Transcripts: Governor Q&As

Affordability

What’s the single biggest thing you would do to make life more affordable in California?

Xavier Becerra

I would declare a state of emergency when it comes to this issue of cost of living. So that way I can use the emergency powers I have as governor by declaring a state of emergency housing. There are some 40,000 housing units that are on the verge of being started. They’re shovel ready, but they’re stuck. We can un-stick them.

There are prices that appear. People are paying for their home insurance coverage, which are going astronomically high. Why? I can freeze. I can try to freeze home insurance rates during the state of emergency, so we can get behind the curtain and figure out why. 

Same with utilities. Why do utility rates keep going up when we don’t see that anything is getting better?

Chad Bianco

Remove the regulations that are killing every industry in California. We have an affordability problem in California because of unbelievably excessive – unbelievable excessive regulation put in place by an absolutely, completely failed agenda in Sacramento.

Steve Hilton

I think the biggest thing is the very broad thing, which is really try hard to cut back and simplify this incredible jungle of regulations that has sprung up over the last couple of decades, actually, that are just making everything so expensive, such a hassle to do anything, to run a business, to do anything in the state. I think let’s start with energy costs, because that drives everything else.

And so the two things that I think we need to focus on, there is, number one, gas prices. Let’s use our own oral and gas here instead of importing it. That’ll bring down gas prices. That feeds through into everything from grocery prices to construction costs and so on.

Matt Mahan

I think our biggest challenge is high housing costs, which comes from a lack of supply, which in turn comes from the fact that we have regulated housing to death in the state. I’ve put out a comprehensive plan for housing affordability that focuses on what we can do in government to bring down the cost of construction. That means capping fees at the local level.

Another thing that I would do as governor is put a limit on how long permit reviews can happen. I think for a project that is in line with the city’s general plan, you should be able to get a yes or no on a permit within 30 days, and we need to hold cities accountable for processing them quickly. The state can also help with using technology to make that easier.

And then I would also reform. I think that we have made it just too easy to sue to stop any project from anyone, anywhere. I think we need to raise the bar for who can issue a lawsuit to stop the housing we desperately need. If we can issue these basic reforms to speed up permitting, reduce fees, reduce litigation risk, you’re going to see many more homes built at a more affordable cost per square foot, which means we can build for the middle class again.

Katie Porter

Bringing down the cost of housing is the single biggest thing we can do to help families. Why? Because housing is the largest expense for most people. And so whether they’re renters, whether they’re homeowners, if we can make housing more affordable in California, that goes a long way. So you think about taking 10% or 20% off your rent or mortgage.

That’s not a couple of bucks. That’s hundreds of dollars. So when we talk about affordability as a crisis, you can’t nibble around the edges of a crisis. You need to take aim at the big expenses. They’ve also ruled out policies around free childcare for California, because if you have young children, that’s often even more than your rent or mortgage.

And then two. For years at our UC’s and CSU’s so put together with the California promise so people can have a debt free and a free college degree. These are the big building blocks of a family’s budget. And I know that because my life’s work has been about affordability, about how people struggle to make ends meet.

Tom Steyer

Affordability really starts with housing, because that’s the biggest bill for almost everybody in this state. And long term, the answer to housing is build more houses, which is something that we have been unable to do for a long time. And I always say to people, solving– building more houses is not a question of a silver bullet, it’s a silver buckshot.

We need to shorten and make much simpler the permitting process. We need to zone in the places where we can build and where people want to live. We need to bring down the cost per square foot of building because it’s very high in California. We really need to do industrialized construction off site and then assemble on site. And the last thing I’ll say is this, we need to work with the cities and counties who are very nervous about permitting new housing because they view it as an unfunded mandate.

And one of the things I’ve talked about is on the first day, calling a special election to undo a real estate tax loophole for corporations, just corporations. But that’s worth over $20 billion to the state and would go to local cities and counties. That is money they can use. So it’s no longer an unfunded mandate to build housing.

And that would take away both their need to charge huge fees. Can can be up to 20% of the cost of building a house, but also they can understand that they have the money to actually deliver the services that building a new house implies.

Tony Thurmond

I think our first start is housing. You know, this state hasn’t funded affordable housing for over a decade. The last housing bond in this state was in 2018. The state got rid of redevelopment agencies. And so there’s no money to help build housing. You know, I was a city council member when we had redevelopment. We built thousands of units.

And so I’m working on a plan to help us build 2 million housing units in the state. And it’s using the surplus property that exists in every single county. School districts own surplus property that’s ready for development now. And I plan to give Californians a tax credit. Working people, middle class people, deserve to have a little bit more money in their pocket every single month to pay for the rising costs of gas, groceries and housing.

And I believe that we can do that by taxing billionaires.

Antonio Villaraigosa

Address the high cost of gas in this state. That’s something I think we could do the fastest. We obviously have the issue of affordability, which affects housing prices, healthcare, utilities. But gas prices are something that we can affect right away. I have a plan, a plan that says when gas prices go because of this war or for whatever reason, go over $5.50 a gallon.

The state will reimburse you every month for the difference between what it cost and $5.50. And I believe that as well, we got to make it so that refineries, which produce the cleanest fuel in the United States of America, continue to operate in the state. Continue to drill in places like the Central Valley who wants to drill for oil.

And what I’ve said is we needed an all of the above energy security policy that acknowledges we have to double down on solar and wind, but also that we’re going to have natural gas and oil as a transition fuel for a while. We’ve got to build the grid. We’ve got to do everything possible to keep prices down for gas.

Taxes

Do you think California’s tax structure is fair? Why or why not?

Xavier Becerra

I don’t because people who work hard are paying more in taxes than people who are uber wealthy. Billionaires are sometimes paying taxes at a rate that’s lower than your nurse, your teacher, your firefighter, your police officer. And we have to make sure we have a system that asks everyone to do their part.

Chad Bianco

It is not fair. The harder you work in California, the more you get punished. The sunshine tax is real. What’s it worth for you to live in California? We are going to take as much as we possibly can from you before you leave, and unfortunately for our politicians, I think Californians found out a couple of years ago was their limit and we’ve had enough.

Steve Hilton

It’s a disaster. We have a totally disastrous tax structure. We have a very lopsided tax structure in terms of where the revenue is coming from. You’ve got basically about half the income from income tax coming from the top 1% of taxpayers. A lot of that is coming from capital gains. So it’s very dependent on the stock market. So, we’re sitting here trying to run the fourth biggest economy in the world with a big budget that’s unpredictable in terms of revenues.

So, I think what we need to do is – this is not an easy thing to fix at all, and I suspect it’s going to need a ballot measure to do the kind of tax reform that we need that is fair to workers right now. You’ve got people on very low incomes paying income tax, which I think is outrageous. That’s why with the first line of my tax plan is your first $100,000 tax free. Because people who are struggling to exist on a low income shouldn’t be paying state income tax as well. So from that point of view, that’s not fair. But it’s also not fair that we have such a narrow base. So I think we need much lower rates of tax, a broader base and a more stable system. That’s going to take major tax reform.

I suspect it’s going to need a ballot initiative, certainly not something that the next governor can fix, but we should start to move in that direction.

Matt Mahan

We have the second highest tax burden overall of all 50 states. And we have one of, if not the most progressive tax structures, which is a good thing. I think that those who have done well make more should pay their fair share, should pay more into lifting everyone else up. But we have to make sure that those dollars are used effectively. Right now, in California, we’re in a strange situation where spending has gone up 75% in just six years and none of the outcomes have gotten better. So before we ask people to pay more, I think we need to demand that our government do better. 

One of the key differentiators for me is everyone else in this field is either on the one end saying government’s the enemy and trying to kill government and defund it, or on the other end saying, our biggest problem is that we don’t have enough revenue and that we need to raise taxes. And I think both are off base. I think we have a lot of revenue and a lot of resources, and what we need to do now is ensure accountability for outcomes.

Katie Porter

Though California has a progressive income tax, we expect those who are wealthy and higher earners to pay more. As income inequality deepens, as the top get even more rich, that handful of people has unimaginable kind of income and wealth, we have to keep revisiting where those lines are drawn in our progressive tax code. 

The second thing I would say is that we do not have progressive meaning the wealthy pay more, the less wealthy pay less. We do not have progressive corporate taxes or property taxes. So because prop 13 locks in that tax basis, people who have had their property rapidly growing value businesses that have seen their land holdings quadruple go up by ten times in value, they’re not paying a property tax that reflects that. 

I’ve proposed a very modest, progressive corporate tax. Right now, California’s corporate tax is 8.84%. If a business scrapes by and earns $1 in profit, they pay that 8.84%. But if a business– a huge corporation has the best year ever, and they make a $100 million. Guess what? Percent they pay 8.84. That’s a flat tax, not a progressive one. 

We also need to pair that with simplifying our tax code. And there are two proposals there. One is closing corporate loopholes, having fewer specific tax rules for different kinds of industries. Right now, about half of all profitable corporations in California pay zero, zero tax. 

But I’ve also proposed tax relief. When we talk about affordability, we can’t just point to others. Government has to take responsibility for what it can do to bring down costs. And that’s why I’ve proposed no state income tax for families earning less than $100,000 because in most parts of California, that’s what it takes for a family to be able to pay for housing, save a little bit for retirement and college, and be able to put food on the table.

Tom Steyer

No. California’s tax structure is not fair. And I’ll tell you why. 

We have a very concentrated small number of people with almost unlimited wealth, whose wealth is worth more than everybody else below the 1% isn’t fair. So do I think that that’s fair? It’s absolutely not fair. And I’ve said I’m the billionaire who will tax billionaires. I’m the billionaire who will tax the biggest corporations because we need a just tax system that actually works for working people so they can afford to live in this state, which only runs because they’re working their tails off and was created really by working people.

Tony Thurmond

I think our tax structure is unbalanced. You know, we continue to see that if our main revenue comes from income tax and sales tax, that we put a burden on working people here and we fall short when we need revenue. And so we see these spikes in our revenue, that tells me we need a balanced form of revenue.

We can close those loopholes in proposition 13. I think we can do better in terms of having a more balanced system of taxation that gives more revenue.

Antonio Villaraigosa

But the question is whether or not it’s fair. The question is, is it the right tax system? And what I’ve said is: “think long [term]”. An organization that worked with academe, business, labor, environmentalists, a broad cross-section of stakeholders say we over rely on the upper income tax too much. It’s the highest in the country, but we over rely on it, which is why our budget is either feast or famine.

The next governor is going to have to fix the broken tax system, make sure that we’re doing everything possible to have a less volatile tax system, one that we can count on over time. And I intend to do everything possible to make sure that happens.

Housing

The state needs more housing. Under Gov. Newsom, California has only built an average of 106,000 new units a year. What is a realistic goal and what would you do to make it happen?

Xavier Becerra

Well, we could certainly double that, what the governor has done, because, as I said, if we get going on unsticking some of those projects that are near shovel ready, that gets us going right away. If we’re able to trim some of the regulations, and I give the legislature credit for having actually made it easier for developers to understand what it would take to get a project off the ground and be profitable, we can do that. We can make sure we’re working with local governments so that they’re not impeding progress on development as well. 

I know that we need to get to a million and a half to 2 million new units for the course of the first four year term. Really, that should be somewhere around where the goal should be.

Chad Bianco

With me as the governor, we are going to be building in California like no other time in California history. The reason why we don’t have homes being built is because of the regulations that the government has put on the building industry to prevent growth. It is purposeful. All of those regulations are going to be removed from our building industry.

Our builders, our developers are going to be working like no other time in their existence. We will. By the time I leave in eight years, it will happen before that, but I will be the governor for eight years. The massive amount of help that I’m going to bring to Californians, they will vote for me for a second term. The building industry will be building like no other time in history.

It is the government that is preventing it, plain and simple, the government is preventing it. We don’t have a purchase affordability problem. We have a building affordability problem and it is Newsom’s fault, it’s his agenda’s fault, and it’s the agenda that he’s been following, and I’m going to reverse it.

Steve Hilton

Well, I think we’ve got to move away from the kind of top down approach to this where we’ve kind of set these numbers and then and then divide up the numbers and try and force them into neighborhoods through the arena process from the Department of Housing and Community Development. I just think that’s all wrong, that centralized and bureaucratic and wrong.

We already have the highest density in the country. Just around 6% of our land in California is developed at all. That’s the lowest in America. We could increase that to 7%. And with a rough calculation that we made in my housing plan, you’d have room for 10 million people in single family homes on quarter acre lots, which is pretty big, bigger than you even need.

If we free ourselves from this idea that the only places we can build are where places that’s already been developed. That’s what I think is the answer to this. There’s a lot of changes we can do there, but I think the big one is to just change our mindset on housing. 

Instead of the government trying to force housing into these specific places, open things up so that we can actually have real choice in housing. That families with, especially when they have children, want to live in a single family home. I’m not against that. We should be. We should allow that to be built. Some people might want to live in the urban core, in apartments that’s going on right now, but I think we’re too restrictive in the way we think about housing.

Matt Mahan

I want to see housing production go up year over year, and I get really tired of politicians throwing out these big numbers. We’re going to build 2 million homes, 3 million homes, 5 million homes. There are just numbers. What we have to look at is the rate of change right now. Home production in the States is actually declining because we’ve made it so slow and so expensive to build.

Can we increase the amount of homes we build every year by 10% year over year? I think that’s realistic, so let’s focus on actually going in a better direction. We have to reform CEQA, we have to cap fees, we have to speed up permitting. The state in a top down way can set parameters and hold cities and counties accountable for processing those permits quickly and right sizing their fees.

We also have to look at our building codes. California’s created the most complicated, least flexible building codes in the country, and we’ve done ourselves a disservice. We’re catering to every need and interest in society and in the process, not getting the thing we most need, which is more housing built more affordably. 

The other thing I’ll just add, there’s in California spirit, there is great innovation happening in the construction space. I’ve visited factories now where the building blocks of buildings that can be 28 storeys high, providing high quality apartments and condos are coming off an assembly line faster and more cost effectively than we ever imagined.

Katie Porter

So, our housing production needs to ramp up. It’s not going to be even every year, right? We’re going to have to start slower because we’re starting from a place where we need to change some of the laws to make these projects pencil. One of the things California could do is build more quickly. That’s not just about permitting, it’s about the entire life cycle of housing. Includes things like residency and occupancy certificates after the housing is done. It includes things like thinking about releasing partial occupancy as projects are partially finished.

The building code, for example. Right now, if you build a four unit apartment building in California, you have to comply with the same regulations as if you build a 400 unit apartment building. If California built at the same speed as some of our competitors states that also care about the environment and also care about workers like Colorado, we would build about two years faster.

So, we definitely need to ramp up. We need to get from 100 to 200 as quick as we can, but I hope the next year can be 400, and then next year can be 800. In other words, we shouldn’t think about eking this out, we ought to think about how can we multiply it quickly, because every day, every route that we go without adequate housing means California’s economy is not growing and California’s population is not growing.

Tom Steyer

Well, what I’ve said specifically is that in four years as governor, I will make sure we build a million units. Do I know that that’s just a first bite at the apple? Of course I do. But I also feel like realistically, it’s going to start slower and pick up speed as we go, as we make the changes that are necessary to make housing affordable so that people can afford to buy it so that we can build the rental units, the multifamily units that we need.

So, I feel like 1,000,000 in 4 years would be a very good first step, and it would put us in position to where we’d be. You know, we have a clear path to getting the 2.5 times.

Tony Thurmond

I think that the 2 million is very realistic because the plan has been studied for years, but no leader has ever tried to implement it. And so if we just built 12 units on every parcel that’s available in each of the 58 counties, we get more than 2 million. We get to 2.3 million units. But school districts need help. They need to be able to partner with the developer on building. 

I’m pushing legislation that would help school districts get the know-how, the technical assistance and some startup money to do the pre-development. And so this is a very achievable plan that’s been studied by UCLA and UC Berkeley.

Antonio Villaraigosa

Before we get to a realistic goal, let’s talk about why they’ve only been building about 100,000. We make it impossible to build in this state. We need– and we’ve just focused on homeless housing and affordable housing. We need an all of the above approach, kind of like we do on energy security. And that means we need market rate, workforce, affordable and homeless housing. We need to make it easier to build. So streamline permitting. Address a broken California regulatory framework that allows you to sue from Phoenix for a project in Palm Springs. That allows you to sue for whatever reason, not just environmental reasons.

And what I can tell you is this, if we do that we will build more housing than we are today. Whether we get in the first year to 325,000 remains to be seen. But I’ll tell you, we’re going to get a lot more than we have right now.

Homelessness

Under what conditions do you think it’s reasonable to arrest or use criminal penalties for someone sleeping outside?

Xavier Becerra

I believe that someone who’s sleeping outside shouldn’t be treated as a criminal. We should treat them as someone who needs support, help to get them off the street. Now, if you refuse the help, that doesn’t mean you get to make the final call and you stay on the street. We have an obligation as a society. We are our brothers’ keepers, and I think it’s important for us to pull people off the street, get them housed, get them with the attention they need, probably medical attention, likely mental health services, and a good chance of drug addiction services so we get them back on their feet. 

What we don’t want is for them to just stay lying on the streets. It’s not good for them. And quite honestly, it’s not good for the merchant who has the storefront right in front where –where these folks are sleeping or where the – your children have to pass by on their way to school.

Chad Bianco

No one’s ever arrested for sleeping outside. That is an absolute– complete “let me make everybody mad and let’s get everybody fighting” argument. That is, quite honestly, that’s a dumb question I’ve ever heard. No one’s ever been arrested for sleeping outside.

Steve Hilton

Look, we’ve got to remove the homeless encampments. We can’t accept people living in these conditions. I think it’s cruel that for so long now, we’ve tolerated something that in most civilized parts of the world, let alone this country, is just considered intolerable. 

And we’ve got to remember that it is against the law. The homeless encampments are illegal. It’s not. It’s against the law to sleep on the streets. So you’ve got to just enforce the law. And so in that sense, that answers the question. There are no conditions. There are no circumstances in which it’s okay, because I don’t know anyone who would think that that’s an acceptable way for another human being to live. 

So we’ve got to be genuinely compassionate there and get people out of those conditions, excuse me, and into the help that they need to get their lives back on track. Whether that’s addiction treatment or mental health services, whatever is needed to help them get their lives back on track, we should provide, but it starts with getting people off the streets. 

We need to think about how we do this in a very serious and structured way. But you have to start with the principle that we’re going to enforce the law, and we can’t allow these homeless encampments to continue.

Matt Mahan

I don’t think camping should be a choice when we’re offering people dignified alternatives. And when we expanded our supply of safe, dignified alternatives to the streets, it became, in my view, practical and ethical to tell people that we have an alternative and we expect them to use it. We have public space like our downtowns, our sidewalks, our parks, our trails, or waterways that need to be safe, clean and accessible to the public.

And on the one hand, I would never support criminalizing homeless – the mere fact of homelessness, which would be basically saying we’re going to enforce an anti camping ban even though we’re not giving you an alternative. The flip side, though, is when we’ve given you a viable, dignified alternative, we’ve built rooms with doors that lock, have onsite security, case management, three meals a day.

We meet people where they are. They can bring their partner, their pets, that we have a dog run at every site. They can bring their belongings. We help people transport their belongings. When we design spaces to be low barrier, safe and private, we have a, I think, a right and really a responsibility to the broader community to hold people accountable for coming in doors.

And to me, when someone’s repeatedly refusing that kind of interim housing or transitional housing placement, it’s usually a sign that they’re suffering from a more severe addiction or mental health issue that really calls for us to intervene. I don’t think it’s compassionate or progressive to leave people outside with behavioral health issues, ultimately to die of overdose, as we see so often.

So I believe in pairing compassion with accountability and getting people indoors.

Katie Porter

So criminalization, by and large, doesn’t work. People are taken to jail. They are held for a brief period. They are released and they go right back to being outside. I sympathize with what we all feel when we witness somebody who needs help, who needs care, who isn’t getting it. I think ultimately the solution here is to try to get ahead of this problem.

We have to do more to prevent homelessness.

Tom Steyer

No one gets better on the street. You know, only about 1 in 7 people who become homeless start with a severe mental health issue, either bipolar or substance abuse. Being on the street is incredibly destructive to people. We need to prevent people from becoming homeless. Keep them off the street to begin with. And the second thing I think is we need to make sure that when they’re on the street, we get them off the street as fast as possible, because that’s by far the most compassionate and effective thing we can do.

I don’t think you can actually ask someone to get off the street, unless you have a place for them to go. I don’t think criminal penalties are appropriate, but I think to ask someone to get off the street, you have to have a place that is suitable for them to go to. Hopefully overwhelmingly that people want to go to. But ultimately, for us to have the kind of cities that we want where people, communities feel safe, kids feel safe. And because the zoning ideas I have are so focused on building housing around public transportation in existing cities and towns, it’s really important that those cities and towns be attractive, fun and safe. And so I do think we need to work with everybody. I don’t think you should be arrested, but I do think that it’s necessary at some point for us to take back our streets.

Tony Thurmond

I don’t think there is a condition to arrest someone just for sleeping outside. If they’ve committed a crime, then they need to do the tag and they should be arrested. But being homelessness– being homeless is not a crime, and I think that we can do better than those who suggest that we arrest someone who is sleeping on a sidewalk.

We have the responsibility and the moral authority to provide for those individuals, and we can, Whether it’s through our Tiny Homes program, where we build a community that individuals are in the tiny homes and they get support. And that’s the key. Any program that builds housing for those who are homeless has to have the supports built in.

Antonio Villaraigosa

I don’t think it’s reasonable to arrest people who sleep outside. What I’ve said is, I don’t believe we should criminalize homelessness. I do believe we should be compassionate, but we shouldn’t allow chaos on the streets of California. Selling drugs is chaos on the streets. 

Encampments in front of schools and parks is chaos, because you know what neighborhoods are going to be in my friend. They’re not going to be in the affluent areas. What I’ve said is, if you’re offered a house or shelter and services and you are chronically homeless, you don’t have a right to be on the streets. 

The next governor is going to have to focus on a number of things. We need to provide more in the way of drug rehab, more in the way of mental health services. We need locked mental institutions. So the next governor is going to have to do innovative things like build housing, that is, tiny homes that cost $100,000, not $850,000. Modular housing for the homeless with services. It’s going to be important.

Climate

California mandates zero-emission new vehicle sales only by 2035 and net carbon neutrality by 2045. Are these the right goals or would you change them?

Xavier Becerra

The goal is great. What we have to do is make sure that goal matches the reality of our families. And if our families can’t afford to keep pace with the goal, then what good is the goal? And so what we have to do is pace ourselves so that we have a– the momentum to get to the point where doing the best for our people and our state. And I don’t think there’s anyone who would deny that we don’t want dirty air. 

We want to make sure we can live healthy lives in our state. That does require us to try to keep our air, our water, as clean as we can. And so we have good goals. Whether we can mark them by a particular date depends on whether our people can match those goals and pace themselves to it.

And if families are telling you, “I can’t get to where you’re trying to take me,”  what good is it to lead? And so absolutely show the direction. Let’s–the point on the horizon we’re all trying to get to, but let’s make sure we bring everyone with us.

Chad Bianco

The goal for carbon neutrality is destroying our state. Everyone knows that, except for the 130 people in Sacramento that are destroying it purposely for this ridiculous notion of zero carbon neutral. It is – that it is absolutely silly. It is silly, it is reckless, and it has been destroying our state for a long time. We are not going to do anything like that.

We are going to make Californians prosperous. We are going to make life easier for people here in California. And we’re abandoning this absolute scam that has been harming California.

Steve Hilton

No. It’s ridiculous. I mean, you can’t have the net zero target and the current climate agenda and an affordable cost of living. One is completely in conflict with the other. When did anyone get a say over whether this is a sensible thing to go for? The bureaucrats and the regulators put it in there. 2045 net zero, what does that even mean? It won’t do anything for the climate. It will have literally zero impact on global temperatures, whether we meet that target or not. So, many of the things that are making everything expensive are derived from the pursuit of the net zero target. 

The way I think about this is that the goal that we should have is to make this the state where it is the best one, the most affordable one to start and raise a family, to start and run a business. That should be our goal, to make California a great place to live and to thrive and to flourish and to grow. That’s what we should be doing. And I think we’ve got to remove all of this ideologically driven, bureaucratic structure that is fighting that goal in the name of some arbitrary target. 

So, of course, it all has to be dismantled and deleted in favor of an agenda that helps human flourishing, not the pursuit of some academic, ideological, and irrelevant goal when it comes to the real world impact.

Matt Mahan

Well, I think directionally they’re correct. On vehicles, I think we’re going in the right direction, but we also can’t pursue this kind of change at a rate that is going to push middle class and working families out of the state. Right now, the biggest challenge in California is how expensive everything is. The way to facilitate this transition is to invest in innovation, in infrastructure, subsidies… And the state has an important role to play in making sure the infrastructure is there, and that we continue to have incentives that nudge people toward the outcomes we want. But we can’t do it prematurely.

And I’ll give you a quick side example on this. I think we prematurely pushed all of the refineries out of state. We’ve lost almost every refinery while we’re still heavily dependent on oil and gas, which has meant we’re now importing the same old gas but from farther away, which means it has a higher carbon footprint. It costs more than if we were making it here in the state, and we lost the good, high paying jobs and the tax revenue that came from those businesses. We weren’t ready for that transition. 

But I also think it’s important to be realistic, look at data and be willing to revise goals when you learn new things. And I’d say on gas powered vehicles, we’re actually unfortunately, at least with domestic production, seeing a decline in EVs produced.

So, we have to be realistic about whether or not we can hit the goal. Is the right date 2035 or 2040? I don’t know, but as we get closer, am I open to adjusting the goal? I think we have to be, just pragmatically if we’re not tracking toward it.

Katie Porter

Those are absolutely the right goals. How we’re going to get there is going to have to look a little bit different because of Donald Trump, because of the federal government. So we shouldn’t blink on the goal. We need to be carbon zero. We need to make sure we are pushing for more electric vehicles and more types of electric vehicles. Lower cost electric vehicles, not just electric vehicles for the wealthy. Electric vehicles for light use trucking, for example. Electric vehicles that we haven’t currently been producing at the cost price point that is going to work. 

Most people don’t have range anxiety, they have cost anxiety. They’re not choosing an electric vehicle because it costs $7000 or $8000 or $10,000, or even more than a traditional combustion engine. 

So, I do think the lack of the federal subsidies on electric vehicles is going to mean we’re going to have to rethink the pace of that goal. Maybe we have to push it out a little bit, but we can’t look backwards. We can’t stop and we can’t go backwards. But we have to think about how do we push forward on this. So, some of our specific goals might have to change and adjust but the absolute goal, we have to still be a leader on climate. Because the truth is not addressing climate change, not addressing smog and air pollution is driving tremendous expenses here in the state. Everything from wildfire to the costs of healthcare for people who have lung diseases.

Tom Steyer

So do I think the 2045 goal of being net zero is important? Absolutely. And I wouldn’t change it for a second. In terms of mandating that every electric vehicle sold in California, be an EV by 2035… I want every EV to be in 2035, every car to be sold in 2035 to be an EV. But I have a different way of thinking about it.

So, let’s deploy what we have. Let’s use solar and batteries. Those prices are dropping through the floor. Being green is being cheap. Being green is getting money. Let’s think of the green as being dollar bills. Not just, you know, ecological interests.

Tony Thurmond

I think it’s a great goal. I think it’s the aspirational goal, but we may need more time to get there. For starters, we have to build out an infrastructure of charging stations. We probably need to build another 2 million charging stations to get to that goal. Here’s the other part. I’m very aware that there are some people who can’t afford a hybrid or an electric car.

And so as governor, I would like to provide vouchers and subsidies to help those low income families and working families that need help to make that purchase. It’s the right goal. I think we need to evaluate if we need to make any modifications to the timeline.

Antonio Villaraigosa

You know, when they first set those goals– sounded great, I think to everybody. We want to be– get rid of dirty diesel and gasoline powered vehicles. But in the last six years, we’ve built 180,000 charging stations. We need 2 million more to get to the 2035 goal. And if we built the 2 million more, we don’t have a grid.

So I’ve said, let’s build a grid. Let’s stop setting goals that we’re not getting anywhere close to meeting. Let’s focus on the fact that we need a grid, and we need to provide the charging stations in every community, not just the affluent communities. 

With respect to net zero, we’re not going to get there with the policies that have said, “let’s close down refineries,” because that’s just going to bring gas prices to 875 a gallon. We’re not going to get there by saying we’re just going to go all renewables. We need natural gas and oil for a period of time, probably at least a couple, maybe three decades. If we’re going to get to net zero, we need an all of the above energy policy that focuses on moving away from an overreliance on foreign oil and understands we’re going to need small nuclear to get to 2045.

You’re just not going to get there by just setting goals, and or unrealistic goals that say you’re not going to have natural gas for a period of time. Just not true.

Trump

One year into your administration, what would California’s relationship be like with President Trump?

Xavier Becerra

I hope it will be one where we are working well in some cases, and we’ve proven to him we’re going to stand up where he tries to break the law, violate our rights or abuse of our resources, our people and the way of life that we have in California.

Chad Bianco

It would be just exactly how a presidential relationship and a governor is supposed to be, a good one, whether it’s a Democrat governor or a Republican governor. These questions truly show me that CalMatters is the furthest thing from unbiased that of any agency. They keep responding to my emails telling me that they’re not biased. This is absolutely ridiculous. A governor is supposed to have a great relationship with every president.

Steve Hilton

The word that comes to mind is co-operative. I think for any governor of either party with respect to any president from either party, what people expect is cooperation, working together in the interests of Californians. And that’s exactly how I would approach it with President Trump there. Certainly for the first two years of my administration, if that’s going to be the case.

But I would have the same attitude if it was a Democrat president. And there may be a Democrat president. Of course, we’ll see what the 2028 election produces. But cooperation, working together in the best interests of Californians.

Matt Mahan

I suspect that one year in, we would have areas where we’re where we’re fighting in the courts over our interpretation of the Constitution and civil liberties, and I would prefer not to. But look, in San Jose, we’ve sued the Trump administration many times to protect our interests, our people, our tax revenue. But I would also seek places for common ground.

There are places where we just, we need the federal government to show up. We can’t rebuild LA after the fires without those FEMA dollars. And I would try to make that a win win with this administration. We need federal help managing our wildland urban interface to prevent future wildfires. There are big infrastructure investments that can only happen with federal dollars.

So I guess, I would in my, you know, pragmatic approach to these things, I would say very clearly to the White House, to this, to President Trump, if you are coming after our people, if you’re conflicting with our values, we will fight you in the courts. We will use our budget to push back. We will use the bully pulpit to protect our values and our people, but I’m always open to working together where we can actually deliver better results for the people of California. 

Most of my Democratic colleagues are positioning themselves and fighting over who hates Donald Trump the most. I’m no fan, but I also think the truth is, most of our big challenges in the state have nothing to do with who’s in the White House. They have to do with our policies that aren’t working.

Katie Porter

Yeah. So, look, when Donald Trump attacks Californians, it’s the job of the governor to push back. At the same time, if Donald Trump is going to advance policies that help California, good. Good for California. I can only think of one example of that right now, which is Donald Trump appointed a Californian, our Orange County fire authority chief, to be the director of a US wild land – a US federal firefighting force.

That’s an idea that benefits California, given how much federal land we have and how much wildfire risk we have. But unfortunately, that’s the only example I can come up with because we have an administration that generally continues to target not just California in an abstract way, but hurt everyday Californians. And it’s the job of the governor to absolutely protect against that.

Tom Steyer

Look, Donald Trump is at war with blue states. Donald Trump is at war. He said anyone who didn’t vote for me is an enemy. Which is a terrible thing for an American president to say is absolutely wrong. So I believe our relationship with Donald Trump– if through some miracle he changes, my attitude will change. But the truth is, we are in a very conflictual relationship with the president of the United– with Donald Trump.

Everything he’s doing is hurting us, and we should be pushing back as hard as possible against him and protecting Californian citizens from the bad things he’s doing to them, and actually protecting our economy so that we can continue to grow in spite of what he does to us.

Tony Thurmond

Well, the first thing I thought of is we’ll be working to make sure we elect somebody else. We will be preparing for a transition from President Trump. I think as a governor, one has to hold a balance of knowing when to push back and knowing when to work with the federal government. And I’m not waiting to become governor.

I’ve been fighting back against this Trump administration.

Antonio Villaraigosa

Look, I believe that President Trump is a threat to our democracy. I think these Ice raids are abhorrent, are an abomination, undermine our civil liberties and our civil rights. I’ve got a nice plan that will take– that will say, in the state of California, we have a right to enforce state laws that protect our civil liberties, our civil rights, that protect us against warrantless arrests, that make it clear that when people are arrested in a way that violates their civil liberties and or hurt, were shot, killed, there ought to be an investigation. And the state has a right to investigate those crimes.

And finally, we’ve said that we have a right to oversee detention centers in our state to make sure they’re following health and safety rules. Having said that, let me just say this: There are a lot of problems we have that we created that have nothing to do with Donald Trump. I’m going to focus on those problems as well. And finally, what I’ve said is I’m willing to work with anyone but make it clear: in California, the federal government will have to respect California values and California laws.

Justice

In 2024 California voters sent a message that they think the state went too far in reducing criminal sentences. Do you think the state is on the right track now?

Xavier Becerra

I think the public sent a message: they want safety first. And they saw some signs that perhaps safety was deteriorating, and so we have to respond to that. And as governor, I’ll make sure, for example, the prop 36 that Californians voted for is fully implemented. The important part of prop 36 is making sure we provide the non-criminal support to get someone who, for example, is drug addicted into treatment so we can get them back on their feet.

And so the beauty of prop 36, if it’s played out right, is that it wasn’t meant to just penalize. It was meant to get you the support you needed to never go back to the streets and commit crime. And so that’s what we want to do. 

I think California tries to find the right – the sweet spot when it came to how we punish those who’ve committed crime. I think it’s a work in progress. It always is, and sometimes, unfortunately, in politics, the pendulum swings too far both ways. So we had three strikes, which I think the public finally realized was way too harsh. And then sometimes the public at prop 36 was perhaps a sign of that, thought we went too far in allowing leniency, and so we’re looking to find that good sweet spot. And what I would say is this: the more we put the issue of sentencing in the hands of smart, capable, experienced judges, the better off we will be. Because rather than try to do a blanket approach, three strikes, we do something where someone who’s got the experience and the skill of dealing with those types of criminal cases can make the best judgment about what kind of sentence a defendant who’s convicted should serve.

Chad Bianco

It’s not even close to on the right track. Californians are on the right track. Our government is completely backwards. They are doing nothing. They are giving the middle finger to the voters of California because they are doing nothing to implement what the voters wanted. That has been what’s happening with our California government for 16 years of one party rule.

Our government is absolutely broken, and anybody watching this, if you keep voting for this same ridiculousness, we will have the same ridiculousness four years from now. This is nuts.

Steve Hilton

Barely. First of all, prop 36, which was passed overwhelmingly by Californians, hasn’t been fully funded and implemented. You’ve got the mental health and addiction aspect of it for homeless people, not at all being implemented. So that’s the first point. Let’s just start with that. We’re barely moving in the right direction at all. But beyond that, we have to have a much more aggressive attitude to enforcing the law and holding people accountable for criminal behavior and rehabilitation. Because if you don’t have that combination of accountability and punishment and rehabilitation, you’re just going to see crime continue to rise. 

So I think the number one focus for me on this issue will be stopping the present closure program and reversing it. So we increase prison capacity so we can have a certainty of accountability and punishment, but also a certainty of rehabilitation.

I think you’ve got a real, excuse me, a real disaster going on there. When I talk to people in the law enforcement community and DAs and so on with mental health diversion, for example. There’s just been just completely laughable ways in which accountability is being reduced by people claiming mental health diversion. But a big part of that is deterrence. And everything I’ve read over the years, decades on this, suggests– all the literature suggests that it’s the certainty that is the most important thing, not necessarily the severity of the punishment or whatever. It’s the certainty that if you commit a crime, you will be caught, you will be prosecuted, and if you’re found guilty, you’ll be punished. The knowledge that that’s definitely going to happen, that’s the most important thing. And that’s what we’ve got to restore into the system.

Matt Mahan

So you’re referring to prop 36? I was the first Democrat leading a big city to come out in support of prop 36, and the reason for that was seeing what was happening in our streets. I think that what prop 36 has done, and it’s really important that we implement, is it’s brought some balance back to our drug court so that a judge can create a moment of accountability and say, you’re in here for the third time on a criminal offense.

I know that you have an underlying addiction. That’s that’s a big contributor to this. Now you have a choice. You can enroll in and stick with a treatment program, or you can spend some time detoxing and thinking about it in the county jail and I think we need that tool. I think it will save lives, it will make us safer. I’ve been very disappointed that our political leaders in Sacramento have been unwilling to fund prop 36. One of the first things I would do as governor is make sure that in my first budget, we have the political support to properly fund prop 36. 

I was supportive of much of the criminal justice reform we did at the time, because I believe we were over incarcerating and failing to deal with underlying issues. On the other hand, we have leaned very heavily in at least some counties on what’s called mental health diversion. And I believe that if someone is repeatedly in front of a judge receiving mental health diversion as an alternative to a consequence for a crime, this system needs to bring more accountability to bear. Which could look like jail time, could be incarceration for a period of time, or at least that as a threat if someone doesn’t engage in the treatment and complete the program. 

And I think that the way forward with these kind of repeat offenders who are not serious violent criminals and have serious behavioral health issues is to have treatment centers that are involuntary, where someone can be mandated for some period of time to detox, to speak with a counselor, to maybe get on medication, to have a chance at really getting on a different path in life.

Katie Porter

I think what voters were concerned about was wanting to prevent retail theft from happening. That was the real goal. The problem I have with what we’ve done is it targets after the fact. It’s about sentencing. It is about what happens afterwards, and that’s only a tiny piece of the puzzle. So the goal of any kind of criminal sentence is to heal the victim as much as possible, and to prevent that wrongful activity from occurring again. That’s the touchstone.

I think there probably are people who are serving sentences long after they have demonstrated a capacity to change their behavior. We are still living with the consequences of the three strikes law and the so-called war on drugs. We’re still living with the consequences of that in our incarceration system. At the same time, California needs to be very, very clear.

If you break the law and you make our communities less safe, that it will be consequences for that. And so I think that means we probably both have sentences that are too long, and in some cases, people that are not getting held to account at all.

Tom Steyer

California is moving from a period where we made a mistake and did way too far on mass incarceration. And we’re now clearly moving to a place– what we’re really talking about is to the extent we can move into treatment and rehabilitation. 

Every community has a right to be safe. Every community has a right to feel as if violent criminals are not allowed to walk on their streets that they have been incarcerated. But for the vast bulk of people who are arrested and convicted, this system, including prop 36, is about we can replace what was a system of mass incarceration that didn’t even include the word rehabilitation until something like 2005. We can move to a system which is much more about treatment and rehabilitation, which is about avoiding recidivism, which means going back to prison in fairly short order, which is about trying to prepare people to reenter society as productive and functioning members of that society.

And I think that that is the path we’re on. That’s the path we should be on. Mass incarceration was clearly a mistake, and it involved a lot of unfair, and my mind, racist attitudes. And we’re now moving to a system that I think much more– will be much better for the state of California. It leads to much lower recidivism rates. It is fairer to people. And I think it gives people the idea that you have a chance to make a mistake, to be rehabilitated and rejoin society as a productive member.

Tony Thurmond

You know, I think that I think people are tired of having their cars broken into and their homes broken into. And I think we saw a swing of the pendulum and it may have swung too far. And if people are telling us that they feel that we are allowing people to commit crimes without accountability. Now, that doesn’t mean that we have to go to a place where we lock people up forever for minor climbs.

Right. You commit a serious crime, you have to do the time. There has to be accountability, but they’re also has to be thoughtfulness in how we approach public safety. We certainly have to be smart about it. We have to hold people accountable. I get it, I had three cars broken into or stolen in the last year or so.

One right in front of the driveway ended up in a chop shop. Window broken in another. My daughter’s car stolen and broken. And so I get people’s frustration. So we’re going to have to balance accountability with intervention, with supports and prevention.

Antonio Villaraigosa

I do because the people of California didn’t wait on the legislature or the governor, none of whom were doing anything about smash and grab. I’m the only candidate that said, “hold it. I took on three strikes, you’re out in the 90s”. I am not for a prison industrial complex. I understand that we were putting people in jail for too long, but you can’t keep on stealing multiple times on drugs, refuse drug treatment and not have repercussions.

And so, yes, I think we’re starting to get back on track. Crime is going down and the people have spoken. They want us to fund prop 36 to make sure we have the drug rehab for people who are committing crimes, who want to get help. We want to help them. But if they don’t want to get help, they’re going to need a time out.

And I supported that too and will continue to support that.

Health Care

What’s the single biggest problem in California’s health care system and what would you do to fix it?

Xavier Becerra

I’m going to say there’s two issues – two problems that I would point out in our healthcare system. The first is it’s too loaded with payments for things that have nothing to do with providing you actual healthcare. It’s all the administrative and bureaucratic costs. All the third party players who don’t have an M.D. behind their name aren’t nurses, aren’t health techs, they’re pencil pushers, their number crunchers, their attorneys. They’re accountants. They’re the ones that drive up the cost so high. We need to get rid of all those folks that have nothing to do with providing you and me the healthcare we need when we are sick or we are ailing. 

The second issue we have is we haven’t yet committed to making sure everyone who works hard has access to the doctor or hospital when they need it. And when I’m governor, we’re going to make it very clear we’re moving towards universal coverage for all Californians who work hard, are paying their dues, who are trying to make this a better place. And we’re going to try to make it so that they understand that they don’t have to fear going bankrupt, or losing their home, or not paying their rent because they went and took their– their child to the hospital eventually.

I think the most efficient way to deliver care at the best cost would be a single payer system. Medicare for all.

Chad Bianco

California’s government is again the biggest problem in California’s healthcare system. The bureaucracy, the red tape, the mismanagement, the abuse, the waste. It is– we are all seeing it except for the people in charge. They all need to be removed. Californians are over it. We’re tired of being lied to. We’re tired of being stolen from. 

Our legislators are passing ridiculous, ridiculous seismic laws, forcing hundreds of billions of dollars from our medical industry to be put to absolute ridiculous building requirements for no reason other than to spend money. And we all have to pay for that. 

Hospitals can’t go bankrupt. We have to incur those charges. The insurance companies are allowed to– basically they determine care for a patient. It’s no longer the doctor and the patient that decide anything. It’s the bureaucracy, and government has allowed that to happen.

Steve Hilton

Which cost is the first word that comes to mind. Of course, it’s very complicated because you’ve got a lot of federal involvement there. It’s a very, very complicated mess of a system. And I’ve now seen– if you like the scale of healthcare systems, when you look at what goes on around the world, I’ve seen both extremes, if you like. Because back in the day in the UK, when I was working in 10 Downing Street, senior adviser to the Prime Minister, of course in the UK we have the National Health Service, which is the, you know, the archetype of socialized medicine the left want to see here. And so I’ve seen what a disaster that is because you end up– the cost is lower but it’s rationed. It’s rationed care. That leaves people very, very dissatisfied. The US system is the other end of the scale, very expensive. 

Now, that question of reforming the system, I mean, I don’t even know where you would start with that. And so, you know, whether it’s even possible for a state to make those changes given the high degree of federal involvement. I mean, this is definitely not something that I would be saying to you as a plan that I would want to implement necessarily as governor. I think it should be decentralized entirely. So if I had a free hand, I would remove the federal role in healthcare entirely, and it should be run at the state level.

One of the more goals that I certainly think we should be focused on in California in terms of reducing cost, is actually reducing the need for healthcare in the sense of helping people to live healthier lives. And actually, what Bobby Kennedy is focused on now that what’s become known as the Make America Healthy Again agenda is really an important part of this story.

For me, when I think about healthcare, that health promotion part is very important and I’d want to really move forward very strongly on that as governor. What I’m trying to capture is something that, for example, that I was talking about there in the middle of the systems that you have the best of, you know, merging perhaps the best of what’s of the extremes.

I mean, look, the truth is, as I said, I don’t think that given the complexity of the system– the federal role, it’s not in terms of reform that it’s not top of my list, because we’ve got to work on some of these other affordability issues, which are more controllable within California.

Matt Mahan

I think our biggest challenge in the healthcare system today is inefficiency. Frankly, we spend over 30% of our healthcare dollars on overhead, administrative costs, billing, insurance, all of the coding that goes into that records keeping. There’s a lot of administrative overhead. I actually think this is an area where California has a real opportunity to use technology, including emerging AI tools, to really reduce the cost of all of that administrative overhead.

I also think we should acknowledge that there is likely a lot of waste and even fraud in some of the programs that are being built. We’re seeing a lot of investigative journalism happening as we speak around hospice claims and some really, you know, ridiculous situations. If somebody’s having way more patients or claims than one doctor can possibly have.

And so, I think getting waste and inefficiency out of the system is really important. I also think in many cases we just need to be smarter and more flexible. I think we need to leverage clinics and nurse practitioners. We’re not always going to be able to have a hospital with a bunch of doctors, but a community clinic with empowered nurse practitioners can do great preventative care and offer great public health.

I guess the last thing I’d say is we need to restructure our system to reward health, not just pay for managing chronic illness. And I think it’s really important that we incentivize healthcare systems to think about the long term health of a person they’re caring for, and really helping them live a healthy lifestyle to prevent chronic illness versus how much we spend later in life when people are already very sick.

Katie Porter

So look, Donald Trump is the single biggest problem in California’s healthcare system today because of the consequences of HR 1. And they’re going to be felt by all Californians, including those who have employer provided private coverage. Why? Because when we attack the coverage of Medi-Cal, when we pull back on that Medi-Cal funding, when we make insurance premiums on the Affordable Care Act exchange unaffordable, covered California premiums, when they skyrocket, what do we end up with? More uninsured people.

The other thing I would identify that’s really important, that it’s been a challenge long before Donald Trump arrived on the scene. In his first or second presidency is mental healthcare. That is a big challenge for California. It’s a big challenge across the country. I fought in Congress successfully to expand mental healthcare coverage for our first responders like our firefighters, public servants, like teachers.

I also pushed and passed successfully a law on mental health parity to make sure that private insurance companies provide the same level and access to care for mental health that they provide for physical health. There is still a lot of work to be done here.

Tom Steyer

The biggest problem in California’s healthcare system is we can’t afford it. And it’s escalating every single year and really eating up our budget, but also eating up the budget of every family and eating up the budget of every business. So to me, the question is, how do we get a handle on costs? And honestly, I don’t believe there’s any answer other than single payer.

If you look through the numbers which I have, it will continue to eat us until we move to single payer. And therefore, even though we won’t be able to affect– get single payer on day one, we need to start working on single payer on day one. It’s like the old saying, when’s the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. What’s the second best time to plant a tree? Today. We’re going to have to plant that tree on day one and move to it as fast as we can.

Tony Thurmond

Well, I think the biggest problem is profit. The profit motive is wreaking havoc on our families, and it’s coming in two ways. California healthcare companies, even nonprofit healthcare companies, have established record profits, reserves, and they come at the expense of services to Californians. Many Californians can’t get mental health services even if they have a policy. And because of the impact of Donald Trump’s, you know, Big Ugly Bill, as we sometimes call it, it’s knocking people off of Medi-Cal, which is a federal entitlement.

Those who qualify should have access to it for healthcare and mental healthcare. Because of what Trump is doing, we’re going to see hospitals close their doors in rural communities and communities that are already stretched and underserved. And so we have to push back. That’s why I support a single payer healthcare system where patients are put ahead of profits.

Antonio Villaraigosa

Single biggest problem in California’s healthcare system is really easy to answer. I’ll tell you what it is. It’s Donald Trump eviscerating Medi-Cal and taking probably close to $2 million off of Medi-Cal. It’s Donald Trump going after the subsidies that allowed covered California to be affordable for people. 

Now, I believe that we’re going to have to do everything we can to address healthcare affordability given the cuts by Donald Trump, and I believe that the next governor is going to have to look at something like not single payer, which too many of the candidates have gotten behind, I think 4 or 5 of them. It’s a $550 billion price tag, and you need the approval of the federal government. You know, the current president. That’s not going to happen. 

I do believe in what they call a public option, which is government sponsored healthcare that pushes down – competes with insurance companies to drive down costs.

Artificial Intelligence

What is your vision for how artificial intelligence changes life in California?

Xavier Becerra

Well, if we work it the right way, AI can be used to benefit our communities. The way I look at it, AI should be there to supplement, not supplant, our workers. AI should be there to support, not replace our workers. AI should be something that all of us look at as a benefit. And so if you’ve got kids, you want to know what’s going on with AI.

If you’re a worker in a particular industry where technology is starting to really come into play, you want to understand how AI will interact with you. And so what I think we have to do is work with the industries that are handling all this new technology in AI and say, let’s make this a win win.

Chad Bianco

AI has a very good possibility just like any technology. There are always massive, massive– there’s greatness that comes with technology. But it also, no matter how great it is, it has its downfalls. Use the cell phone. That was the greatest invention ever in our lifetime. But look at the downfalls it has. I mean, social media, the sex trafficking, the drugs that come from social media.

There’s always good and there’s always bad. So AI is going to have massive improvements in our lives, but we also have to make sure that we manage the downside, because no matter what you have for good, someone’s going to use it for bad.

Steve Hilton

Well, it’s here and it’s certainly having an impact. Look, I just think that one of the things I’m very cautious of, just generally temperamentally, is politicians trying to manage something that they don’t really understand and causing all sorts of unintended consequences as a result. This is a big and growing technology. Obviously, it’s one that we’re leading on. We’re world leaders on, and that’s something that’s great. 

I want to support that industry. And I think there’s a lot more that we could do to make that happen and make sure that the jobs that are being created from this are more broadly based. At the moment, what you’re seeing is the kind of a lot of the value creation around AI is happening here with the technology.

But then you look at the investment in all the ancillary aspects of AI, and it’s all going to other states because it’s so expensive to build anything here or do anything here. So I think that’s something we need to think about. 

I think that it’s, you know, I think it’s a bit early. You know, I don’t think there’s at all it’s at all clear what the impact will be. I don’t have a particular view about AI and its role in shaping society in a  way that I think the governor of California should weigh in on. I think that we’ve got to make sure that whatever happens, we are prepared as a society. And my main focus for me is, are we educating our young people sufficiently well to flourish in whatever world is next?

Matt Mahan

Well, having worked in tech, being the mayor of San Jose, the capital of Silicon Valley, I’m closer to this technological change than any of the other candidates. And, you know, I think that there’s immense opportunity. But I also think people are right to be concerned about what this – what this technology will mean. Our job in government should be to regulate tech and especially AI, and shape it so that we maximize the benefits while minimizing the downsides.

I think there’s huge opportunity to make government more efficient, more effective, more responsive. I also think there’s an opportunity for California to continue to lead and create the companies and the jobs of the future and have good, high paying jobs here. And if we take regulation too far, we’ll merely push that to other states and even other countries.

I do think, though, that the fear of job loss, particularly for younger generations, is very real. That’s something I’m concerned about. What I’ve done is mayor and would continue to do as governor is create opportunities for upskilling. We’re still going to need welders, and plumbers, and builders, and teachers, and daycare, childcare and elder care workers. And you know, so, I just – I think really positioning people to be successful in this future economy is really important for us to do in government.

Katie Porter

We have a choice to make and we don’t have very long to make it. Which is, is artificial intelligence going to be a technology that we harness for the greater good of all Californians? Or is it going to be allowed to simply benefit a handful of the most wealthy? 

We have to make sure that the benefits of artificial intelligence are being shared with all Californians. Right now, we are not on that path. Most of what the legislature has done on artificial intelligence and the governor, which is good and important work, is focused on things like child porn and preventing AI and the production of child porn, focusing on the catastrophic risks of AI. Right. Building an AI to unleash a pandemic, for example, and the risks of AI to democracy and manipulating public information. Those are incredibly important.

But the undone piece of this is what does AI mean in its relationship to work workers and families ability to put food on the table. We do not have time for a governor to get their sea legs and figure out that this is a problem. We need a governor who comes in day one with a vision that any AI that is deployed in our state, AI that is developed here, needs to accrue to the benefit of the workers, whose skills and knowledge are now being harnessed by that AI to do some of that work.

Tom Steyer

Artificial intelligence is going to really, in my mind, make revolutionary changes in California. Some of them will be very good. Some of them are very threatening. And so when we think about artificial intelligence, I think number one is we need to make sure we protect workers, that artificial intelligence can’t be a cause for widespread unemployment for Californians. It cannot be used to replace workers. It’s supposed to be a tool for workers to be more impactful. 

I’ve proposed a very small fee on every calculation in artificial intelligence as a way for us both to make sure that we can protect working people, but also that we can do something. Create a fund, the equivalent of a sovereign wealth fund, to make sure that we have a solid base starting to produce in the first place, to make sure we have a system of protecting working people and making sure that they have good employment, because there are a lot of jobs, but people may need to be trained for them. But also so that, you know, for instance, New Mexico has a sovereign wealth fund that pays for everybody’s childcare. A sovereign wealth fund gives us a stable ability to pay for services that Californians need, but which right now we’re struggling to meet.

Tony Thurmond

I think AI can be a great tool in a lot of sectors, but AI doesn’t need to be just replacing somebody’s job with a chatbot. But you can use AI as a tool to help teachers to organize data, to know how to arrange students according to skill level and need level until we can make class sizes smaller. This is an important tool.

You know, many doctors are using AI to capture notes in medical appointments. It saves time. They’re even saying that AI can solve cancer and I want that. And if AI is just being used as a way to lay people off to save a few bucks on staffing costs, to me, that’s what we always call, you know, penny-wise and pound foolish and we’re going to see people get hurt.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be driving next to an 18-wheeler that doesn’t have a person in it. When that thing tries to make a lane change and it’s confused about what the situation is, there is nothing that replaces human judgment.

Antonio Villaraigosa

Well, my vision is that it makes us more productive. My vision is that it creates more jobs. My fear is that it may make us more productive, but may eliminate too many jobs. So–and I think we’ve seen with social media, it could also be a threat to our children. So, the issue of safety is important as we move to AI.

We can’t limit tens of hundreds of thousands of jobs without a plan to retrain people for jobs of the future. We’ve got to say that safety is critical. We’ve got to protect the health and safety of people when it comes to AI, and we’ve got to protect our children.

Gaza

Do you consider Israel’s actions in the war in Gaza a genocide?

Xavier Becerra

I think what the Netanyahu government has done in Israel cannot be classified as within international norms. I think the number of people who died in Gaza during the Israeli action was extreme. I think Netanyahu should answer for all he has done before the international community.

Chad Bianco

In my line of work, there is absolutely nothing that anyone tells you or that you see that you should really believe. You should investigate everything because we are being misled like at no other time in history. So we don’t know what happened there. We know what someone wants us to believe happened there. 

And my message to everyone is quit believing your phone. Quit believing social media. Quit believing just one news network or one frame of mind. You have to investigate. You have to use critical thinking skills because you are being led down a path to believe something that either  is or is not true, depending on the side. And for your life to be completely changed over something like that is reckless. And it’s unfortunate that people are using media, even CalMatters, to influence people negatively.