Posted on 03/10/2010 11:34:59 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
Meg Whitman Supports $112 Billion In Higher Taxes On Californians
Meg Whitman has embraced former Governor Pete Wilson, tapping the man she described as the greatest California governor in memory to be her campaign chairman. Unfortunately, she has also embraced the billions of dollars in higher taxes that Wilson championed as governor.
As governor, Wilson championed a 1.25% increase in the sales tax, which has directly resulted in at least $112 billion in higher taxes for California.
Whitman has not distanced herself from these higher taxes. Instead, Whitman has defended them, saying she trusted Wilson’s judgment and that “every time in history is a different time.” Whitman stands by Wilson’s comments and actions, who threatened to “break arms” and warned Republicans they would be “f—irrelevant” if they did not support higher taxes.
Whitman Has Embraced Wilson And Has Refused To Condemn His Tax Increases, Which Have Cost California Taxpayers At Least $112 Billion:
Whitman Has Described Wilson As The Greatest California Governor In Memory, Claiming That His Tax Increases Made Sense At The Time. “At the same time, Whitman praised former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson for his role in the 1990s budget crisis. She said the tax hikes imposed by Wilson — whom she described as the greatest California governor in memory — made sense at the time, even if they would be inappropriate now.” (Michael Finnegan, “Whitman Unveils Her Stands,” Los Angeles Times, 2/11/09)
•Whitman: “I trust his [Former Gov. Wilson’s] judgment back then.” (Michael Finnegan, “Whitman Unveils Her Stands,” Los Angeles Times, 2/11/09)
When Directly Questioned About Her Support For Wilson In Spite Of His Tax Record, Whitman Noted That “Every Time In History Is A Different Time.” FOX NEWS’ NEIL CAVUTO: “All right, but now let’s go back past the immigration battle to a governor who you have spoken highly of. And that is former Governor Pete Wilson. It’s been a decade since he last sought office, but hiked taxes during that time. Now, you are the woman who is talking about cutting taxes, but one of the guys you compliment is a guy who raised them.” MEG WHITMAN: “Sure. And every time in history is a different time. The choice that has been put before Californians is a false choice, that you either have to cut services, cut firefighters, cut teachers, cut policemen, or raise taxes. It’s a false choice. We have to, first and foremost, make government spending more efficient.” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 5/5/09)
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s Jon Coupal Has Noted That Wilson’s Tax Increases Hurt California’s Economy And Did Not Produce The Promised Revenue. “[Jon] Coupal said it hurt, rather than spurred, a California economy that was in recession in the early ’90s. ‘What happened in ‘91 was that it didn’t get the revenue they projected because the tax increases had the effect of further slowing the economy,’ Coupal said.” (Judy Lin, “GOP Toes Party Line On Taxes,” Sacramento Bee, 12/30/07)
Wilson Threatened To “Break Arms” Of Republicans, Who Had To Support Higher Taxes Or Risk Being “F—Irrelevant”:
Wilson Warred With GOP Legislators When He Famously Supported A Tax Increase, Telling Republican Lawmakers To Raise Taxes Or Risk Being “F– Irrelevant.” “Gov. Pete Wilson warred with GOP lawmakers early in his tenure when he endorsed a tax increase to plug a budget deficit, famously telling Republican legislators at a meeting that they had to consider taxes or risk being ‘f — irrelevant.’” (Mark Martin, “Governor, GOP Say Their Spat Is Over,” San Francisco Chronicle, 12/16/05)
•Wilson Also Threatened To “Break Arms” To Get Republicans To Vote For His Tax Increases. “In 1991, then-Gov. Pete Wilson threatened to ‘break arms’ in forcing a handful of Republicans to vote for a package that contained a combination of tax increases and spending cuts.” (Judy Lin, “GOP Toes Party Line On Taxes,” Sacramento Bee, 12/30/07)
In 1991, Gov. Pete Wilson Increased Sales Taxes By 1.25%:
Gov. Wilson’s Tax Hikes Included A 1.25% Increase In The Sales Tax. “Wilson later said the package, which included a 1.25 percent sales tax increase, was a mistake.” (Judy Lin, “GOP Toes Party Line On Taxes,” The Sacramento Bee, 12/30/07)
Gov. Wilson’s 1991 Sales Tax Hikes Included 0.75% In Permanent Increases And 0.5% In Temporary Increases That Were Later Made Permanent. “Sales Tax Increases. AB 2181 (Vasconcellos) increased the sales tax 1.25 percent (of which 0.5% percent was temporary at the time, but was re-imposed in 1993) and repealed exemptions for snack foods, newspapers, magazines, bottled water and fuel used out of state by common carriers (ships, planes and semi trucks, for example).” (David R. Doerr, California’s Tax Machine, 2008, p. 288)
•Gov. Wilson Signed AB 2181 On June 30, 1991. (1991 Cal. Sta. 85)
•Gov. Wilson And The Democrat-Controlled Legislature Later Placed Proposition 172 On The Ballot To Make The Temporary 0.5% Increase Permanent. “Voters will be asked whether the sales tax increase should be permanently extended. The increase was put in place in 1991 on a temporary basis and is scheduled to expire at the end of December. . . Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, and the Democrat-controlled Legislature approved the Proposition 172 ballot plan this summer as part of an effort to cope with severe fiscal troubles.” (Dennis Walters, “California,” The Bond Buyer, 9/21/93)
◦Wilson Successfully Championed The Permanent Tax Increase In 1993. “On November 2, 1993, California voters enacted Proposition 172, which established a permanent statewide half-cent sales tax for support of local public safety functions in cities and counties.” (CA Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 172,” www.lao.ca.gov, 6/9/94)
Since 1991, Gov. Pete Wilson’s Sales Tax Hikes Have Cost Californians Over $112 Billion In 2009 Dollars:
remainder of article with table and links
Honestly, that’s a pretty misleading headline.
In the same sense that shooting up heroin makes sense to the junkie at the time.
I'm willing to give Republican candidates some latitude on social issues. But if they have not even the slightest understanding of free-market economics...what's the difference between them and the Democrat?
Every potential Republican officeholder should have to take a simple test on economics. If they don't pass, they can't run on the party line.
That’s a good idea. And Californians, I heard that there are unlimited numbers of new jobs in New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. ;-)
We don’t need to increase anything.
We have so much oil off the coast that it comes gurgling up through the ocean floor uninvited whether we want it to or not.
To sit flat on our backsides, bankrupt, with double-digit unemployment, can’t pay salaries, putting people on furlough left and right, when all you have to do is stick a straw in the coastal shelf and the stuff flows like water from a tap... is criminally stupid.
Get out of the way. It will cost the government nothing, the investment will come from private sources. They’ll put thousands to work. Companies all over the state and all over the country will go to work fabbing tools and equipment. They’ll all be paying taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, every kind of tax a statist mind can devise, and whats more the oil itself will generate royalty payments right into the treasury.
Or, you can sit paralized and bankrupt and stew about another penny in sales tax like thats going to save you as businesses and workers flee the state in caravans.
I understand. If we were granted license to change article titles, I would have tried to make it a bit more accurate.
Hmmmmm, I remember him as an anti conservative guy that mocked us that didn't buy into his liberal visions, but if she thinks that Wilson was better than the two term Ronald Reagan then I guess we can accept that she is speaking from her corporate, Mitt Romney heart.
I know. It’s a hit piece, but it’s pretty misleading. Not your fault. What a mess this race is though. I don’t feel good about either candidate.
Huh? Stupid c*nt! We all know who the greatest California governor was. And he sure as hell was NOT little Petey!
Meg just thinks of them as final value fees :]
I think Californians better get ready to leave en masse.
If the republican candidate has no problem with raising fees otherwise known as taxes by 112 billion, you can imagine what the democrats are planning.
You would think Ms. Whitman being a CEO and all would understand that. Guess not.
I think all of these idiots that support stupidity should go live in a country that has no freedom just as the people do.
They should also realize(I know it’s a shock)they are not the elite. They are not special and they have not been selected to tell us what to do.
Please CA try to find someone that can do the right thing.
If Whitman is the Republican candidate I hope the Social Democrat wins. Given the choice of two SocDems I would prefer the one who ears the proper label to win over the one dressed as a Republican.
Jerry Brown!?!
As it stands, Brown will have Ahnold to blame like MaObama has Bush. But the result will be a state that completely fails and becomes THE text book example of why Government should be rebuilt under Conservative Principles from the ground up.
Then they can use their red deficit dollars to pay for their clean green energy to heat and cool their homes and fuel their cars.
the those = then those
It amazes me that anybody can think CA failing wouldn’t take down the whole country with it.
Greece represents only 2% of the EU GDP, and look what a panic ensued at the thought of it going insolvent.
CA is 17% of America’s GDP. It grows more food than any other state in the country. Failing is not an option.
It is also completely unnecessary. Just these few simple things would balance the budget and make all the voters TAXPAYERS again ... with a stake in LOWERING SPENDING because it is the only way to get lower taxes.
If the sales tax rate was lowered from 10% to 5% but included everything like services and groceries, and the income tax was lowered from marginal rates as high as 10% down to a flat 5% for everyone with no deductions — and only applied to individuals and NOT corporations — we would have MORE tax revenue while attracting businesses and high-earners back to the state.
A Republican should run on policies that will bring the wealthy and businesses (also known as ‘employers’) back to the state, not catering to the masses that have gotten used to free government goodies while paying no taxes. Wouldn’t you rather have wealthy neighbors than poor neighbors ?
Broadening the 5% sales tax to include rents and groceries would hit illegal aliens hard compared to the existing system where virtually nothing they spend money on is taxable and they paid no income tax working illegally.
Set up a right-to-work database keyed off your thumbprint and require it at the DMV thereby eliminating use of false employment ID and fake drivers licenses, and the illegals would leave in droves.
I, for one, totally endorse your set of proposals. Glad to see them laid out so clearly and affirmatively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.