僚体制逼走了能源巨头雪佛龙（Chevron，已将总部迁往得克萨斯州休斯敦），并迫使西海岸规模最大的炼油厂关停。 Mahan 直言加州在能源监管路径上犯了严重的“好心办坏事”（well-intended regulations leading to massive unintended consequences）的典型错误。他拒绝将经济民生与绿色环保对立成非黑即白的零和博弈，并指出得克萨斯州正在提供比加州更便宜且更清洁的电力，而中国等地区也在风电、光伏、储能与电动汽车领域大举投资推进技术迭代。真正的破局之路在于基础设施与技术创新，而加州过去十年却通过严苛且不切实际的法规，蓄意将本土炼油厂逐步赶尽杀绝。 这种逆淘汰式监管带来的荒谬结果是：加州并未真正减少油气消耗，反而被迫从数千英里之外的海外进口相同体量的汽油。这一折腾不仅催生了更大的碳足迹和环境污染，更让加州白白丢掉了全行业薪资最高的高素质就业岗位以及可观的本地税收基底。从全球气候的角度看，这种将产业向外推卸的做法非但没有改善地球生态，反而狠狠重创了本州的经济实力与民众承受力，堪称自绝生路的灾难范本。 - **加州与全美油价差距**：加州油价突破 5.50 美元/加仑，而全美基准仅约 3.50 美元/加仑；加州油税及附加费已达约 70 美分/加仑。 - **炼油产能外流的负反馈**：过去十年关停或逼迁原本拥有最高环保标准和最高薪资的本土炼油厂，使加州转而依赖高碳排放的长途海外原油进口。 ### [37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2231s) 能源政策与燃油税负担：倒逼创新的电网管理与累退税争议 谈到加州如何走出能源困境，马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）强调必须寻求“双赢机制”（win-wins），而不是一味地将能源生产赶往州外，却在短缺时继续依赖外州供应。加州在白天拥有极其廉价且充沛的太阳能，甚至到了州政府需要倒贴钱给亚利桑那州、求对方接纳多余太阳能电力的地步。马汉主张，加州应该向电动汽车（EV）车主发放补贴或提供强力经济激励，促使他们在正午阳光充足、电价极低时充电；而在傍晚 5:00 到晚上 9:00 的用电高峰期，再让车主将车辆反向接入电网放电，帮助电网渡过难关，避免被迫启动天然气调峰电厂。与其用激进法规驱赶传统能源，加州更应该投资于基础设施和技术创新。 与此同时，加州燃油税已攀升至每加仑约 70 美分，且州议会通过了一系列法案让其不断上调，眼下还在讨论进一步加税。马汉直言这是“最不可思议的累退税”（the most regressive tax imaginable），其恶劣程度甚至超过了普通的销售税。富裕阶层早已换上了电动汽车，根本无需支付这笔燃油税；承受全部重压的反而是基层的工薪阶层。马汉以自己的成长经历现身说法：他在沃森维尔（Watsonville）长大，高中时每天单程通勤 50 英里去上学，而他的父母每天则要往相反方向通勤 50 英里去上班。工薪家庭正在为一场他们并未挑起的能源代价买单。 为此，马汉提出应当**暂时停征燃油税**，为被沉重生活成本压得喘不过气的工薪阶层提供即时救济。他坦言，燃油税目前是道路铺设、维护和交通基础设施的主要资金来源，但加州的一般预算（General Fund）在过去 6 年内增长了 75%，全州支出高达 3500 亿美元，“一个坐拥 3500 亿美元预算的州，完全有能力在不惩罚工薪家庭的前提下修好马路”。从长远来看，随着电动车普及度不断提高，加州必须过渡到一种按使用量收费的基础使用费（basic user fee）机制，让所有真正使用道路的人公平分摊维护成本。 - **加州现行燃油税**：每加仑约 70 美分，州议会仍在推动继续上调。 - **电网峰谷倒挂**：正午光伏过剩时加州常补贴亚利桑那州以消纳多余电力，而在傍晚 5:00 至 9:00 用电高峰又不得不启动天然气电厂。 - **州预算增长**：加州一般预算在过去 6 年增长了 75%，总支出规模达 3500 亿美元。 --- ### [39:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2357s) 加州房屋保险危机：植被管理失职与价格管制的市场死局 针对加州日益恶化的住房成本与气候风险，主持人戴维·萨克斯（David Sacks）提到了加州车险与房屋保险市场面临的系统性崩溃。洛杉矶去年爆发的毁灭性野火摧毁了大片社区，导致多家主流私营保险公司集体撤离加州。萨克斯分享了自己的亲身经历：由于自家住宅周围树木较多，他最近直接被保险公司取消了房屋保险（dropped coverage），房屋被评定为“风险过高”。虽然萨克斯没有房贷压力，但对普通有按揭贷款的家庭而言，失去保险意味着直接违约；而州政府设立的兜底性质公共保险池（FAIR Plan）规模不断被迫膨胀，从财务和会计角度看，州政府根本无力承受这种无限兜底的风险。 马汉指出，修复这一僵局的核心在于**重建私营保险市场**。加州超过 90% 的房屋本可以通过负担得起的私营保险获得保障，关键在于允许保险公司按照真实风险进行“精细化定价”（granular pricing）。例如，如果房主愿意清理房屋周边 100 英尺以内的树木植被，就应当享受保费折扣；若执意保留树木，则必须支付更高保费。而对于深处山区、丛林茂密等极端高危区域的 5% 至 10% 房屋，新建筑应当受到严格限制，并强制采用防火建材，其保费也必须真实反映潜在火灾概率和重建成本，绝不能让全州普通房主为极少数最高风险的住宅买单。 更为关键的是州政府在预防层面的严重失职。马汉披露了一组悬殊的数据：加州在火灾应对和灾后重建上每投入 8 美元，用于前期火灾预防和植被清理的支出仅有 1 美元。大量城市社区之所以面临火灾威胁，纯粹是因为周边紧邻茂密且无人修剪的荒草灌木。马汉近期走访了阿尔塔迪纳（Altadena）和太平洋帕利塞兹（Pacific Palisades），发现灾后重建缺乏统一的指挥协调（"No one is quarterbacking this"），甚至在帕利塞兹的火灾废墟周围，野草再次疯长到了 5 英尺高却无人管理。如果当选州长，他将成立专项工作组治理保险市场，并通过州政府主导的植被清理降低灾难性损失风险，从根本上压低长期保费。 萨克斯对此猛烈抨击了加州政府的价格管制政策：州政府强制设定保险费率，规定保险公司只能收多少钱，却妄想保险公司会在持续亏损的情况下留下来；这种价格管制政策直接吓跑了加州的全部承保商。马汉对此完全认同，强调“这类价格管制在实践中根本行不通”，必须让市场根据真实风险与成本定价，同时鼓励屋主主动落实防灾措施来减免保费，兜底机制绝不能演变为全社会的连带牺牲。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州房屋保险市场困境与破局路径 accDescr: 展示加州现行政策导致的保险市场崩溃，以及马汉提出的精细化定价与预防干预方案。 subgraph Problem["现行失衡体制"] A["州政府价格管制 & 费率上限"] --> B["私营保险公司亏损并撤离加州"] C["重应对轻预防：8:1 支出失衡"] --> D["高危植被缺乏管理，野火频发"] B & D --> E["房主断保，州兜底资金池不堪重负"] end subgraph Solution["马汉提议的改革路径"] F["允许基于风险的精细化定价"] --> G["鼓励房主清理周边100英尺植被以减保费"] H["加大前期预防：成立专门工作组大规模清运植被"] --> I["压低灾害损失发生率"] G & I --> J["重建私营保险竞争，推动长期保费回落"] end ``` - **预防与救援失衡**：加州在火灾救灾与灾后恢复上的支出与在事前预防上的支出比例高达 8:1。 - **实地调研现状**：马汉在 Pacific Palisades 和 Altadena 看到，受灾区域缺乏领导统筹，杂草重新长至 5 英尺高仍无人清理。 - **市场覆盖比例**：90% 以上的普通住宅可由市场化私营保险有效覆盖，仅 5% 到 10% 位于高山密林的高危住宅需要特殊高费率或公共兜底机制。 --- ### [43:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2626s) 万亿美元养老金定时炸弹：CalPERS/CalSTRS 的缺口与圣何塞经验 随后，主持人戴维·萨克斯将话题引向了加州最庞大的隐性财政负债——公共雇员退休系统（CalPERS 与 CalSTRS）。这两个系统为加州约 300 万公职人员提供退休保障，两只基金合计管理约 1 万亿美元的资产。然而，这两只基金长期以来的年均投资回报率仅约为 7%，远落后于标普 500 指数（S&P 500）11% 的年化回报。多项精算数据表明，为了支付法律强制要求的退休福利，系统未来将面临巨大的资金缺口，乐观预估为 2500 亿至 3000 亿美元，悲观预估则高达 1 万亿美元。受制于加州最高法院确立的“加州规则”（California Rule），政府不得单方面削减此前承诺的退休福利。由于这些属于公共实体，这颗上万亿美元的债务炸弹最终只能由加州全体纳税人来买单。 马汉对此深表忧虑，并表示自己对这个问题有极其切身的体会。作为圣何塞市长，圣何塞早在多年前就充当了全州的“煤矿里的金丝雀”（canary in the coal mine）——当时未偿付的养老金负债已经开始疯狂吞噬市政一般预算。即便在圣何塞推行了艰难的养老金改革之后，**今年圣何塞一般预算中仍有整整 19% 直接用于偿还未拔备的养老金负债**。这意味着，圣何塞纳税人每纳税 5 美元，就有整整 1 美元必须雷打不动地优先用于填补退休人员的历史亏空。 马汉明确表示，他并不责怪退休雇员或为之争取的工会，真正的罪魁祸首是那些“数学算不明白”、甚至在明知账目无法维系时仍然选择将问题扫到地毯下面的政客们，因为政客们清楚，等债务账单最终到期时，自己早已卸任离职。马汉分析，解决这一危机本质上只有两条出路： 1. **转向固定缴款模式（Defined Contribution）**：效仿私营部门常见的 401(k) 模式，由雇主与雇员共同按比例注资进入市场投资，个人拥有清晰账户并可随时追踪资金增长。若在公共部门推行，政府需要提供强有力的配缴机制。不过马汉坦言，在加州当前的政治现实下，彻底转向固定缴款在政治上几乎不可能实现。 2. **制度性结构修补**：借鉴圣何塞过去实施的妥协与改革路线图，在法律和宪法允许的边界内，对新聘员工及未来福利机制进行务实重构。 - **基金覆盖与规模**：CalPERS 与 CalSTRS 服务约 300 万加州公共雇员，在管资产约 1 万亿美元。 - **回报率差距**：基金年化收益率仅约 7%，落后于标普 500 的 11%。 - **精算缺口测算**：未来兑现法定福利的资金缺口在 2500 亿至 1 万亿美元之间。 - **圣何塞财政负担**：即使历经改革，圣何塞市今年仍有 19% 的一般预算被未拨备养老金负债占用，即纳税人每交 5 美元就有 1 美元被直接扣除偿债。 ### [46:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2784s) 圣何塞养老金改革：共担风险与二十年“减负滑道” 在谈到解决庞大养老金债务的具体路径时，马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）回顾了圣何塞当年艰难的改革历程。那场改革远非一帆风顺，不仅直接诉诸选民公投，随后还引发了激烈的法律诉讼，整个过程“极其混乱”。但改革最终为新员工确立了一套更为合理的全新养老金体系：要求雇主与雇员在前期共同提高缴纳比例；对投资回报率设定更务实的预期；若回报不达预期，机制能够更快做出动态调整；同时聘用高激励、高水准的基金经理来优化资产配置。最核心的突破在于风险共担机制——一旦投资回报未能达标，资金缺口将由市政府（即纳税人）与雇员（通过削减未来福利）各承担 50%，真正实现了“在目标落空时共同承担阵痛”。 对于历史遗留的一类（Tier 1）老员工庞大的未受资助负债（unfunded liabilities），受制于现行法律限制，政府无法单方面强行取消既有承诺。马汉指出，在法律和政治现实的约束下，他们找到的最佳解法是一条长达 20 年的“减负滑道”（glide path）。圣何塞目前已大致处于未受资助负债的成本最高峰，随着改革的深入推进，到 2040 年代初，圣何塞将彻底清偿这笔历史债务。届时，城市的一般基金将重新变得充裕，公共服务水平和市政人员编制也将迎来强劲复苏。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 圣何塞养老金双轨制改革架构 accDescr: 展示圣何塞针对新老员工采取的双轨制养老金改革方案与资金缺口分担机制。 subgraph Tier1["老员工群体 (Tier 1 既有负债)"] T1A["历史累积高额未受资助负债"] --> T1B["锁定 20 年偿债平稳滑道"] T1B --> T1C["当前处于偿债支出最高峰"] T1C --> T1D["预计 2040 年代初彻底还清债务"] end subgraph Tier2["新入职员工 (新设健康养老金体系)"] T2A["提高雇主与雇员前期缴纳比例"] T2B["设定务实回报预期 + 引入专业基金管理"] T2C{"投资回报是否达标?"} T2A --> T2C T2B --> T2C T2C -- 达标 --> T2D["体系健康平稳运转"] T2C -- 出现缺口 --> T2E["50/50 风险共担机制"] T2E --> T2F["纳税人/市政府补足 50% 差额"] T2E --> T2G["雇员削减 50% 对应福利"] end ``` ### [48:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2889s) 预算飙升 3.5 倍背后的官僚膨胀与零基预算构想 大卫·弗里德伯格（David Friedberg）随即抛出一组令人震惊的财政数据：加利福尼亚州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）提出的最新州预算高达 3,490 亿美元，相较于疫情前一年的 2,090 亿美元增长了近 75%，而比起十年前的 1,100 亿美元更是暴增了约 3.5 倍。然而，拥有全美最高税率和最庞大财政收入基数的加州，今年却依然面临高达 350 亿美元的严重财政赤字。面对这一反常现象，弗里德伯格追问这其中究竟有多少属于欺诈、浪费与权力滥用。 马汉回应称，资金流失的根源首先在于公职人员薪酬、养老金以及退休后医疗福利的无节制膨胀，其增长速度早已脱离了财政的实际承受力。更关键的症结在于官僚机构的野蛮扩张：过去 6 年间加州总人口基本保持零增长，但州政府员工编制却激增了 20% 以上，预算支出更是猛增 75%。长久以来的惯性模式是：只要财政年景好、税收超预期，政府就顺水推舟地每年增加 2% 到 3% 的编制，给所有人普遍加薪 4%，并仓促设立一堆缺乏结果考核的新项目。马汉主张加州必须实施彻底的“零基预算”（zero-based budgeting），从头审视每一笔支出的必要性，将开支与实际产出挂钩，而不是盲目供养一个臃肿且低效的庞大官僚体系。 - **预算跨越式飙升**：加州预算从十年前的 1,100 亿美元激增至目前的 3,490 亿美元，增幅达 3.5 倍。 - **人口与编制脱节**：过去 6 年全州常住人口基本停滞，州政府雇员编制却增加了 20% 以上，支出激增 75%。 - **高税率与赤字并存**：即便坐拥全美最重税负，加州本财年依然面临 350 亿美元的财政赤字。 ### [50:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3040s) 州长实权与官僚问责：重塑执行力而非闭门造车 面对弗里德伯格关于“零基预算是否必须依赖深陷利益输送的州议会”的质疑，马汉承认，选出一名务实且具备独立思维的州长是解决问题的“必要但不充分条件”，最终仍需在议会中建立起由温和派主导的改革联盟。然而，州长绝非无计可施——州长不仅主导预算的编制节奏，手握强大的话语权（bully pulpit），更直接拥有对全州行政机构的指挥任命权。 马汉特别提到，加州州长拥有任命多达 3,000 名州级行政机构主管的权力。过去的官僚往往奉行“多一事不如少一事”的闭门办公和流程导向思维，而新领导层完全可以打破这种陈规：甚至可以精简这 3,000 个高级管理岗位的规模，并向留任者下达极其清晰的考核目标。州长有权要求这些官僚走出萨克拉门托的办公室，“走到基层去，深入校董会、市政府和县政府这些公共资金最终落地的现场”，寻找以更低成本换取更高回报的系统性改革方案。如果现任官员无法达成激进的改革目标，就必须果断换上能干实事的人。 ### [52:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3142s) 拒绝全民免费医疗空想：以竞争、预防与常识扭转成本曲线 针对加州政界（尤其是民主党内激进派）正在极力推动的“全州单一公费医疗系统”（Single-payer / Free Healthcare for All），马汉明确表达了反对立场，直言“由州政府运营全民免费医疗在经济上完全不切实际”。他警告，如果只懂得靠一味加税来填补所谓的免费服务黑洞，最终必将导致整个州的财政彻底破产。 马汉提出了一套切实可行且能扭转医疗成本上升曲线的务实方案： - **价格透明与市场竞争**：通过强制医疗服务价格透明化与促进自由竞争，能够直接压降 5% 至 10% 的医疗总体开支。 - **从治疗转向预防性护理**：重构激励机制，鼓励保险公司与医疗机构主动帮助居民改善体质，减少终身层面对重症医疗体系的索赔需求。 - **治理游民减负急诊资源**：将街头数以万计的无家可归者转移至收容所并提供基础救助，能够立竿见影地缓解急诊室过度挤兑的沉重负担。 - **给执业护士（Nurse Practitioners）充分松绑**：破除萨克拉门托幕后游说团体关于医生与护士执业边界的严苛垄断限制，允许执业护士在社区诊所承担更多早期预防和初级诊疗工作，防止病患拖成慢性重症后涌入急诊室，从而从根本上重塑医疗体系。 ### [54:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3278s) 站在“富豪税”的对立面：警惕财产权侵害与民粹主义陷阱 弗里德伯格随后将焦点转向全美瞩目的“亿万富翁税”（Billionaire Tax）提案。弗里德伯格直言马汉是目前所有加州州长参选人中唯一公开站出来反对该税种的人，并强调从私有财产权的角度来看，在公民合法缴纳所得税之后，政府若还能回过头来强行没收其存量资产的 10%，无异于开创了一个毫无底线的危险先例。 马汉回应道，推动此类惩罚性税收的底层冲动，本质上源于社会公众对经济不平等加剧和阶层流动性停滞的深层焦虑。他完全承认贫富分化与流动性减弱是加州面临的现实严峻挑战，但他坚决反对通过摧毁私有产权和惩罚财富创造来迎合这种情绪。加州迫切需要的是通过治理创新来解决经济结构问题，而不是依赖短视且具破坏性的民粹主义税收政策。 ### [55:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3355s) 财富税的谬误与真正的税制改革 针对加州政客提出的“财富税”（wealth tax），Matt Mahan 明确表示强烈反对，直言这在州层面上“根本行不通”。他指出，在政策讨论层面之外，现实中已经发生了超过一万亿美元的资本外流（capital flight），许多高净值人士直接选择搬离加州，这必然导致州政府未来的长期税收收入下降。这项提案最隐秘且肮脏的真相是：“最终为此买单的绝不会是亿万富翁，而是中产阶级和工薪家庭。”富人是全社会流动性最高、最容易搬迁的群体，而普通工薪阶层却无法轻易离开，只能留下来承担财政恶化的烂摊子。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Wealth Tax Consequences accDescr: 拟议财富税导致资本外流并转嫁税负给工薪家庭的逻辑链条 A["拟议州级财富税 (Wealth Tax)"] --> B["超万亿美元资本外流<br/>高净值人群搬离加州"] B --> C["加州长期税收基数下降"] C --> D["公共财政赤字与负担转嫁"] D --> E["中产与工薪家庭承受苦果"] ``` Matt Mahan 强调，若要让税制更加公平、增加数十亿美元财政收入，应该优先堵塞现行税法中的具体漏洞，而不是去推行根本无法落地的极端财富税： - **抵押升值资产借贷避税**：富豪通过将大幅升值的资产抵押贷款获取流动现金，从而完全规避缴纳资本利得税，这是一个应当被封堵的漏洞。 - **遗产继承计税基数提升（Step-up in Basis）**：现行制度下，继承人继承资产时成本基数会自动重置为当前市值。Mahan 直言：“我认为 Elon Musk 不应该能够将 5000 亿美元已升值但未征税的股票财富传给子女，而子女在继承那一刻基数被重置为当前市价，导致没有任何人为此支付过资本利得税。” 在 Mahan 看来，加州在自身公共治理没有做好的情况下，总是一味向纳税人要更多钱。加州社会流动性下降的根本根源不在于科技行业的迅猛发展，而在于公共政策的全面溃败：公立学校教学质量低下、住房负担过重、能源费用飙升。当大多数加州人将超过三分之一甚至一半以上的收入砸在住房上时，这才是掐断底层向上流动通道的元凶。 --- ### [58:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3508s) 科技红利、AI 浪潮与经济流动性探讨 播客主持指出，加州选民中普遍存在一种对他人成功的仇视心理，科技行业造就了极少数超级富豪，却让绝大多数普通人被抛在身后；如果 Mahan 不去迎合其他竞选人正在利用的民粹情绪，可能在州长竞选中面临巨大的政治劣势。面对提问，Mahan 将话题抛向对方，探讨科技界和高净值人群该如何让科技红利走向“共同繁荣”（shared prosperity），尤其在民众普遍担忧 AI 会消灭工作、加速财富集中的当下。 对方给出了一个高度乐观的视角： - **AI 赋能超级个体**：正如 Instagram、Shopify、Etsy 和 TikTok 催生了全新的创收角色和灵活岗位一样，AI 将创造千百倍于今天的全新赚钱方式，人们不再需要困在传统大公司的固定工位上。 - **阶梯加速器**：AI 正在以常人意料之外的速度助推个体提升阶层，随着大众逐渐掌握 AI 生产力，全社会将迎来由 AI 释放出的新一轮经济流动性。 Mahan 对此表示谨慎的乐观，但他从历史经验指出，重大技术变革虽然最终会带来更大的物质丰裕，但其转型过渡期往往对普通人极其残酷和痛苦。这也是为什么圣何塞（San Jose）已经在市政层面主动采取行动： - 市政府开设了面向普通工薪族的 AI 技能升级培训课程。 - 联合外部 AI 企业进驻公共图书馆，为普通居民免费提供前沿工具与实践培训，降低所有人接触并使用先进技术的门槛。 双方进一步探讨了公立教育面临的危机。对谈者笑称“AI 可以教会人们如何使用 AI”，那种自主提问并被 AI 瞬间启发的顿悟时刻（“woah moment”）就像火柴点燃了干柴。但 Mahan 强调，技术再先进也无法脱离基础教育的底色——目前加州有一半的孩子在阅读或数学能力上未能达到年级标准，如果连批判性思维（critical thinking）都没有建立，他们将很难成为终身学习者。面对知识已被 AI 全面涵盖的时代，美国教育必须从单纯灌输事实，转向培养孩子的好奇心、工程思维、创造力以及面对无限产能时的个人主动性（agency）。 --- ### [01:02:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3757s) 审视特朗普、关税与对抗两极民粹主义 当话题转向唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）时，Matt Mahan 明确表态“我不是他的支持者”（"I'm not a fan"）。虽然他承认特朗普敏锐地捕捉到了被遗忘的美国工薪阶层的挫败感，但他认为特朗普并不真正理解美国伟大的根基所在： - **移民政策的撕裂**：过去数十年间，民主党与共和党都出于对廉价劳动力的需求（包括 Mahan 成长的 Watsonville 等农业地区），吸引了大量移民。这些人在美国生活了二三十年，勤勤恳恳工作、按时纳税、遵纪守法，并抚养了身为美国公民的子女。如今特朗普挑动恐惧与对立，导致这些家庭每天生活在骨肉分离的恐慌之中。 - **外交与地缘政治风险**：Mahan 坚决反对在伊朗等中东地区的军事冲突，认为这是巨大的战略失策，不仅推高了全球能源成本，而且让美国军人白白牺牲。 - **关税与经贸竞争**：他认同中国在某些经贸领域存在不公平竞争，但认为理应采取高精准度、针对性的定向关税，而不是特朗普推行的全面无差别关税，后者直接推高了整体通胀水平。 归根结底，Mahan 最深层的担忧在于美国民主制度的健康状态，这需要诚实的公众对话、对法治（rule of law）的尊重以及对独立司法的捍卫。他指出，当前这种反动且带有准威权主义（quasi-authoritarian）色彩的右翼民粹辞令，其根本原因是政府长期未能向工薪阶层兑现承诺，导致公众对制度的信任彻底崩溃。与此同时，左翼阵营也出现了同样危险的民粹化与极端反应，两极之间互为因果、恶性循环。Mahan 表示，自己之所以决定参选加州州长，正是希望在撕裂的政治格局中提供一条“第三条道路”（a third way）——作为一个务实的民主党人，直面现行体制的崩塌与失灵，提供切实可行的中间务实治理方案。 ### [01:04:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3894s) 问责萨克拉门托与评价州长加文·纽森 马特·马汉（Matt Mahan）直言不讳地指出，加州现行的激励机制全盘皆错。萨克拉门托（加州首府）的政治机器运转良好，但它服务且照顾的只是那些组织高度严密的既得利益集团，对普通百姓的生活却完全不起作用。他认为破解这一局面的根本出路在于回归常识、注重行政效能、以数据为驱动并切实为民众拿出成果；否则，加州将沦落为左右翼民粹主义恶斗的战场，政客们只会抛出迎合大众的廉价答案，而非加州真正需要的诚实药方。 当主持人让他给现任加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）打分时，马汉肯定了纽森作为一道“防火墙”抵御了州议会大量最糟糕的立法设想。纽森否决了议会通过的 10% 到 15% 的法案，马汉认为这些否决票非常及时，避免了对加州的实质性伤害。然而，马汉对纽森的根本批评在于：纽森在对抗萨克拉门托根深蒂固的利益集团方面做得远远不够。两人在第 36 号提案（Prop 36）、康复庇护性住房（recovery housing）以及能源政策等诸多议题上曾发生过公开分歧。不过马汉强调自己奉行“对事不对人”，不在意动机或意识形态标签，只看行动带来的客观结果。 马汉认为纽森推行的一些政策——例如针对精神疾病与药物成瘾患者的关怀法庭（CARE Court）——构想方向完全正确，但真正的瓶颈在于执行力。如果不能切实把成瘾和精神障碍人群送入救治机构，再好的初衷也是空谈。如果当选州长，他承诺将狠抓执行，确保 Prop 36、Prop 1 以及 CARE Court 等政策真正兑现预期的治理成效。 --- ### [01:06:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4016s) 与特朗普政府的博弈：拒绝表演性对抗，优先解决灾后重建 针对主持人提到纽森经常在社交媒体上模仿特朗普（Donald Trump）的 Truth Social 风格发推嘲弄、维持一种公开敌对姿态的现象，主持人质问：加州高度依赖联邦拨款、联邦合作以及大面积联邦土地的管理，未来马汉若当选州长，将如何与特朗普打交道？ 马汉直言理解纽森的做法——纽森像一面镜子一样回敬特朗普，一方面展现为加州价值观而战的姿态，但另一方面也是出于自身政治激励：纽森正在布局竞选美国总统。但马汉强调自己的执政策略截然不同。作为加州州长，他的核心任务是为加州纳税人服务：在捍卫核心价值观、保护加州人民以及争取州级联邦拨款时，他绝不会手软，必要时将毫不犹豫通过法庭诉讼和舆论领地（bully pulpit）与特朗普政府抗争到底。 但与此同时，绝不能陷入零和博弈，必须主动寻找与联邦政府实现双赢的切入点。马汉举了自己亲历的痛心案例：他刚走访过遭遇毁灭性大火的阿尔塔迪纳（Altadena）和太平洋帕利塞兹（Pacific Palisades）。两地有超过 10,000 栋房屋化为灰烬，灾民失去了一切，急切盼望重建，却迟迟拿不到亟须的援助。背后的阻碍正是加州与华盛顿之间无休止的高强度党派斗争——口水战和政治算计导致早已承诺的 400 亿美元联邦救灾资金滞留不发。马汉认为，把人民放在政客的政治利益之上，就意味着要想方设法让联邦政府和特朗普在重建洛杉矶这件事上也能看到“政治赢面”，而不是拿灾民的苦难当两党恶斗的牺牲品。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州联邦救灾困境与解决路径 accDescr: 对比纽森的党派对抗模式与马汉倡导的双赢务实执政模式 subgraph CurrentConflict["当前困境：党派内耗阻碍救灾"] A["加州严重火灾灾害<br/>(Altadena / Palisades 损失逾1万栋房屋)"] --> B["400亿美元联邦救灾资金承诺"] C["萨克拉门托与白宫公开敌对对抗<br/>(聚焦总统竞选与意识形态对立)"] --> D["政治口水战导致资金滞留与执行拖延"] B --> D D --> E["普通灾民流离失所、重建无望"] end subgraph MahanApproach["马汉方案：务实双赢模式"] F["坚决底线<br/>(通过诉讼/舆论捍卫州利益)"] G["寻找双赢<br/>(给联邦重建洛杉矶的政治利好)"] F & G --> H["超越党派分歧，加速资金落地"] H --> I["切实解决住房与基础设施灾后重建"] end ``` --- ### [01:09:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4153s) 移民改革与 ICE 执法：超越两党算计的“大妥协”方案 谈及美国移民及海关执法局（ICE）的执法以及无证移民问题时，主持人询问马汉作为州长是否会将加州的无证移民视作代表对象，是否会保护他们不被驱逐。马汉给出了明确界限：除非犯有严重和暴力犯罪，否则他会提供保护。他主张非法滞留且犯有暴力重罪的人必须被驱逐出境；但对于那些几十年来在农业、建筑业默默劳作、纳税并生儿育女的无证移民家庭，将他们骨肉分离既不现实也不人道。 马汉回顾自己在加州农业小镇的成长经历，指出当地历史上大约有三分之一的人口是无证移民。面对两党数十年的踢皮球和明尼阿波利斯（Minneapolis）等地执法乱象导致的公民被误捕甚至伤亡，他主张达成一项兼顾道德与现实的“大妥协”（grand bargain）： ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 移民体制大妥协框架 accDescr: 展现马汉提出的边境管控、重罪驱逐以及合法身份路径的三重妥协结构 subgraph BorderAndLaw["国家安全与法治底线"] direction TB A["全面封锁与强化边境安全<br/>(阻断芬太尼走私、恐袭与非法激励)"] B["严厉驱逐犯有暴力与严重重罪者"] end subgraph PathwayToStatus["人道主义与经济现实"] direction TB C["阻断无序非法入境激励<br/>建立规范合法的劳工引入机制"] D["为守法长居家庭提供合法身份<br/>(如绿卡/工卡，可不含投票权)"] end BorderAndLaw --- PathwayToStatus ``` 主持人追问共和党核心的疑虑：很多人指责民主党故意放开边境是为了在人道旗号下将这些人转化为选民，进而将加州乃至摇摆州长期“蓝化”，锁定在华盛顿的执政权；为何民主党始终回答不清当年为何放开边境？马汉对此予以直接反驳，指出这一机制背后的利益同谋是双向的： - **两党的经济与政治共谋**：农业、建筑业以及历史上的肉类加工业（meatpacking）等行业，依靠大量廉价、充沛的无证劳工赚取了巨额财富，而这些产业的大资本家本身就是共和党的大额政治捐助人（donors）。两党都在迎合各自的基本盘，在政治上都有意维持问题不解决的状态。 - **中间派的务实态度**：马汉认为两党都各有盲点，但也各自说对了一部分。共和党要求确保国家知道谁进出边境、严控边境防范芬太尼流入、防范恐怖主义与核扩散风险，这是完全正当的国家安全诉求；对犯罪分子的驱逐也是最低底线。 - **合法身份不等于投票权**：为了彻底化解共和党关于“民主党借此扩充选民基盘”的政治恐惧，马汉提议，赋予那些勤勤恳恳、没有犯罪记录的长期居住者合法身份（Legal Status），并不意味着一定要直接给予入籍或投票权，可以发放绿卡或合法工作许可。他强调，不能任由数以百万计的人继续在恐惧和阴影中生活，必须以妥协换取国家前行。 ### [01:14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4442s) 移民妥协方案与民主党党内对手的对比 讨论延续了移民改革的僵局，双方指出要彻底解决问题，两党都必须作出妥协与让步。主持人提出，解决移民争议的最佳方案或许是“提供合法居留路径，但不赋予投票权”，这种折中机制既能保障无证移民的基本权益与劳动身份，又能打消保守派对选举格局被重塑的担忧。随后，话题转向加州州长竞选，主持人要求 Matt Mahan 对党内三位主要竞争对手——埃里克·斯沃韦尔（Eric Swalwell）、汤姆·斯泰尔（Tom Steyer）与凯蒂·波特（Katie Porter）进行对比与评价。 Matt Mahan 直言，在经历多次辩论后，他看清这三位候选人其实都在争夺同一条政治赛道，即“墨守成规、延续旧制”的赛道（"more of the same lane"）。在他们的竞选纲领与施政逻辑中，解决加州一切困境的唯一药方就是增加财政收入，“收入、收入、还是收入”（"revenue, revenue, revenue"），甚至有人将其列为首要的三大施政目标之一。Mahan 认为这种认为“只要增税和设立新政府项目就能解决所有问题”的思维方式早已脱离现实，加州必须换一种全新的思路来破局。 ### [01:14:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4494s) 回归基本盘：务实政治与州长竞选愿景 Matt Mahan 阐述了他为加州量身打造的替代方案——这套施政逻辑已在北加州最大城市圣何塞（San Jose）得到了实际验证，他将其概括为“回归基本盘”（"getting back to basics"）。这种执政哲学的核心在于克制与聚焦，政府应当减少插手无关紧要的琐事，将全部精力集中在与民众生活质量及发展机遇最密切相关的底层根基上。政府必须对其自身能力保持谦逊，推行大刀阔斧的透明度改革，建立以具体结果与量化成效为导向的财政支出问责机制，以务实政治作为解药，抵御正在左右两翼蔓延并严重动摇国家民主根基的民粹主义狂潮。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 施政理念对比图 accDescr: 对比传统建制派路径与Matt Mahan回归基本盘的务实治理模式 subgraph Opponents["加州传统建制派方案"] A["迷信财政增收<br/>Revenue, Revenue, Revenue"] --> B["无限增设政府项目"] B --> C["缺乏结果考核与问责"] end subgraph Mahan["Matt Mahan 务实治理方案"] D["回归基本盘<br/>聚焦治安与基础生活质素"] --> E["保持政府能力谦逊"] E --> F["结果导向与支出问责"] F --> G["以务实主义抗衡民粹"] end ``` 谈及自己参选的契机，Mahan 表示在其他候选人已经开展竞选活动整整一年后，他才决定中途加入，正是因为听不到任何人坦诚直面加州的真实困境。尽管起步晚、准备时间紧迫，但他在全州巡回过程中见证了令人触目惊心的现实——从美墨边境导致加州南部海滩全面关闭的蒂华纳河（Tijuana River）污水危机，到阿尔塔迪纳（Altadena）的街区，再到旧金山饱受毒品与无家可归问题困扰的田德隆区（Tenderloin）。他强调，加州人民对政治口号早已厌倦，选民的核心诉求无比质朴：纳税人辛辛苦苦赚来的血汗钱能被负责任地使用，政府机构能够有效运转，当他们向政府交出如此高昂的税款时，自身的日常生活能够真正变得更好。访谈在 David 对其竞选州长表达祝愿与告别中圆满结束。 - **三位主要对手**：埃里克·斯沃韦尔（Eric Swalwell）、汤姆·斯泰尔（Tom Steyer）、凯蒂·波特（Katie Porter），均被 Mahan 指出陷入“靠持续增税扩大开支”的传统民主党建制派怪圈。 - **治理核心指标**：强调以“可衡量的结果”（measurable outcomes）与公共财政透明度作为衡量政策成败的唯一标准。 - **全州实地考察痛点**：包括蒂华纳河边境跨境污水污染导致沿岸海滩被迫关闭、旧金山田德隆区治安与街头危机等基层治理痛点。 ## Notable quotes > [01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=111s) 我们在萨克拉门托面临的根本不是缺钱的问题，而是机制激励错位的问题。 — 马特·马汉 > [07:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=421s) 我们绝不再为‘失败’继续买单（We're not going to fund failure）。 — 马特·马汉 > [09:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=566s) 如果你已经掉进坑里，首先要做的是别再继续挖了。 — 马特·马汉 > [16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=964s) 通往地狱的道路往往是由善意铺就的（the road to hell is paved with good intentions）。 — 马特·马汉 > [37:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2231s) 一个坐拥 3500 亿美元预算的州，完全有能力在不惩罚工薪家庭的前提下修好马路。 — 马特·马汉 > [39:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=2357s) 这类价格管制在实践中根本行不通。 — 马特·马汉 > [52:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3142s) 由州政府运营全民免费医疗在经济上完全不切实际。 — 马特·马汉 > [55:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3355s) 最终为此买单的绝不会是亿万富翁，而是中产阶级和工薪家庭。 — 马特·马汉 > [55:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=3355s) 我认为 Elon Musk 不应该能够将 5000 亿美元已升值但未征税的股票财富传给子女，而子女在继承那一刻基数被重置为当前市价，导致没有任何人为此支付过资本利得税。 — 马特·马汉 > [01:14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE&t=4442s) 收入、收入、还是收入（Revenue, revenue, revenue）。 — 马特·马汉 ## Mentioned 马特·马汉 (Matt Mahan), 加文·纽森 (Gavin Newsom), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 埃里克·斯沃韦尔 (Eric Swalwell), 汤姆·斯泰尔 (Tom Steyer), 凯蒂·波特 (Katie Porter), 戴维·萨克斯 (David Sacks), 大卫·弗里德伯格 (David Friedberg), 查马斯·帕里哈皮蒂亚 (Chamath Palihapitiya), 杰森·卡拉卡尼斯 (Jason Calacanis), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 亚当·卡罗拉 (Adam Carolla), Causes, Brigade, Driscoll's, 雪佛龙 (Chevron), Facebook, Instagram, Shopify, Etsy, TikTok, Teach for America, CalPERS, CalSTRS, FAIR Plan, ICE (美国移民及海关执法局), 加州公路巡警 (CHP), 国民警卫队, 加州环境质量法案 (CEQA), 13 号提案 (Prop 13), 36 号提案 (Prop 36), 1 号提案 (Prop 1), 关怀法庭 (CARE Court), 标普 500 指数 (S&P 500) ## Video description (0:00) Matt Mahan: Why He's Running for Governor (1:51) How California Went From Bad to Worse (12:05) Public Sector Unions & Lobbying in Sacramento (19:05) California's Housing Crisis: Regulation & Fees (34:52) California Energy Crisis: Gas Taxes & Green Policy (43:57) The $1 Trillion Pension Time Bomb (1:02:37) Trump, Tariffs & the Rise of Dangerous Populism (1:09:14) Immigration Reform: ICE & the Path to Legal Status Follow the besties: https://x.com/chamath https://x.com/Jason https://x.com/DavidSacks https://x.com/friedberg Follow on X: https://x.com/theallinpod Follow on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theallinpod Follow on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@theallinpod Follow on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/allinpod Intro Music Credit: https://rb.gy/tppkzl https://x.com/yung_spielburg Intro Video Credit: https://x.com/TheZachEffect #allin #tech #news [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBlD-mrIoE)

[1:51] 马特·马汉: 我们在萨克拉门托面临的根本不是缺钱的问题，而是机制激励错位的问题。 [7:01] 马特·马汉: 我们绝不再为‘失败’继续买单（We're not going to fund failure）。 [9:26] 马特·马汉: 如果你已经掉进坑里，首先要做的是别再继续挖了。 [16:04] 马特·马汉: 通往地狱的道路往往是由善意铺就的（the road to hell is paved with good intentions）。 [37:11] 马特·马汉: 一个坐拥 3500 亿美元预算的州，完全有能力在不惩罚工薪家庭的前提下修好马路。 [39:17] 马特·马汉: 这类价格管制在实践中根本行不通。 [52:22] 马特·马汉: 由州政府运营全民免费医疗在经济上完全不切实际。 [55:55] 马特·马汉: 最终为此买单的绝不会是亿万富翁，而是中产阶级和工薪家庭。 [55:55] 马特·马汉: 我认为 Elon Musk 不应该能够将 5000 亿美元已升值但未征税的股票财富传给子女，而子女在继承那一刻基数被重置为当前市价，导致没有任何人为此支付过资本利得税。 [74:02] 马特·马汉: 收入、收入、还是收入（Revenue, revenue, revenue）。

[1:51] Matt Mahan: Not a Money Problem, an Incentives Problem [7:01] Matt Mahan: spineless politicians who cave to their aggressive demands [7:01] Eric Swalwell: revenue, revenue, revenue [16:34] Matt Mahan: the road to hell is paved with good intentions [19:04] Adam Carolla: gynofascism [53:38] Matt Mahan: The dirty secret of this proposal is that it won't be the billionaires who pay higher taxes. It'll be middle-class and working families who are left holding the bag. [62:37] Matt Mahan: I'm not a fan. [65:26] Matt Mahan: bulwark [74:15] Matt Mahan: more of the same [74:15] Matt Mahan: getting back to basics

[0:00] Matt Mahan, welcome to All In. [0:02] >> Thanks, David. [0:02] >> I've no idea who you are. Who are you? [0:05] I mean, you're a guy who kind of popped [0:07] up running for governor of California [0:09] last minute. How'd that come about, and [0:11] who is Matt Mahan? [0:13] >> Well, David, like everybody, I'm [0:14] frustrated with the state that keeps [0:15] spending more and seemingly getting [0:17] less, which is why I jumped in. But to [0:19] back up, I grew up in a little farming [0:20] town here in California, town called [0:22] Watsonville, where your strawberries [0:24] come from. [0:24] >> I do work in Watsonville. [0:25] >> Driscoll berries, you know it well. [0:27] >> greenhouses, yeah. [0:28] >> Yeah, exactly. Working-class family, my [0:30] mom was a teacher, dad was a letter [0:31] carrier. My lucky break in life was [0:33] getting into a great college prep high [0:35] school on a work-study scholarship. I [0:36] took buses about 2 hours each way, [0:39] worked my way through high school and [0:40] college, and uh came back as a public [0:43] school teacher through the Teach for [0:44] America program. Always was very [0:46] community-oriented, was interested in [0:48] politics, wanted to know how to make our [0:50] city, our world a better place. Ended up [0:53] in the tech sector and spent about a [0:55] decade building civic tech tools to help [0:57] people navigate their democracy. [0:59] >> What did you build? [1:00] >> I was involved with an early Facebook [1:02] application called Causes, and then went [1:04] on to start a platform called Brigade [1:07] that was sort of like LinkedIn for [1:09] voters. And the whole premise was to [1:11] build grassroots, bottom-up power by [1:13] connecting voters around issues they're [1:15] passionate about, outcomes they want to [1:17] see, and help them organize to hold [1:19] their elected officials accountable. [1:22] After about a decade in the civic tech [1:24] space, our company was acquired, I [1:26] decided to run for city council, and I [1:28] went out and knocked on 10,000 doors, [1:30] got yelled at for a lot of things that I [1:33] wasn't necessarily responsible for, but [1:35] I got a real feel for the common sense [1:38] of the residents of California, who [1:40] would ask questions like, "If I'm paying [1:42] $20,000 a year in property taxes, why [1:44] haven't my local roads been paved in the [1:46] last 15 years?" And I thought that made [1:49] a lot of sense, so I went to city hall [1:50] to try to find out. [1:51] >> How dysfunctional is California, and how [1:54] did it get this way? [1:56] >> Pretty bad. I'm really worried, which is [1:57] why I jumped in. I think the state is [1:59] heading toward an inflection point, past [2:02] which there there may be no return. We [2:04] have increased spending in state [2:06] government by 75%. To put that in [2:08] perspective, that's a $150 billion more [2:12] this year than 6 years ago. And as far [2:15] as I can tell, none of the outcomes have [2:17] gotten better. Never mind 75% better, [2:19] many of them are flat or down over the [2:21] same time period. So, there is a [2:25] real lack of accountability in [2:26] government. We don't have a money [2:29] problem in Sacramento, we have an [2:30] incentives problem. We have a structure [2:33] that allows us to keep shoveling more [2:35] money into things that aren't working. [2:38] Just take high-speed rail. If a startup [2:40] took 20 years, spent $14 billion, and [2:43] didn't deliver a product, people would [2:44] have been fired a long time ago. And [2:46] we're just not seeing that level of [2:48] accountability in our state government. [2:50] >> Is this theft? Where does the money go? [2:53] $14 billion. [2:54] Who has that $14 billion, sir? [2:57] >> It's contractors, it's lawyers. Some of [2:59] it has gone into actually building the [3:01] project, but belatedly, what happens in [3:03] California, and the reason we can't [3:04] build we can't do big things anymore, is [3:08] that we've got endless process, years of [3:11] environmental review, the most litigious [3:14] environment imaginable. Anybody can sue [3:16] under CEQA. You don't even have to be a [3:17] resident of California to sue under [3:19] CEQA. And so, you just get years of [3:21] litigation, bureaucracy. [3:24] And when it comes to housing, just to [3:26] slightly switch topics, the fees that [3:28] cities can assess, one-time fees can add [3:31] 20% to the cost of a project. So, we've [3:33] just we've bureaucratized the state to [3:36] the point where it's total paralysis. We [3:38] can keep spending more and more and not [3:39] getting anything for it. [3:40] >> It's like I'm trying to understand as a [3:42] citizen and a taxpayer, I pay a 53% tax [3:45] rate living in California. I pay my [3:46] federal tax and my temporary California [3:49] tax, which I've been temporarily paying [3:50] for 11 years. [3:52] And I'm paying 53 cents of every dollar [3:55] I earn to the state and to the federal [3:57] government. I'm like, where'd my money [3:58] go? [3:59] It's such a mind-boggling number. Pick [4:01] the high-speed rail project alone. 14 [4:04] billion dollars spent. Spent. We don't [4:07] have a rail. [4:09] We don't have anything. [4:11] Is it lawyers that made 14 billion [4:12] dollars? You mentioned contractors. [4:14] Like, is this just like there's a whole [4:15] bunch of people that are all making 20, [4:18] 30 grand, and it all adds up to 14 [4:20] billion? Like, just help me understand [4:22] where my money went. [4:23] >> So, on that project specifically, and I [4:26] haven't done the line item by line item [4:27] analysis to be totally clear, but you [4:30] have years of consultants doing [4:33] environmental reviews and and [4:35] doing all of these studies and reports [4:37] of of the impacts it might have. So, [4:39] tons of consultants, you have the cost [4:41] of litigation, you have an entire [4:44] cottage industry of people doing design [4:48] and studies and reports and managing [4:50] litigation and buying right of way and [4:52] managing community engagement processes, [4:55] and we just we take years to do to do [4:59] anything. And so, it just gets vacuumed [5:01] up into this sea of [5:02] >> little groups of things. So, there isn't [5:04] like one big thief. [5:06] Like, [5:06] the grand master thief of California [5:09] that's taken all the money and then it's [5:11] just like the dysfunction is just like [5:12] everyone's getting a little piece of the [5:14] pie. [5:14] >> sense. I mean, let's be clear. There is [5:15] fraud. There has been fraud, very well [5:17] documented in California and other [5:19] areas. During the last 5 years or so, [5:22] roughly during the pandemic, [5:23] unemployment claims in California that [5:26] were fraudulent totaled over 30 billion [5:29] dollars. That is well documented. [5:30] There's emerging research [snorts] right [5:33] now that shows that there are hundreds, [5:36] if not thousands, of hospice providers [5:39] who may or may not exist. I mean, we're [5:41] just getting this information now. This [5:43] is very real-time investigative [5:44] journalism. So, there's fraud, I think [5:47] by an order of magnitude [5:49] there's even something [5:51] bigger here which is which is waste and [5:53] inefficiency. It's a system where you [5:56] just keep incrementally growing head [6:00] count, growing the size of programs, [6:03] growing the grants that we give out to [6:05] nonprofits, and we're funding and [6:08] managing around process, not outcomes. [6:11] And I've tried to approach it very [6:12] differently in San Jose, and I think [6:14] it's why without raising taxes, in fact, [6:17] our revenue has actually slowed a bit [6:19] the last couple of years just because [6:20] the economy's cyclical, real estate is [6:22] struggling, we're very dependent on [6:24] local property taxes. But without [6:26] raising taxes, we have dramatically [6:28] changed the outcomes we're getting. We [6:30] have led the state in reducing crime and [6:31] become the safest big city in the [6:33] country. [6:34] We've reduced unsheltered homelessness, [6:36] meaning people living outside in tents [6:37] and vehicles, by about a third in the [6:39] last few years. We've unblocked housing [6:43] uh production. We're seeing thousands of [6:45] new homes under construction. In all of [6:47] those cases, we had to change existing [6:50] process that was in the way, reduce [6:52] fees, and cut funding for programs that [6:55] weren't delivering so that we could fund [6:57] other solutions that were more [6:58] efficient. [6:59] >> Well, let me also ask about legislation. [7:02] If you look at Washington, D.C., we have [7:04] our nation's Congress, [7:06] the House and the Senate, and there's a [7:08] Republicans and there's Democrats, and [7:10] they fight. And they fight so much, they [7:12] don't get anything done. Which by the [7:14] way may be a good thing, because in [7:16] California, the legislature passes [7:18] hundreds and hundreds of bills a year. [7:21] And they all um come from one party, the [7:24] Democrat Party. [7:25] Gavin Newsom, on average, vetoes 15 to [7:29] 20% of these bills every year, which [7:31] says something. [7:33] But maybe you can just explain a little [7:35] bit your view on how are all these laws [7:38] getting passed in California? How are [7:40] these How does the legislature in [7:42] Sacramento, where you're vying for a [7:44] seat to have the right to veto and the [7:46] right to push back? How are they making [7:48] decisions and what's motivating the [7:49] California state legislature? [7:51] >> Yeah, and I I would just to be clear as [7:53] governor veto even more of these bills [7:55] because there's a a total lack of [7:57] accountability and I think too many of [7:58] our legislators [8:00] think that their measure of success is [8:02] how many bills they can write, get to [8:04] the governor, and ultimately get signed. [8:06] What you see is you actually [8:08] read what these bills do, they generally [8:11] just add more cost and more process. [8:14] And what the legislature needs to be [8:16] told by our next governor is that we're [8:19] not going to fund failure. We're going [8:21] to publicly set goals. We're going to [8:24] measure the performance of every dollar [8:26] we spend. We're going to audit the heck [8:28] out of existing programs. Right now, 75% [8:32] of the audit recommendations from the [8:34] state auditor never get implemented. So, [8:37] there's just there isn't a feedback loop [8:40] with the public or or an accountability [8:42] for the outcome. There is a lot of [8:44] performative politics, a lot of [8:45] discussion of how much good we're trying [8:48] to do, how we're trying to be responsive [8:49] to everyone. We have a tendency, [8:52] particularly in the Democratic Party, to [8:55] want to be empathetic and tell everyone [8:56] that we're working on everything. We try [8:58] to be everything to everyone all at [8:59] once, rather than very strategically [9:02] saying some things matter more than [9:04] others. The high cost of housing, the [9:06] high cost of energy, the quality of our [9:08] public schools, the safety in our [9:09] neighborhoods. These are the things [9:11] people care about and think that they [9:13] should be getting when they pay taxes, [9:15] but despite increasing spending in the [9:17] state by 75%, [9:19] none of those outcomes have actually [9:21] gotten better. Some have gotten worse. [9:22] >> The irony is that sometimes it may be [9:24] the case, and I think it's very often [9:26] the case, that less government solves [9:27] the problem [9:29] better than more government. Trying to [9:31] do more to create housing may make [9:33] housing more expensive. Sounds ironic. [9:35] Trying to do more to make education [9:36] accessible makes education more [9:38] expensive. The more government gets [9:40] involved, the more prices [9:42] seem to skyrocket. How do you get over [9:44] that with all the interested groups that [9:46] are getting themselves elected in the [9:48] California state legislature by saying, [9:50] "I'm going to do more. I'm going to do [9:51] more. I'm going to do more." Cuz that's [9:52] how you get elected. How are you [9:54] possibly going to come in and say, "We [9:55] should do less, and that's how we're [9:57] going to fix some of your problems." [9:58] >> Yeah, well, certainly if you're If [9:59] you're in a hole, don't keep digging. [10:00] And sadly, one of my opponents in this [10:02] race, Eric Swalwell, just in a debate uh [10:05] said it a couple times now in debates, [10:06] when asked what his top three We were [10:09] all asked what our top three priorities [10:10] for the state, said, "Revenue, revenue, [10:13] revenue." And to me, that is just That [10:15] is a mindset that doesn't get what has [10:19] broken down in the state. You're [10:20] absolutely right. As Democrats, we have [10:22] to own the outcomes we're getting in the [10:23] state. And for too long, our reflexive [10:26] answer has been, "We need more revenue. [10:28] If we just have more money, we'll solve [10:31] this problem." I I just don't believe [10:33] that. And And I say that as the only [10:36] current executive in this race. [10:38] I'm the mayor of the largest city in [10:39] Northern California, San Jose. And [10:41] because of a quirk of history, we were [10:43] built as a bedroom community for the job [10:46] centers just north of us, [10:48] we actually have significantly lower [10:50] revenue per capita than many other [10:53] cities. We're not a job center, and so [10:55] with Prop 13, our tax revenue goes up [10:57] more slowly, and it is smaller. Our [10:59] revenue is about a third less than some [11:01] of our neighboring cities, and we're [11:03] delivering huge increases in sheltering [11:06] people, getting housing built, reducing [11:08] crime by thinking differently. But it [11:11] all starts with being willing to set a [11:14] goal publicly and allow the public to [11:17] hold you accountable for spending [11:20] dollars in a way that actually achieves [11:22] outcomes. And that sounds so simple. I [11:23] mean, I know most of your audience I've [11:25] been listening for years are in the [11:26] private sector, and it almost seems so [11:28] obvious that why would you even need to [11:30] say it? But the truth is, as elected [11:32] officials, we almost never set public [11:35] goals where we can actually be held [11:37] accountable. Heaven forbid in your next [11:38] election you might get called out for [11:40] not actually reducing homelessness or [11:42] reducing crime or getting housing built. [11:44] Instead, to your point, we pass bill [11:46] after bill showing that we're doing [11:49] something and half the time with the the [11:50] law of unintended consequences, we make [11:52] it slower and more expensive to do the [11:54] very thing that we want. [11:55] >> Right. Well, let's talk about maybe some [11:57] of the competing interests that want to [11:59] get capital, that want to pull capital [12:01] through the government for their base, [12:04] and that would be labor unions. They're [12:06] a very powerful lobbying, coordination, [12:10] uh set of groups in California. They [12:12] have significant influence over who gets [12:14] elected in the legislature, who gets [12:16] elected in city mayors races, and who [12:20] gets elected in the governor's seat. [12:22] Tell me your view on the role that labor [12:25] unions play in California politics today [12:27] and some of this dysfunction in [12:29] government and unaccountability in [12:30] spending, because I know that this might [12:32] be a very controversial topic to talk [12:34] about, cuz you don't want to piss off [12:35] the labor unions, but I'd love to hear [12:37] your your candid views on their role. [12:39] >> Yeah. Let me start by saying, I am not [12:42] afraid to take on any organized [12:44] interest, and it is not just labor, [12:46] though let's talk about the role of [12:48] public sector unions. It's not just [12:50] labor that is highly organized. You have [12:53] trade associations, you have the doctors [12:55] and the dentists, you have the public [12:57] sector unions, you have the oil and gas [12:59] industry. You [13:01] Tech has actually been late to the [13:03] party. Tech is starting to organize. So, [13:05] the the way that I look at the landscape [13:07] in Sacramento, and I think it's largely [13:08] true in Washington as well, is you have [13:11] well-resourced, highly organized, [13:13] professional [13:15] advocacy, lobbying, and political [13:17] operations that essentially defend the [13:20] status quo, and you are absolutely right [13:23] that the single biggest spender in [13:25] Sacramento when it comes to advocacy [13:27] lobbying and elections is organized [13:30] labor and particularly public sector [13:31] unions. I don't think it's a monolith. I [13:33] have great relationship with our public [13:35] sector unions. Our building trades want [13:36] to see the economy grow. So, [13:39] many unions are very pragmatic and all [13:41] of them are doing what they're supposed [13:43] to be doing. It's spineless politicians [13:46] who cave to their aggressive demands who [13:48] are the the root cause of the problem [13:50] here. So, when the teachers union [13:51] organizes and says [13:53] "We don't want more accountability. We [13:55] don't want to be told to use [13:57] evidence-based curriculum. We don't want [13:59] more technology in the classroom." [14:01] Whatever it is they may advocate for, [14:04] presumably on behalf of or at least what [14:06] they perceive to be the interests of [14:07] their members, it's our elected [14:09] officials who need to step up and say, [14:12] "Well, for the good of the community, [14:14] we're going to push you on that. We're [14:15] not just going to give you a pass. We're [14:17] not just going to veto that legislation [14:19] or stay quiet when we know that for what [14:21] we're spending, we aren't getting what [14:23] we should be." We've gotten to the point [14:25] where [14:25] Mississippi and Louisiana are doing a [14:27] better job of helping low-income kids [14:31] get on grade level for reading than we [14:33] are in the very well-resourced, very [14:35] progressive state of California. That is [14:38] a function of a system that is more [14:41] responsive to the highly organized [14:43] interests than the people we're elected [14:45] to serve. Right. That's the fundamental [14:48] dysfunction. [14:50] Uh some see this corruption and I don't [14:52] think that's too strong of a word. I [14:53] don't mean it in the narrow sense of [14:55] anyone breaking the law or or um [14:59] you know, stealing money, but but the [15:01] system has become again back to the core [15:03] point here that the incentives [15:05] are all wrong. [15:06] The incentive for an elected official is [15:08] to cater to highly organized interests [15:11] who disproportionately spend money in [15:13] elections, follow what's happening up in [15:15] the legislature, draft the bill [15:17] language, draft the friendly amendments, [15:20] get legislators to do their bidding [15:23] and I just I'm running against the [15:26] system because it doesn't matter if [15:28] you're a Democrat, a Republican, an [15:30] independent, we need a high-functioning [15:32] government that delivers [15:35] lower housing costs, lower energy costs, [15:37] better schools, safer neighborhoods, and [15:39] end the street homelessness. We have the [15:42] resources to do it. What we haven't had [15:44] is the political will and accountability [15:47] to do it. And I don't think that's a [15:48] partisan point. And and frankly, if the [15:50] Democratic Party doesn't start to wake [15:52] up and be more responsive to the needs [15:55] of our constituents and deliver with the [15:57] resources we've got, we're going to see [15:59] the pendulum swing all the way the other [16:01] way and you're going to see a MAGA-like [16:03] movement happen here in California. [16:04] >> If I look at California, [16:07] I can understand we're not solving [16:08] certain problems. [16:10] But what I'm trying to grok is how did [16:11] some of these problems become the worst [16:13] in the nation? [16:14] So, there are statistics and you can [16:16] debate per capita statistics versus [16:19] absolute number of people, [16:21] but number one in poverty, number one in [16:23] unemployment, nearly half the nation's [16:25] homeless live in California. [16:27] >> Yeah. [16:27] >> How did California go from [16:30] being bad and not solving these problems [16:32] to making them worse? [16:34] >> Well, I think my my grandmother used to [16:37] always say that the road to hell is [16:38] paved with good intentions and I do [16:40] think generally speaking people have [16:43] had good intentions but have been [16:45] unwilling to look at data and react when [16:47] the things that they're championing [16:48] aren't working. On homelessness, [16:51] we've Well, first of all, we've broken [16:52] the housing market, which we should talk [16:53] about as its own issue. We've also been [16:56] incredibly lax when it comes to dealing [16:59] with cycles of addiction and mental [17:01] illness. We've sort of deluded ourselves [17:04] into thinking that leaving someone to [17:07] choose to live however they'd like even [17:09] if that means suffering in misery on the [17:12] streets and ultimately dying of an [17:14] overdose is somehow more important than [17:16] intervening and saving their life. And [17:18] that's how we've ended up in this [17:19] horrific situation that frankly has been [17:21] underreported over the last decade. [17:24] We've had 50,000 people die on our [17:26] streets in California, about half from [17:28] overdose and suicide. These are people [17:30] with deep behavioral health issues where [17:33] we're kind of just watching them [17:35] deteriorate and die because we're so [17:38] precious about protecting civil [17:40] liberties. May also be an excuse for not [17:42] spending money in new ways. In San Jose, [17:45] we had to move away from spending a [17:46] million dollars a door to build a brand [17:48] new apartment to get someone off the [17:50] streets and pivot to buying sleeping [17:52] cabins that can be deployed in small [17:55] communities on publicly owned land [17:56] hooked up to utilities. All in cost of [17:59] $85,000 a unit. We've added over 2,000 [18:02] shelter beds in my first 3 years as [18:05] mayor and led the state in reducing [18:08] unsheltered homelessness, but we had to [18:10] overcome an incredible amount of [18:12] opposition from advocates, affordable [18:14] housing developers, and and you know, [18:16] much of it well-intentioned, maybe some [18:18] of it self-interested, but we either are [18:20] going to be committed to [18:22] solving the problem or we're going to [18:24] cave to highly organized interests or a [18:27] progressive ideology that needs to be [18:30] willing to revise itself when when its [18:33] ideas and practice aren't working. [18:34] >> Yeah, I mean, it just feels some of the [18:36] policies they're just crazy. I always [18:37] commented on the managed alcohol program [18:40] for homeless in San Francisco. They give [18:42] away free alcohol to alcohol addicted [18:45] unhoused people. [18:47] And I can't imagine that that [18:48] disincentivizes people [18:50] to [18:51] >> No. [18:51] >> Right. It's It's like you go to you go [18:53] to San Francisco, you get needles, you [18:55] get free alcohol. You I mean, you get [18:57] these things. So, it incentivizes people [18:59] to to go to to go to San Francisco. The [19:01] whole thing just seemed [19:02] absolutely nuts to me. Let's get into [19:04] the housing question. I mean, what is [19:06] the core of the housing affordability [19:08] problem in California? Is it that we [19:10] don't have enough houses? Cuz I see a [19:12] lot of homes for lease, a lot of houses [19:13] for sale, a lot of houses for rent. [19:15] Or is it that we have regulation that [19:18] makes it hard to maintain a house and [19:20] it's expensive? Or is there something [19:23] else going on that's making housing [19:25] unaffordable in California? Like what's [19:27] the the core here? [19:28] >> Look, I I think it's fundamentally a [19:30] supply problem. We've seen most recently [19:32] in Austin, we saw in Seattle, we've seen [19:34] in dozens of markets around the country [19:36] that when we remove barriers to the [19:39] market investing in housing to meet [19:41] growing demand, you slow down cost [19:43] increases. It's economics 101. Part of [19:46] our challenge is that we've also made it [19:50] impossible to build affordably. So, part [19:52] of the challenge was zoning, high fees, [19:55] all of the things government imposes [19:57] that block housing from getting built, [19:59] but we also have a building code that's [20:02] incredibly cumbersome. We I mentioned [20:04] litigation earlier when it came to [20:06] high-speed rail, same thing is true for [20:07] housing. We're not building condos in [20:09] California partly because construction [20:12] defect liability allows a trial lawyer [20:15] to come in in year nine of a project and [20:18] if they see that the paint is starting [20:20] to bubble, they'll file a suit and they [20:23] they care about the fees. Their [20:24] incentive is to generate fees and we've [20:27] created a legal framework that allows [20:30] them to do that. And if you try to [20:33] change it, the another highly organized [20:35] interest in Sacramento, the trial [20:37] lawyers will push back on that. [20:39] >> I think this is so important. People [20:40] don't understand how expensive [20:42] Someone told me it was like a sizable [20:44] percentage of GDP in the United States [20:47] is spent on litigation and trial lawyers [20:50] and that they are the largest donor in [20:53] certain state elections all over the [20:55] country to try and create a legal [20:57] framework that allows them to pursue [20:59] litigation and earn significant fees. I [21:01] mean, it's a [21:02] multi-multi-multi-billion-dollar [21:03] industry. [21:04] >> That's right. And California is very [21:05] much at one end of the spectrum. I mean [21:07] I've talked to municipal leaders in [21:09] cities that are settling at such a high [21:13] amount for a trip and fall that now they [21:15] can't afford to maintain the rest of the [21:17] sidewalks in the city for the next few [21:18] years. So they're going to have more [21:19] trip and fall cases. We are going to [21:22] risk of allowing trialers to sue the [21:25] state into oblivion. So that is a It is [21:27] a major issue. And on condos, it may [21:29] seem like a peripheral issue, but [21:31] traditionally that has been how young [21:33] people get some equity in society, [21:35] become a homeowner for the first time, [21:38] and build that nest egg to eventually [21:40] perhaps trade up into a townhome or a [21:42] single-family home. We've essentially [21:45] taken that rung of the ladder away by [21:48] making it cost prohibitive to build. You [21:50] Good luck getting financing or insurance [21:52] to build a new condo building in [21:53] California right now. [21:54] >> Right. Is it fair to say we have a [21:56] regulation crisis, not a housing crisis [21:58] in California? I mean, is there a way to [22:00] kind of reframe this? [22:01] >> I think that's fair. I think regulation [22:04] bureaucracy say a a set of codes and [22:07] laws that don't work for people and work [22:09] for the special interests in Sacramento. [22:11] >> I interviewed this guy Adam Carolla. You [22:13] know him? [22:14] >> I know of him. I don't [22:15] >> Yeah. Dr. Drew. [22:17] What was the term he Oh, very [22:18] inappropriate. He called it gynofascism. [22:21] He said that all of the regulatory is a [22:23] safety thing and it's like a very [22:24] feminine safety protective kind of [22:26] origin in a lot of the regulations that [22:29] have been passed that make it [22:30] impossible. Everything's about safety [22:32] and more regulation, more regulation, [22:33] more regulation. And as a result, you [22:35] can't get anything done and the lawyers [22:37] show up and everything gets sued. What's [22:39] the right way to think about the origin? [22:40] Cuz his argument is that there's a [22:42] mindset of safety and protectionism [22:44] that's driven this. [22:45] Is it just the trial lawyers? Or like, [22:47] why do someone keep passing Why do the [22:49] legislators keep passing laws over and [22:52] over and layers and layers and layers [22:53] and layers that make it impossible to [22:55] build and make it super expensive to [22:58] maintain cuz otherwise you'll get sued. [22:59] >> Yeah, look, I I would take the the [23:01] gender content out of it, but I think [23:04] the the deeper point that we suffer from [23:08] safetyism, it's actually easier to add [23:10] one more rule, one more process. I see [23:12] this play out every day with our city [23:14] council at the local level, and I think [23:16] it's even [23:17] a greater temptation at the state level [23:19] where you're not able to point to a [23:20] concrete service that you're delivering. [23:22] So much of the implementation happens at [23:24] the local level. [23:25] Every time [23:27] there is a negative story about [23:29] something bad happening in the world, [23:32] there is an impulse for a legislator [23:34] >> law. [23:34] >> to say, "Let's create a new rule. It can [23:37] always be a little bit safer. Let's [23:39] Let's add another check, another [23:41] balance, another process, another rule, [23:43] another fee, whatever it is." And the [23:46] reason for that, in my view, is that we [23:49] have not created an incentive structure [23:52] in government to reward [23:55] actual performance and outcomes. [23:59] And so we are by default rewarding the [24:01] performativeness of showing that we're [24:03] doing so it's a lot of activity without [24:05] a lot of impact. And I just I think that [24:08] we have to help voters [24:11] be smarter about analyzing what their [24:14] elected officials are doing and whether [24:16] or not it's working. That's why I want [24:17] to be held accountable. I came into [24:19] office running on dashboards. I mean, I [24:21] put up public-facing dashboards and [24:23] said, "Here's our baseline. [24:25] Here's how we compare to others. Here's [24:27] the goal we're setting. We're going to [24:29] reduce homelessness by 10% year over [24:30] year. We're going to reduce crime. We're [24:32] going to remove barriers and get housing [24:34] built. We're going to speed up permit [24:35] reviews. I want to be held publicly [24:37] accountable because I would rather, [24:39] frankly, have a feedback loop with the [24:42] people whose doors I knocked on than [24:44] whichever group doesn't like that we're [24:46] trying to change something. [24:47] >> What's your metric for being governor of [24:48] California as it relates to housing? [24:50] What's the dashboard you're going to put [24:51] up and what's your goal? [24:52] >> So, I I think that the the ultimate [24:54] outcome has to be that we're building [24:56] more housing, but that we're building it [24:57] more affordably. We have to pull the [24:59] cost out of building because as long as [25:02] the state of Colorado can build the [25:03] exact same home at half the cost of what [25:06] it what it is in the Bay Area, we're [25:08] never going to be able to compete. So, I [25:10] want to see more housing in absolute [25:12] terms get built. We need to start moving [25:14] in a better direction. We've gone from [25:15] about 100,000 units a year to about [25:17] 80,000 a year. You go farther back, it [25:19] was 150,000 a year we were doing. [25:21] >> you want to What do you want to get to [25:22] in your term? [25:23] >> I think we need to get We need to get [25:24] well over 100,000. I think the right way [25:27] to think about it though is it's really [25:28] a ratio with jobs. For every two jobs an [25:31] economy creates, you need at least one [25:32] home. Part of the reason the Bay Area [25:35] and particularly Silicon Valley is so [25:37] unaffordable for working people and [25:39] we're seeing displacement of working [25:40] families is that over the last 20 years, [25:43] this incredible economy here, the engine [25:46] of of innovation for our country and [25:48] really the world, has created about [25:50] eight jobs for every one new home we've [25:53] built. That is a completely [25:54] unsustainable ratio. [25:56] >> Yeah. [25:56] >> So, I'm a little hesitant to come out [25:57] and say we're going to build 10 million [25:59] homes. I think it's a ratio thing. It's [26:01] a It's a rate of change. We need to be [26:02] building more year over year, but [26:04] importantly, we need to pull back the [26:06] fees, the long timelines, the overly [26:09] complicated building codes. [26:11] >> of those get a metric. [26:12] >> Yeah, each of those get a metric because [26:13] ultimately, the per square foot cost of [26:16] building needs to go down. [26:17] >> need to get to? Where is it today? Where [26:19] does it need to get to? [26:20] >> Oh, it varies dramatically by product [26:21] type and market. So, I don't I I I mean, [26:23] it's a good question. I think I think we [26:24] should we should lay that out, but I [26:26] just visited a modular construction [26:29] fact- factory factory-built housing. [26:31] They can bring down the cost per unit by [26:34] 20%, speed up overall project timelines [26:37] by up to 50% by just industrializing the [26:40] production of housing. So, we need to [26:42] pull the cost down. We should be able to [26:44] drop the cost on a per square foot basis [26:47] by at least a third with actions that [26:50] are within our control as regulators. [26:52] >> If you become governor, you're going to [26:54] be fighting against a legislature that's [26:56] got all of the various vested interests [26:58] tied up in keeping this from happening. [27:00] How do you take action without [27:02] partnership with the legislature? Cuz [27:04] what I think might be very hard is again [27:06] to wind things back that all these [27:08] incentive systems have been created to [27:10] to deliver. [27:11] >> Yeah. [27:11] >> Are there emergency powers or action you [27:13] can take as governor that can just say, [27:15] "You know what? I'm going to fix this in [27:17] a year." [27:18] Or do you have to work with the [27:19] legislature to solve these problems? [27:21] >> A bit of both. I mean, the the governor [27:22] has certain levers that are very [27:23] powerful driving the budget process. [27:25] There's the veto, the bully pulpit, just [27:27] kind of naming and shaming is really [27:29] powerful, executive orders, the [27:33] appointments. I mean, the governor [27:34] appoints 3,000 people who run [27:37] all of these commissions that have [27:38] incredible discretion over how to [27:41] implement regulations. But there's no [27:43] doubt that ultimately you need the [27:44] legislative branch to to change. And I [27:47] think that a lot of Democratic [27:49] legislators, many of whom I know [27:51] personally and private, will admit that [27:53] things are broken, that things aren't [27:54] working. There just hasn't been that [27:57] willingness publicly to name what is [27:59] going on, say that the system's broken, [28:02] the incentives are are completely [28:03] backwards. I think, you know, as [28:05] governor, I'd be in a position to change [28:07] the conversation, help either persuade [28:11] existing legislators to think [28:12] differently or elect different [28:13] legislators. [28:14] >> Do you think it's also cuz if they're [28:16] public about it, they'll [28:18] lose their donors and they'll lose their [28:20] donor class that's supporting them? [28:22] >> Well, it's hard to step out on a limb [28:24] without knowing if you're going to have [28:26] support for it. It is difficult to just [28:28] go direct to voters in an environment [28:31] where money talks. It's a very large [28:33] state. [28:34] >> [snorts] [28:34] >> Uh it's expensive to deliver a message. [28:36] Social media has lowered barriers. [28:38] That's part of my bet is that we can go [28:39] straight to the voters with this message [28:41] and get traction around around the [28:43] truth, around what it takes to actually [28:45] solve our problems. [28:47] Uh but it's it's, you know, I understand [28:50] why people go with the sure the sure [28:52] thing. And it's it's not fun to be [28:54] labeled. They will call you everything [28:56] when you fight for change. You're a [28:57] corporate sellout, you're [28:59] um you're racist, you're whatever. I [29:01] mean, there's always some label that [29:03] people will ascribe when you try to [29:05] fight for change. But I try to stay [29:07] laser-focused on the [29:09] real-world [29:11] outcomes. Housing costs, energy costs, [29:13] quality of schools, public safety, the [29:14] things that people care about in [29:16] neighborhoods like the one I grew up in. [29:18] That has to be the North Star. [29:19] >> Yeah. What causes homelessness? [29:21] >> It's a big question. There are a few [29:22] things. I mean, one, you can't ignore [29:24] our broken housing market because in [29:26] places where housing is cheap and widely [29:30] available, you can have high rates of [29:32] addiction and mental illness and most [29:33] people can remain indoors even [29:36] um even with those challenges. You know, [29:39] typically what happens if you if you [29:40] actually look at it as a life cycle [29:42] issue. [29:43] If someone who's already vulnerable for [29:45] some reason, could be of their own [29:46] choosing, [29:47] could be circumstances, but job loss, [29:50] health issues, addiction, mental [29:52] illness, um you know, domestic violence. [29:54] There's a range of really awful things [29:56] that happen to people and that people [29:57] sometimes do to themselves. [29:59] And in these circumstances, if the rent [30:03] is $3,000 a month, you are just one [30:07] medical bill, [30:08] you know, layoff away from really having [30:12] you know, ending up in your car very [30:14] quickly. And and people working people [30:16] in California especially don't have a [30:17] lot of savings. They don't have [30:18] something they can fall back on. So, the [30:20] macro cost structure of California, the [30:23] highest housing costs, second highest [30:25] energy costs with the highest gas [30:27] prices, which disproportionately hurts [30:29] working people. [30:31] >> [snorts] [30:31] >> Um an educational system that is [30:33] preparing far too few of our children [30:35] for the jobs of the future. We can go [30:36] through that list, but that is creating [30:39] these conditions of of sort of [30:41] vulnerability or fragility that means [30:43] that people living on the edge are much [30:44] more likely to end up in their car. [30:47] But I would add that we have a massive [30:49] public policy failure. Not only did we [30:51] break the housing production market, [30:52] which is the macro challenge, but we [30:54] haven't built shelter and treatment [30:56] beds. So, for folks for whom an [30:58] addiction or mental health issue is the [31:00] the thing that has them on the edge, we [31:03] have far fewer beds than other states. [31:05] And then when people do become homeless, [31:07] it ought to be brief and it should not [31:08] be outdoors and yet we we lead the [31:12] nation in unsheltered homelessness. Over [31:14] 40% of the people living outside in [31:16] tents in the entire country live in [31:19] California, which is only about 12% of [31:21] the country's population. We haven't [31:23] built shelter, we haven't built [31:24] treatment, we're not doing what we need [31:26] to do to rapidly re-house people, [31:29] connect them to a case manager, give [31:31] them tools to turn their lives around, [31:32] and hold them accountable for turning [31:33] their lives around. [31:34] >> If there's mental illness, should they [31:36] be committed to some facility to help [31:39] them recover from their mental illness? [31:41] >> Yes, or support them through that. In [31:42] short, I I think you have to be able to [31:45] involuntarily hold people for addiction [31:47] treatment, mental health care, if [31:49] they're repeat If someone is repeatedly [31:52] refusing help, [31:54] if they are harming the broader [31:55] community, which is often the case, [31:57] whether that's vandalism, retail theft. [31:59] It's been a battle here in our downtown [32:02] where windows are constantly being [32:03] broken by people who clearly are [32:05] suffering from serious addiction and and [32:07] mental health issues. [32:09] I think we should give opportunities to [32:12] accept help. It needs to be dignified, [32:15] they need to be alternatives to the [32:16] streets. We've stood up over 2,000 [32:19] indoor placements, interim housing [32:21] placements, almost all individual rooms [32:23] with doors that lock, giving people [32:24] privacy. These are low-barrier [32:26] alternatives to the streets. Bring your [32:28] partner, your pets, your possessions. [32:30] We're really trying to meet people where [32:31] they are. The good news, [32:33] 2/3 of people say yes. [32:35] The bad news, the other third is so deep [32:38] in the throes of addiction to substances [32:41] like meth and fentanyl that they can't [32:44] make a rational decision about their own [32:46] self-care. I believe that that is that [32:48] it is not compassionate or progressive [32:50] to leave them to endlessly cycle between [32:53] streets, emergency rooms, jails, and [32:55] ultimately die of an overdose. I think [32:57] we have a moral duty to intervene, help [33:00] them detox, and get connected to [33:03] a counselor and give them a chance to [33:05] turn their lives around. Drugs are [33:06] coming from somewhere fueling this [33:08] crisis. [33:09] Can the governor address the drug [33:11] crisis? Can the governor get drugs off [33:13] the street, arrest drug dealers? Is that [33:15] a federal issue? How do we resolve the [33:18] fueling of fentanyl, methamphetamines, [33:20] prescription painkillers, et cetera, [33:22] that have made their way onto the [33:22] street? [33:23] >> It has to be all levels of government, [33:25] all hands-on deck. So much law [33:26] enforcement is done at the local level. [33:28] We have a police department with about a [33:30] thousand officers out on the street [33:32] enforcing local laws. They're on the [33:34] front lines of this crisis as are our [33:36] firefighters, social workers. [33:38] Surely having federal federal tools and [33:42] and and state [33:44] we we have the National Guard, we have [33:45] CHP, we have a variety of of tools here. [33:49] What I do know though is that we can [33:51] reduce demand by intervening in public [33:55] drug use and getting people into [33:56] treatment and holding them accountable [33:58] for turning their lives around. If we [34:01] get people into recovery, that's one [34:03] more customer not available out on the [34:05] streets to buy these dangerous products. [34:07] >> And how many times do they cycle through [34:09] before they have to be held more [34:10] permanently? [34:11] >> Well, I think it has to scale up over [34:13] time. With Prop 36, I was the first [34:15] Democratic mayor in the state to come [34:17] out in support of Prop 36. The rule of [34:19] thumb there is on your third public drug [34:22] offense, you can be given a choice [34:24] between treatment and incarceration. And [34:26] that's bringing a consequence to a [34:28] decision that doesn't just affect you. [34:30] We can talk about civil liberties, but [34:32] when you are actively choosing not to [34:34] engage in treatment, you are more often [34:36] than not creating imposing real costs, [34:39] real harm on the broader community. [34:40] We've seen businesses shutter in our [34:42] downtowns, parks where families can't [34:44] play. So, we [34:45] >> It's direct and indirect. [34:47] >> That's right. And I think a lot of [34:48] people don't account for that, which is [34:50] >> critical. I want to shift topics to [34:52] energy costs. There's an Iran war going [34:54] on, so there's an acute spike in energy [34:56] gas prices in the state, but over the [34:58] last number of years, California [34:59] Governor Newsom and the state [35:01] legislature have pursued an effort to [35:04] drive green energy policy in the state. [35:06] California has a 70 cents per gallon [35:09] roughly tax [35:11] rate. The California price for gasoline [35:13] this week is $5.50 compared to $3.50 in [35:17] the rest of the country. Did we get it [35:19] wrong? Should we have taken a different [35:21] path in the state versus fighting for [35:22] green, chasing Chevron out of the state? [35:24] Chevron's now relocated to Houston. [35:26] They're shutting down the largest [35:27] refinery on the West Coast because of [35:29] the policies and the [35:31] the bureaucracy and, you know, how do we [35:32] balance this climate change green [35:34] interest with the the real hard cost for [35:37] everyone on the price of living in the [35:39] state? [35:39] >> Yeah, I do think we've gotten our [35:41] regulatory solution here approach wrong. [35:45] I would reject the notion that it's [35:46] either-or. I don't think it has to be. I [35:48] think innovation is the is the middle [35:50] path, the way to do both. Look, Texas is [35:53] providing dramatically cheaper power [35:56] that is cleaner than California. You see [35:59] places like China out leaning heavily [36:01] into solar, wind, storage, EVs. The the [36:05] path is investment and innovation and [36:07] infrastructure, a smarter grid. What [36:10] we've done in California is is another [36:13] classic case of well-intended [36:15] regulations leading to massive [36:18] unintended consequences. Let's just take [36:19] the example of our refineries. [36:21] The state has lost most of its [36:23] refineries over the last decade because [36:26] we have intentionally regulated them out [36:29] of out of existence. And so what's [36:32] actually happened is we still import oil [36:36] and gas. [36:37] We've just pushed refineries. We had the [36:39] cleanest, best regulated refineries with [36:42] some of the highest paying jobs in the [36:44] sector. We pushed that out of state. Now [36:46] we're importing the same amount of gas [36:49] from thousands of miles away. It is [36:50] dirtier. It has a bigger carbon [36:52] footprint. We lost those good [36:54] high-paying jobs. We lost the tax base [36:57] of those companies paying local taxes. [36:59] It has been a hit on every level and [37:01] actually because climate and climate [37:03] change is a global phenomenon, we we [37:06] have not actually made the we've [37:07] actually made the problem worse while [37:08] hurting ourselves economically. So [37:10] that's the opposite of what we need. We [37:11] need win-wins. We should be paying EV [37:14] owners today in the middle of the day, [37:16] strongly incentivizing them to charge [37:18] their vehicles the middle of the day [37:19] when power is so cheap and abundant in [37:21] California that we sometimes pay Arizona [37:24] to take our excess solar. [37:26] And then have them plug in at night to [37:28] power the grid and get through that [37:30] roughly 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. evening [37:33] peak where we've got to start firing up [37:35] gas power plants because there just [37:37] isn't enough power on the grid. So we [37:39] need to be smarter when you invest in [37:41] innovation and infrastructure, not [37:43] regulate [37:45] energy sources out of state that we [37:46] still rely upon. But it's hard so now [37:48] we've got the 70 cents a gallon tax in [37:50] California. The legislature's passed a [37:52] series of bills to it to make that tax [37:55] go up and up and up. Now they're talking [37:56] about increasing it even further. [37:58] >> It's the most regressive tax imaginable [38:00] because it's even worse than a sales [38:02] tax, which is already fairly regressive. [38:04] But as you know, [38:06] higher income wealthier people have [38:08] already adopted EVs. They're they're not [38:10] paying this tax. It's working folks, [38:12] particularly in towns like Watsonville [38:14] where I grew up. I mean, when I was in [38:16] high school, I had to go 50 miles one [38:18] way for high school. My parents went 50 [38:20] miles the other way for their jobs. and [38:21] so it disproportionately hurts working [38:23] people. My proposal is that we, to [38:26] start, temporarily suspend our gas tax [38:29] to provide immediate relief to working [38:31] families who are paying the price for a [38:33] war that they didn't ask for, and [38:35] they're disproportionately paying the [38:36] price. I would temporarily suspend it, [38:39] but we have to be intellectually honest [38:41] about this. It is our primary source of [38:44] revenue for paving and maintaining roads [38:47] and our transportation infrastructure. [38:50] We will need to shift how we do this. [38:53] Rather than being a gas tax, [38:55] first of all, the general fund is up 75% [38:58] in the last 6 years. So, I'm pretty [39:00] confident that a state that's spending [39:02] $350 billion, [39:04] we can afford to pave our roads without [39:06] punishing working families. But, I also [39:08] think over time, as EV adoption [39:10] increases, we'll have to find a smarter [39:12] way of charging a basic user fee, so [39:15] that people who use the roads pay to [39:17] maintain them. [39:17] >> One of the other big costs in California [39:19] and related to housing and related to [39:21] this climate change question is the cost [39:24] of insurance for your home. We had this [39:26] massive wildfire that spread, destroyed [39:29] a large part of areas in Los Angeles [39:32] last year, and as a result, many of the [39:35] home insurance companies have left the [39:37] state. I just lost coverage on my home [39:39] because I live near a bunch of trees, so [39:41] my house is deemed too risky to have [39:43] coverage. And I'm fortunate in that I [39:45] don't have a mortgage that I've got to [39:47] deal with the loss of of insurance [39:49] coverage, but this is becoming an [39:51] increasing burden for the state of [39:52] California because the state's had to [39:54] step in and create a bigger and bigger [39:56] insurance pool that financially and [39:58] accounting-wise the state can't really [40:00] afford. [40:01] >> Yeah. [40:01] >> How do we solve this problem of the cost [40:03] of homeowners insurance? What's the [40:05] right structural solution here for [40:06] either incentivizing the return of [40:08] insurance companies, creating an [40:09] insurance pool that's well-capitalized [40:11] and can actually afford to make the [40:12] payouts instead of needing to go to the [40:14] federal government when there's a crisis [40:16] and ask for a bailout? How do we fix [40:17] this problem in California? [40:19] >> I think there are a a few components to [40:20] the strategy going forward here. [40:23] Uh number one, we have to rebuild the [40:25] private marketplace. 90% [40:28] of homeowners, maybe more, can be [40:30] covered by private insurance affordably, [40:33] and we have to rebuild that part of the [40:34] market by bringing them back, allowing [40:37] them to appropriately price risk, and [40:39] creating more granularity. If you're [40:41] willing, and you may not be, but if [40:42] you're willing to remove those trees [40:44] within 100 ft of your home, you should [40:46] pay a lower premium. If you prefer to [40:48] have the trees there, you should pay the [40:49] higher premium. So, more granular [40:51] pricing, allowing appropriate pricing of [40:54] risk, is is just really important. Now, [40:56] for the 5 to 10% of homes that are up in [41:01] have, you know, in the in the in the [41:02] hills, heavily wooded areas where [41:05] there's lots of vegetation, [41:07] we'll have to have higher First of all, [41:09] when you build, there's a question of [41:11] how much more we should be able to build [41:12] out there, probably not a lot. What [41:14] materials you use, they need to be fire [41:16] resistant, and you'll have to pay much [41:19] higher insurance just to cover the true [41:21] cost of of the likelihood of a fire and [41:23] the cost of replacement. The other piece [41:25] of this, though, is the state has to [41:29] take more ownership for vegetation [41:31] management. We spend $8 in fire response [41:35] and recovery for every $1 we spend on [41:38] prevention, and there are plenty of [41:39] urbanized areas that are at risk because [41:42] they're proximate to dense vegetation [41:44] the state has not taken ownership for [41:47] clearing. And yes, it should be a [41:48] partnership with the federal government [41:49] if they're federal lands, we should hold [41:51] the federal government accountable for [41:52] doing it, but I just toured Altadena and [41:54] Palisades, met with the homeowners [41:56] there, who are incredibly frustrated [41:59] about the lack of rebuilding. No one is [42:02] quarterbacking this. And if you go walk [42:04] the Palisades today, you will see, once [42:06] again, vegetation that's 5 ft tall that [42:08] hasn't been managed in an area where [42:10] people are trying to rebuild their [42:11] homes. So, the state has to step up. As [42:14] governor, I would create a a task force [42:18] that just focuses on fixing the [42:20] insurance market. And if the state will [42:22] invest in vegetation management to [42:24] reduce the risk of catastrophic loss, [42:26] you're going to see premiums go down [42:27] over the long term. [42:28] >> I think it's insane that the state sets [42:30] rates and then tells the insurance [42:32] companies how much to charge and assumes [42:34] they're going to stick around and keep [42:35] charging it. If they can't make money [42:36] doing it, why not let the market decide? [42:38] There's hundreds of insurance companies [42:40] that if they were able to set their own [42:41] rates and not have to have the state [42:43] dictate the rate, they would compete for [42:45] pri- and price would come down. This [42:47] idea that the state should be [42:48] determining what companies should charge [42:50] for anything is a problem, but [42:52] fundamentally in the insurance markets, [42:53] it's literally chased every insurer out [42:55] of the state. I just don't understand [42:57] like how this [42:58] >> Yeah, these kinds of price controls [43:00] don't work in practice as we've seen. [43:02] And when I That's what I mean by saying [43:04] we have to be able to appropriately [43:05] price risk. Insurance companies need to [43:07] be able to charge rates that reflect the [43:10] true risk and cost. I think they should [43:12] be strongly incentivized, if not held [43:15] accountable for allowing homeowners to [43:17] adopt best practices and thereby reduce [43:20] their premiums. And I think there's a [43:22] subset of folks who may need to be on [43:25] and pay into a public option of some [43:27] kind because they just won't be covered [43:29] by the market or perhaps they have to [43:31] choose that based on where they live [43:32] they won't have insurance. I don't know, [43:34] but I don't think you can force [43:37] everybody else to pay exorbitant rates [43:39] to ensure that we cover the last [43:41] riskiest home that's going to be the [43:42] most expensive to cover. [43:44] >> Yeah. [43:45] >> It's just it's an illogical setup. [43:46] >> Well, look, let's shift to one of the [43:48] other big [43:49] liability questions in the state. It's [43:51] the one I care [43:52] I wouldn't say the most, but it's one [43:53] that I've observed may end up being a [43:55] big driver for what's ahead for us. [43:57] California's public employee retirement [43:59] system, so CalPERS and CalSTRS. They [44:01] provide the retirement benefits to [44:04] roughly 3 million California public [44:06] workers. [44:07] And there's roughly a trillion dollars [44:09] of capital in those two investment funds [44:12] that are meant to support those [44:13] retirees. They've been making about 7% a [44:15] year [44:16] compared to the S&P making 11% a year. [44:19] And the current accounting estimates [44:20] that they're going to be short by some [44:22] estimates 250 to 300 billion, by other [44:24] estimates as high as a trillion dollars [44:25] in the years ahead in paying out the [44:27] benefits that they're legally obligated [44:30] to pay to public employees as they [44:32] retire. And you can't just change those [44:34] benefits. There's a state Supreme Court [44:36] case that's made that known that you [44:39] can't go in and rescind benefits that [44:41] you've promised someone. So, you are [44:43] stuck with that liability. And because [44:45] they're public entities, California [44:47] state taxpayer is ultimately going to be [44:49] stuck with a trillion-dollar liability [44:51] if that's what it comes to. How do we [44:53] fix this freaking problem? [44:54] >> Yeah, I'm worried about it as well, and [44:56] I'm intimately uh familiar with it [44:58] because we've had to tackle pension [44:59] reform in San Jose. We were sort of the [45:02] canary in the coal mine quite a few [45:04] years ago as our unfunded liability [45:08] began eating up our general fund. Even [45:10] today, after pension reform, [45:13] 19% of our general fund in San Jose this [45:17] year goes to paying an unfunded pension [45:20] liability. That just comes off the top. [45:22] That is one out of every $5 goes first [45:25] to our obligation to retirees. And [45:27] again, I don't blame the retirees or [45:29] those who advocated. It's politicians [45:31] who didn't do the math, didn't recognize [45:33] when the math wasn't working out, and [45:35] swept it under the rug because they knew [45:37] they'd be long gone by the time [45:39] uh the the bill came due. And so, [45:42] look, there's there's really only two [45:44] options here. One is to move toward a [45:48] defined contribution model as we have in [45:51] the private sector. You see all over the [45:53] world the employer and the employee pay [45:56] in. It's put in the market. It needs to [45:58] grow over time. People need to calculate [46:01] their savings and their [46:02] >> You see your account, you track it. [46:04] >> You track it, you can up your [46:05] contribution level. If we were to move [46:08] to that, uh the private sector, I'm [46:10] sorry, the public sector would need to [46:12] be a a strong match. And I I think the [46:15] challenge is this, I don't think [46:17] politically that's likely to happen. [46:19] What we've done in San Jose, which could [46:20] be a road map for the state, is we [46:24] negotiated Well, we had to go to the [46:25] ballot, we went to There were lawsuits. [46:27] It was a very messy process. I think it [46:29] needs to be better handled. But [46:30] effectively, we created a a different [46:33] pension system for new employees. It [46:36] said, as you come in, this is what a [46:37] right-sized pension system needs to look [46:39] like. We're going to have the employee [46:41] and the employer paying more up front. [46:44] We will be more realistic about the [46:46] returns we're expecting. We'll adjust [46:49] over time faster if the returns are [46:51] underperforming. We've brought in better [46:53] fund managers who get who are heavily [46:56] incentivized to make smart investments [46:58] and grow the the the investment. And [47:01] then most importantly, [47:03] if our if the returns fall short, [47:06] the the delta, the gap, is covered 50/50 [47:11] by the city, meaning the taxpayers, and [47:13] the employee in terms of lost benefits. [47:16] So, there's shared pain on the backside [47:19] if we miss our targets. [47:20] >> And what do we do for what we have now? [47:22] >> What Well, what that has allowed us to [47:23] do because of the legal limitations that [47:25] you've mentioned is And I'm I'm not [47:27] saying it's perfect, but this is just [47:28] legally and politically what we were [47:31] able to get to was the best outcome we [47:33] were able to get is that we're on a long [47:35] glide path of paying off all of the the [47:38] the unfunded liabilities for the tier [47:40] one employees, all of those older [47:42] employees. It's a 20-year [47:45] process. By the early 2040s, San Jose [47:48] will have cleared the debt, our general [47:50] fund's going to be flush, we're going to [47:51] be increasing staffing and service [47:53] levels. And And you'll start to feel [47:55] that here much [clears throat] sooner. [47:56] We are actually roughly at peak cost for [47:59] unfunded liabilities today because we [48:01] took the medicine and now we'll start [48:03] that slow glide path where each year [48:05] there'll be a little more room in our [48:06] general fund because we actually bit the [48:08] bullet and took this on. [48:09] >> Well, I think that's like how do you [48:11] fund that glide path? It may be the case [48:14] that our budget has some margin for [48:16] error, let's say, because of how much [48:18] we're spending. Let's just do the [48:19] statistics. California Governor Newsom [48:22] has proposed a $349 billion budget this [48:25] year in the state. [48:26] That's up from 209 billion, so almost [48:29] 2x, 60%, 70%, 80% more, 75% more [48:34] than uh the year before COVID. And [48:35] that's up from 110 billion 10 years [48:38] prior. So we went from 110 to 350, 3 and [48:41] 1/2 x is how much we're spending [48:43] since, you know, uh it feels like [48:45] yesterday. Like just a couple years ago. [48:47] >> Yeah. [48:48] >> Despite having the nation's highest tax [48:50] rates, the largest revenue base, [48:52] we're still looking this year at a $35 [48:54] billion deficit, California state [48:56] budget. [48:58] What happened? Like how did this get so [49:00] bad? And how much of this do you think [49:02] is this term of fraud, waste, you know, [49:06] abuse? Like where's this money [49:09] going? [49:10] >> Well, part of what we've done is [49:12] something we talked about earlier, which [49:13] is we have increased [49:16] our our pay for public sector employees [49:19] and our our pension obligations and and [49:21] post-retirement health benefits at a [49:25] faster rate than we could actually [49:26] afford, and we haven't been honest with [49:28] ourselves about that. [49:31] Part of where the money's gone though is [49:32] is is really just a sprawling [49:35] bureaucracy that when we in good years [49:37] have more money, we create new programs, [49:39] we add head count. The state's [49:42] population has stayed flat over the last [49:44] 6 years. [49:45] Spending is up 75% as you point out. And [49:49] head count in state employees is up, I [49:51] believe, over 20%. So, we're we're [49:53] adding more state workers, we're pouring [49:56] more money into public programs that [49:59] aren't starting from the premise of what [50:01] is the outcome we need and how do we [50:02] most efficiently get there? I mean, it's [50:04] time for California to [50:06] go through an exercise of zero-based [50:08] budgeting and say, "What are the [50:09] outcomes we need and are we actually [50:11] spending dollars to achieve those [50:13] outcomes or are we just funding a [50:15] sprawling, bloated bureaucracy where [50:17] it's just easier to add 2%, 3% head [50:20] count every year, give everybody a 4% [50:22] raise and call it a day." And I think [50:23] it's it's that's generally been the [50:25] approach is whenever revenue's up, we [50:27] just kind of give everybody a raise, [50:28] hire more people, initiate a few new [50:30] programs. We never go back to basics and [50:32] say, "Well, if this is if these are the [50:34] resources we have and these are the [50:35] outcomes we need, are we really [50:37] optimizing our spend for those [50:39] outcomes?" And the answer is no, we're [50:40] not. [50:40] >> Can you do that with [50:43] restructuring, zero-based budgeting as [50:45] governor or do you need to do this in [50:47] partnership with the legislature that [50:49] all has their special programs that they [50:50] fired up where money's flowing to their [50:52] local county, money's flowing to their [50:54] friends, money's flowing to their [50:55] donors? How do you actually execute [50:57] this? [50:58] >> Well, I think yeah, I as I said before, [51:01] I I think [51:02] electing a pragmatic, independent-minded [51:05] governor who's willing to who [51:07] understands this problem and is willing [51:09] to tackle it is step one and is [51:11] necessary but insufficient. Ultimately, [51:14] we have to build a more moderate [51:16] coalition of legislators who understand [51:19] how broken the system is, who are [51:21] willing to do to do hard things. I don't [51:24] I don't think that this just happens [51:25] overnight but the governor has a lot of [51:27] tools that he or she can choose to use. [51:30] The you know, you do drive the budget [51:32] process. Ultimately, you need [51:33] legislative support for it. You have the [51:35] bully pulpit. You have the ability to [51:37] manage state agencies in a very [51:39] different way. The governor points 3,000 [51:41] people to run state bureaucracies that [51:43] can either come in with the mindset of [51:45] business as usual, I'm going to sit [51:47] behind a desk, we're process-oriented, [51:49] or can be held accountable, and maybe it [51:52] shouldn't be 3,000 employees. Maybe we [51:53] should slim how many people it is, but [51:55] can be told, "Here are the outcomes we [51:57] need. [51:59] Tell us, you know, go ground truth [52:00] these, go down to the local level, spend [52:02] time with the school boards, the cities [52:04] and the counties where all the money [52:05] actually meets the constituent, where [52:07] the rubber hits the road, and come back [52:10] with answers on how to reform these [52:12] systems to get more for what we're [52:14] spending. And if you can't hit more [52:16] aggressive goals, we'll bring in someone [52:18] else who can." We need a different [52:19] mindset for how we operate our [52:22] government agencies. [52:22] >> What you're saying is starkly different [52:24] from what others are saying, and one of [52:25] the biggest points that others are [52:26] making right now is that they want to [52:28] increase programs and increase spending, [52:30] particularly in healthcare. So, what's [52:32] your view on government-provided [52:36] healthcare? Should all healthcare in [52:37] California be free? There's a big [52:39] movement, a big legislative effort to [52:41] try and make this the case. Does this [52:42] make economic sense? Can we afford it? [52:44] How do we actually do it? Or do you [52:46] think that this should remain a private [52:47] market effort? [52:48] >> I don't think it's realistic for [52:49] California to create a [52:53] a single [52:55] state-run, free healthcare-for-all [52:58] system. I just I I don't understand. I I [53:00] know my many of my opponents in my [53:04] party, Democratic Party, are proposing [53:07] this. [53:08] I think we [53:10] have a pretty good sense of how to [53:11] reduce cost. We just have to be willing [53:13] to do it. Price transparency and [53:16] competition could bring down costs in [53:18] healthcare by 5 to 10%. [53:21] Preventative care. We should be [53:23] incentivizing [53:25] insurers and and health providers for [53:30] helping someone get healthier and [53:31] reducing their overall demand on the [53:33] system over the course of their [53:35] lifetimes. [53:36] Things that may seem small, but getting [53:38] a hundred [53:39] thousand plus people off of our streets [53:41] and into shelter dramatically reduces [53:45] the burden on our health care system. [53:48] I I just I I think that prevention I'm [53:51] taking another one. Nurse practitioners [53:53] can do so much more than we often allow [53:55] them to do which again is a function of [53:57] this behind the scenes negotiation in [53:59] Sacramento over what are doctors allowed [54:01] to do, what can nurses do. Nurse [54:03] practitioners providing preventative [54:05] upstream care in clinics in communities [54:07] can be far more effective at preventing [54:10] long-term chronic illness than what we [54:11] do today which is end up with everybody [54:13] in the emergency room needing care after [54:16] they're already really sick. So, we need [54:17] to restructure our health care system. [54:19] California should be demanding and [54:21] investing in innovation and better ways [54:23] of doing things and bend the cost curve, [54:26] not fall back on this lazy answer that [54:29] we're just going to find a way to raise [54:31] taxes more to fund free services that [54:35] will ultimately break just break the [54:37] bank. [54:38] >> You've been criticized by many for being [54:40] against the billionaire tax. I think [54:41] you're the only candidate running for [54:44] governor right now that has spoken out [54:45] against it. I've heard your comments on [54:47] it obviously. I think I was probably the [54:49] first identify it and bring it up on my [54:51] show when it first came out the day it [54:53] was filed. For me, it's fundamental to [54:55] private property rights. If you can take [54:58] people's assets after they've paid taxes [55:00] on it, there's no stopping that train. I [55:02] mean, why not take everyone's assets [55:04] at some point like that you know, you [55:06] pay your income tax and that's your [55:07] private property you get to keep it. [55:09] Shouldn't be that legislator can later [55:10] say I'll take 10% of what you own. That [55:13] just seems wrong to me. Do you think we [55:14] need to have a continued increase? Like [55:17] do you think we need to maintain the [55:18] temporary high income taxes in [55:20] California? What's your general view on [55:22] revenue? We've talked a lot about you [55:24] think hey, you know, we don't need to [55:25] rely on growing revenue, but based on [55:27] the current tax system in California, [55:29] what else do you think needs to change [55:31] or do you think it's just like let's [55:32] leave it as is. No billionaire tax, no [55:34] new taxes, but let's just not go back. [55:36] >> Yeah, let me say a couple of things. [55:37] One, I think where this push is coming [55:40] from is a deep concern about economic [55:44] inequality and declining social [55:47] mobility. And I think these are [55:49] real issues. I am worried about economic [55:53] inequality. I think in the long run it's [55:55] a threat to democracy. I think there are [55:58] a number of better solutions to this [56:01] than the proposed wealth tax, which is [56:03] as you point out, [56:04] >> Let me say aside even the philosophical [56:06] arguments, it simply won't work. [56:08] Certainly not at the state level. We've [56:09] already seen [56:10] >> people I know have already left the [56:11] state, right? We've seen over [56:12] >> a trillion dollars of capital flight. [56:14] >> Our ongoing revenue going forward is now [56:17] going to be lower. The the dirty secret [56:19] of this proposal is that it won't be the [56:21] billionaires who pay higher taxes. It'll [56:24] be middle-class and working families who [56:26] are left holding the bag. So that I mean [56:28] that's why I just immediately felt that [56:30] I had to say something because it's [56:33] working people who are going to be hurt [56:34] by this. It's not going to be [56:36] billionaires. They're the most mobile [56:37] people in society. [56:39] Um so look, I I think first of all, [56:41] there are things we can do to make the [56:42] tax code uh fairer. I think there's a [56:44] legitimate debate about what should the [56:46] absolute rate of capital gains tax be. [56:48] There's the phenomenon of very wealthy [56:50] individuals borrowing against uh [56:52] appreciated assets where you're not [56:55] you're sort of you're effectively [56:56] avoiding paying capital gains. I think [56:58] that's a loophole we can close. There's [57:01] the step-up in basis upon death. I'm not [57:03] sure that um [57:05] it's very fair for somebody Well, let me [57:07] just use an example. I'll just say this, [57:09] I don't think Elon Musk should be able [57:10] to pass on $500 billion [57:13] of appreciated but untaxed stock wealth [57:16] to his children and the moment that they [57:18] inherited it's rebased at current market [57:20] value and no one ever pays the capital [57:22] gains on it. I mean there there are a [57:23] lot of things we can do to capture [57:25] billions in revenue to close loopholes [57:27] in the tax code. This is of all the [57:29] proposals the the worst, the least [57:31] likely to work, the most likely to hurt [57:33] working people. But, I also think we [57:35] have to acknowledge in a state [57:37] that keeps asking for more before we do [57:40] better, [57:41] we've we've got to acknowledge that [57:42] social mobility is down because of [57:44] public policy failures first and [57:46] foremost. Public schools that aren't [57:48] performing, housing that isn't [57:50] affordable, energy that isn't [57:51] affordable. We I mean, when half of [57:54] people Sorry, when most Californians are [57:56] spending over a third of their income on [57:58] housing, many spending over half of [58:00] their income on housing, that hits [58:03] social mobility a lot more than the fact [58:07] that the tech sector has had a bunch of [58:09] growth. It's just These are fundamental [58:12] public policy failures, and the sooner [58:14] we own them and think differently about [58:17] our regulatory environment and our [58:19] policy so we start fixing them, the the [58:21] better for California, the better for [58:24] the Democratic Party, uh most [58:26] importantly, the better for the people [58:27] we serve. [58:28] >> But, what you're saying makes a lot of [58:29] sense, but I think people hate other [58:32] people's success. I think there's a lot [58:34] that's been going on, this fueling [58:35] that's going on with the lack of social [58:37] mobility, but seeing a small segment of [58:38] the population accelerate. Technology's [58:41] really had that driven that. I'll be the [58:43] first to admit, there's a small [58:44] population in California that's done [58:45] extremely well, while most of [58:47] Californians have been left behind. Do [58:49] you think you're electable in this [58:51] sense? I mean, you're not fueling the [58:52] populist sentiment that I think every [58:55] one of your candidates has found they [58:56] can tap into. And uh that may put you at [58:58] a big disadvantage in this race. [59:00] >> Look, I I do think we [59:03] we need to take economic inequality and [59:05] social mobility much more seriously than [59:08] we have. [59:09] I think we need to [59:11] ask and ultimately demand our um our [59:14] wealthiest individuals, our tech sector, [59:17] industries that do well to be structured [59:19] in a way that works for people. Um I I'm [59:23] curious what you think. Maybe I'll turn [59:24] the tables for a moment. I think that we [59:27] need a shared prosperity [59:31] that includes [59:34] people having some sort of equity from [59:36] or more direct benefit in the incredible [59:38] gains that tech has produced. AI is [59:41] scaring a lot of people because it could [59:44] lead to the elimination of jobs, further [59:47] concentration of wealth. What do you [59:49] think is the appropriate role for the [59:51] tech sector and and those who have [59:52] profited immensely from it to ensuring a [59:56] level playing field or at least, you [59:58] know, some some notion some semblance of [60:00] of equality of opportunity? [60:02] >> That's a longer conversation, but I do [60:04] think giving more people more ownership [60:06] is important. But I'm not sure people [60:08] are going to want to or need to work at [60:10] big companies anymore [60:12] with AI. It's a longer conversation. But [60:15] in the same way that Instagram, [60:17] Shopify, Etsy created a TikTok created [60:21] new [60:23] jobs, almost like new roles, new ways [60:25] that people could earn. [60:26] >> Yeah. [60:27] >> AI is going to create a thousand times [60:28] more new ways for people to earn than [60:30] they do today. And they're not going to [60:32] have to have the job that they feel like [60:34] they're stuck with today. And AI is [60:36] actually going to accelerate more people [60:38] up the ladder faster than anyone's [60:40] really realizing. And I can give you a [60:41] countless examples of this that I've [60:43] seen recently. [60:44] But I think we're all going to wake up [60:45] pretty happy with the next advance in in [60:47] economic mobility that's going to be [60:48] unleashed because of AI, not in spite of [60:50] it. [60:51] >> I hope that's true. It's a very [60:52] optimistic read. I do think my read of [60:54] history is that technological change, [60:56] while ultimately producing greater [60:58] abundance, if you will, [61:00] >> Yeah. [61:00] >> often is really hard on people. [61:02] >> yeah. [61:02] >> And that's why in in San Jose at least [61:05] we've done we've created AI upskilling [61:07] courses for our workers. We've gotten AI [61:10] companies to come into our libraries and [61:12] provide tools and training. [61:14] >> Totally. [61:14] >> We're really trying to figure out how we [61:16] lower barriers to learning how to use [61:18] these tools, apply them in people's [61:20] lives, start those new businesses, [61:22] create the new jobs of the future. [61:24] >> thing [61:24] >> AI can teach people how to use AI. [61:26] >> That's true. [61:27] >> [laughter] [61:27] >> Which is where where I I'm starting to [61:28] see a lot of people learn how to use [61:30] these tools on their own by asking the [61:32] AI and engaging. And then there's this [61:34] moment where it's almost like you lit a [61:35] match on a on a bunch of tinder for the [61:37] first time and you're like woah. And I [61:40] I've seen this in person I'm watching [61:41] people get knocked down like bowling [61:43] pins in terms of woah. That woah moment [61:46] that I've I've been like visibly seeing [61:48] people just in the last couple months is [61:50] making me very optimistic. [61:52] >> That's good. It does though get back to [61:53] this basic point that we need our public [61:56] education system to teach people to [61:58] think critically when half of our kids [62:00] aren't on grade level for reading or [62:02] math proficiency, it's going to be very [62:04] hard for them to be lifelong learners. [62:06] >> I mean, curiosity and asking questions [62:09] and learning how to think, not teaching [62:11] them knowledge, is a massive problem [62:13] that we're dealing with in education in [62:14] the United States in my opinion on its [62:16] own. Kids are not being taught how to [62:18] question, how to build. They're being [62:19] taught facts. Those facts are irrelevant [62:22] because they all exist in AI now. You [62:24] don't need to know all those facts. You [62:26] It's good to have basis, but what are [62:27] you really trying to get? A curious [62:29] mind, an engineering mind, a creative [62:30] mind, a thoughtful mind, and teach [62:32] individuals agency in a world where they [62:35] have infinite capacity. That's what AI [62:37] gives all of us. [62:37] >> Yeah. [62:38] >> But what do you think of Donald Trump? [62:39] >> I'm not a fan. [62:41] Um [62:43] my concern with Donald Trump, even if [62:46] he may get certain [62:49] issues right. I think he's channeled the [62:51] frustration of working Americans who [62:53] feel that they've been left behind is [62:56] that I don't believe he really [62:57] understands what makes our country [62:59] great. I think that he has [63:02] created a lot of fear and division [63:04] around immigration, doesn't recognize [63:06] how many people we have had in this [63:09] country in part because both Democrats [63:10] and Republicans wanted access to cheap [63:12] labor in places like Watsonville where I [63:14] grew up, who have been here 20, 30 years [63:16] working hard, paying their taxes, [63:18] otherwise playing by the rules, raising [63:20] children who are US citizens, who are [63:21] now living in in terror because they're [63:24] worried their family's going to get [63:26] ripped apart. Um I I don't understand [63:29] and don't support this war in Iran that [63:30] I think is a huge uh huge blunder and [63:33] it's going to drive up energy costs and [63:35] it's it's not clear to me why we're [63:37] losing American lives over there. [63:39] Um I just, you know, I think tariffs, [63:42] yes, I do believe China, this is [63:44] something I think he's gotten right, has [63:45] been competing unfairly with the US. I [63:48] think a targeted approach to tariffs, [63:50] focusing on that issue, would have made [63:52] a lot more sense than the general [63:55] inflation we've seen. So, I mean, I [63:57] could go issue by issue, but I just I [63:59] worry mostly about the health of our [64:01] democracy. I think it requires a [64:04] um a real, honest dialogue, a respect [64:07] for rule of law, and the independent [64:09] judiciary. [64:11] Um I just, yeah, I have deep concerns [64:13] that this [64:16] not just populist, but um reactionary, [64:19] quasi-authoritarian [64:21] rhetoric and mindset is the outcome of [64:25] declining trust in government when we [64:28] don't hold ourselves accountable for [64:30] delivering, for working people. I think [64:33] it's predictable and I think you're [64:34] seeing an equal and even um [64:37] I'd say equally risky rise in populism [64:39] on the left and reaction, and these two [64:41] are playing off one of one another. And [64:43] part of the reason I jumped into this [64:44] race was to offer a third way, a [64:46] pragmatic alternative. [64:48] I'm a I'm a Democrat, but I also [64:51] recognize that something's broken in [64:54] California. [64:56] The incentives are all wrong. [64:58] The highly organized interests in [65:00] Sacramento are being taken care of. [65:02] Sacramento is working great for highly [65:04] organized interests. It is not working [65:06] great for regular people. And I think [65:09] the best The to that is to get back to [65:11] basics, be competent, be data-driven, [65:14] deliver results for people because I'm [65:16] worried that if we don't, we're going to [65:18] see this epic populist battle on the [65:21] right and the left where people are [65:22] offering really easy answers, not the [65:24] honest answers that we need. [65:26] >> Rate Governor Newsom in the job he's [65:28] done as governor of California. [65:29] >> I think Governor Newsom has been a [65:32] bullwark against some of the [65:34] worst ideas coming out of the [65:36] legislature. You mentioned that he's [65:37] vetoed 10 to 15% of the bills coming out [65:40] of the legislature. [65:42] Uh many of those vetoes I agree with and [65:45] I think have averted [65:47] um real harm. I My [65:49] my critique has been around not doing [65:53] enough to take on the entrenched [65:56] interests in Sacramento and uh and we've [66:00] we've disagreed very publicly on certain [66:02] policy issues. Prop 36, recovery [66:04] housing, [66:06] um [66:07] some energy policy points. Uh but it's [66:10] it's always I mean I try to attack [66:11] problems, not people. I'm not really [66:14] interested in [66:16] you know, evaluating somebody's [66:18] intentions or or or their ideology so [66:21] much as the results of their actions. [66:23] And I think he's done some really good [66:25] things. Uh I also think he he could do [66:28] even more and that's been my appeal to [66:30] him is let's work together to drive even [66:33] more change faster. But some of the [66:35] things he's brought forward like CARE [66:36] Court, right idea. Now we need to [66:39] execute it. We need to actually make [66:40] sure that CARE Court's actually getting [66:41] people with addiction and mental illness [66:43] into care. I think he's got the right [66:45] right idea, right intention, [66:47] but we've got to follow through and as [66:48] governor I would make sure that Prop 36, [66:51] Prop 1, CARE Court, uh number of things [66:53] he's put in place are actually used to [66:55] deliver the intended outcome. [66:56] >> Governor Newsom's put out a lot of these [66:58] memes kind of making fun of Donald Trump [67:01] by doing tweets sort of like the way [67:04] Trump does Truth Social posts and and so [67:06] on. It's very antagonistic to the [67:08] president, at least publicly [67:09] antagonistic. At the same time, [67:11] California relies on federal funding and [67:13] requires a lot of federal cooperation, a [67:14] lot of federal land in the state. How [67:16] would you interact with President Trump [67:18] and talk a little bit about how the [67:20] governor has interacted with President [67:21] Trump publicly. [67:22] >> Look, I understand [67:24] what the governor's doing. He's, you [67:26] know, been holding a mirror up to Donald [67:28] Trump and [67:30] um [67:32] both fighting for California's values, [67:34] which I appreciate. I think there's also [67:36] just back to incentives. I mean, he's [67:38] he's running for president and and [67:40] that's [67:41] where I think this approach is coming [67:43] from. [67:45] I would [67:46] take a different approach in the sense [67:47] that [67:49] as governor focused on delivering for [67:51] Californians, [67:52] I will fight the Trump administration [67:54] through through the courts, through the [67:57] bully pulpit, whenever necessary to [67:59] protect our values, to protect our [68:01] people, to protect state funding. [68:03] I also think though that we need to find [68:06] places where we can achieve [68:10] a win-win with the federal [68:11] administration. I'll give you the [68:12] example that's top of mind for me. I [68:14] just spent time walking through [68:15] Altadena, the Palisades, where people [68:18] have lost everything. [68:20] Over 10,000 homes lost between the two. [68:23] People are desperate to rebuild. They're [68:25] not getting the help that they need. And [68:27] part of the reason they're not getting [68:28] the help that they need is this [68:30] hyper-partisanship [68:32] in which [68:33] uh California and Washington are [68:36] fighting rhetorically and politically, [68:39] and the people who are being hurt are [68:41] the families who have lost their homes, [68:43] who are waiting on the $40 billion of [68:45] federal aid that's been promised, and [68:48] that if it weren't for this political [68:49] battle, would have already flowed to [68:51] help those neighborhoods rebuild. [68:53] And I just [68:55] as governor, yeah, I I will absolutely [68:58] fight for our values, but I'm committed [69:01] to fixing our problems, which means [69:03] finding a way to make it a win for this [69:05] president and this administration to [69:07] rebuild Los Angeles. That we have to put [69:09] the people before our politics. [69:13] >> And as it relates to ICE and immigration [69:15] enforcement, do you consider [69:17] undocumented immigrants in the state of [69:19] California individuals that you would [69:21] represent as governor? Is it part of [69:24] your job to protect undocumented [69:25] immigrants who came here illegally, but [69:28] ICE would like to remove? [69:30] >> Yes, unless they're committing serious [69:32] and violent crime. Look, if you're here, [69:35] you're not documented, you're committing [69:37] violent felonies, I think you should be [69:39] deported. [69:40] But like many of the people I grew up [69:42] with, [69:43] if you were [69:45] essentially, if tacit maybe tacitly [69:47] welcomed here because we had an ag [69:49] industry or a construction industry that [69:52] needed low-cost labor, and you came, [69:55] started a family, started working, paid [69:58] taxes, raising kids here who were born [70:00] here, who are US citizens, the only [70:03] practical and ethical solution is for [70:05] parties to put the hyper-partisanship [70:08] aside, come together, and come to a [70:10] grand bargain in which we secure the [70:12] border, we deport those committing [70:14] violent crime who are undocumented, and [70:16] we create a pathway to a legal to some [70:18] sort of legal status. If citizenship is [70:20] a bridge too far for that older [70:22] generation that came earlier, so be it, [70:25] but their kids are US citizens, and they [70:28] deserve to still live with their [70:30] parents, and I think we've got to find [70:32] the the the approach that respects [70:34] people's humanity, and is practical and [70:37] ethical, and I'm incredibly [70:39] disappointed, frankly, with both parties [70:41] for years of kicking the can down the [70:43] road, and I will absolutely stand up to [70:46] protect undocumented residents who are [70:49] playing by the rules, who are doing the [70:51] most American thing, and I get all the I [70:53] get all the arguments around lawful [70:55] immigration. Let's secure the border and [70:57] set up a proper system of lawful [70:59] immigration going forward and not create [71:00] a bad incentive. So, let's do that and [71:03] then create this pathway to legal [71:05] status, but what we've seen play out in [71:08] in Minneapolis is horrible for the [71:11] country. We're seeing citizens arrested, [71:13] even killed. This is [71:15] This is not This is not working and I [71:17] don't think it's ethical. Let me give [71:18] you the pushback that the Republican [71:20] Party leadership would would give, which [71:22] is that many of these individuals will [71:24] end up voting for Democrats, vast [71:26] majority of them will vote for [71:27] Democrats, and that the border was [71:28] opened, they were allowed in here, and [71:30] now this inevitable due to humanitarian [71:32] conditions path forward to citizenship [71:35] will ultimately increase the Democratic [71:36] Party's voting base and lock them into [71:39] power in DC, lock them into power in [71:41] these states, turn more states blue, [71:42] etc. How do you respond to that concern [71:45] and pushback? Put the humanitarian piece [71:47] aside. But that the The reason the [71:48] border Every Democrat I ask about this [71:50] cannot answer the question, why was the [71:52] border opened? Was it to lower labor [71:54] costs? Was there some other reason that [71:56] we did it? Was it to increase the voting [71:58] base? I mean, what was the motivation [72:00] and how do we address the response [72:01] that's going to come for the many years [72:03] ahead from a Republican Party that's [72:06] going to have issue with this? So, my [72:07] sense growing up in an in an ag town [72:10] that historically has probably been [72:12] about a third undocumented [72:15] is that the primary incentive for the [72:17] parties to not solve this problem is [72:19] that a lot of people became very [72:21] wealthy, a lot of industries did very [72:23] well by having access to low-cost, [72:26] abundant labor, and plenty of the [72:29] business interests that did really well [72:31] in ag, construction, and other [72:33] otherwise. I mean, historically this [72:34] would have been, say, meat the meat [72:36] packing industry, right? Um [72:39] they're donors to the Republican Party. [72:41] So, I think both sides have been [72:42] complicit. I think the back to [72:44] incentives, I think Democrats and [72:46] Republicans have played to their base [72:48] and actually been politically [72:49] incentivized to not solve the problem. [72:52] And as a pragmatic moderate, my approach [72:56] is to say you're both wrong, but there's [72:58] something true in what you're both [72:59] saying. Republicans are right that we [73:02] should be able we should know who and [73:04] what comes in and out of the country. We [73:05] should have a secure border, and we [73:07] should take away any incentive for [73:09] people to come here illegally, [73:11] especially in a moment where uh we've [73:14] got a fentanyl crisis, we've got the [73:16] international terrorism, we've got nukes [73:19] that are getting smaller and smaller. We [73:20] should have border security, absolutely. [73:23] If you're not here lawfully and you're [73:24] committing serious and violent crime, [73:27] deportation is the is the minimum [73:29] expectation of what should happen. So, [73:32] let's do that. But, I just I think both [73:34] parties have been complicit. We can sit [73:36] around and say who wins electorally or [73:38] economically, we can play that game and [73:40] continue to have this incredibly [73:43] divisive and unproductive situation [73:45] where millions of people are living in [73:47] fear, living in the shadows, or we can [73:49] fix it. And when I say [73:51] legal status, maybe that legal status [73:54] doesn't come with a with a right to [73:56] vote. Maybe it's a green card. I mean, [73:58] I'm I'm for compromise and [74:00] problem-solving and moving the country [74:02] forward. Both sides are going to have to [74:04] give if we're going to solve this [74:05] problem. [74:05] >> I think that's the best idea possible [74:07] for how to solve this, which is a path [74:09] to residence without a path to voting. [74:12] And that that could solve everyone's [74:14] concerns. And And lastly, I just want [74:15] you to compare and contrast your [74:17] Democrat opponents, Swalwell, Steyer, [74:20] Porter. Let's just do those three. Give [74:22] me a sense on your view on each of the [74:24] three of them. [74:25] >> Look, I [74:26] I've I've been in enough debates with [74:28] them now to [74:30] understand that [74:32] those three other [74:35] leading Democratic candidates are vying [74:37] for the same lane. It is the more of the [74:40] same lane. [74:41] It's a platform that says that the [74:44] answer to our our [74:45] is more revenue. It's revenue, revenue, [74:47] revenue as represents one of his top [74:50] three goals. And uh look, we need to [74:54] think differently. What I'm offering is [74:58] an approach that's been working in [74:59] Northern California's largest city. I [75:01] call it getting back to basics. It's [75:04] focusing on fewer things. [75:05] The things that are most foundational to [75:09] opportunity and quality of life for [75:11] everyone. It's being humble about what [75:14] government can actually do, not thinking [75:16] that the answer to every problem is more [75:17] revenue and another government program. [75:20] It's being radically more transparent [75:21] and accountable about how we spend [75:23] dollars and rooting everything in [75:25] results or or measurable outcomes. [75:28] And just bringing a a new uh politics of [75:31] pragmatism as an antidote to this [75:34] incredibly destructive populism we're [75:36] seeing on the right and the left that [75:38] really risks the the democratic lower [75:41] case D democratic project of this [75:42] country. [75:44] And I just I think that California has [75:46] throughout its history been the the [75:49] innovative state that has led the way [75:51] and changed the world. And I am hopeful [75:54] that Californians are ready for a [75:55] different kind of politics that focuses [75:58] on problem-solving. I jumped in this [76:01] race because all of the other candidates [76:04] across the spectrum had already been in [76:05] for a year. And uh I didn't hear anyone [76:09] talk speaking honestly about our [76:10] problems and how to solve them. And I [76:12] thought that I had a unique voice in [76:15] this race, and we're seeing that. I It's [76:18] a short runway, but as I travel around [76:19] the state, go to you know, see the [76:21] sewage crisis in the in the Tijuana [76:23] River on the border that shut down all [76:24] the beaches down there, walk Altadena, [76:27] or go through the Tenderloin in San [76:29] Francisco, people are are responding [76:31] because all they really want is for [76:34] their tax dollars to be used [76:35] responsibly. They want their government [76:37] to work. They want their life to get [76:39] better when they send so much of their [76:41] money to their government, and that's my [76:43] that's my commitment. [76:44] >> Mayor Matt Mahan, thank you for being [76:46] here with me today on All-In. Really [76:48] appreciate the time, and good luck in [76:50] the in the governor's race. [76:51] >> Thanks, David. I enjoyed it. [76:52] >> I'm going all in. [77:08] I'm going [77:09] >> [music] [77:10] >> all in.