Posted on 05/25/2010 3:17:30 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Carly Fiorina directly attacked a cornerstone of California's conservative movement -- and one of the few institutional protections California's property owners enjoy. In short, she attacked Proposition 13. And there's proof.
Below, I'm appending a rather interesting little op-ed from the March 2nd, 2000, San Jose Mercury-News. It's by one Carly Fiorina and John Doerr (then as now a venture capitalist and partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers), and it enthusiastically endorses California's Proposition 26 of 2000.
What was 2000's California Proposition 26? In brief, it was an attack on the provisions of California's historic 1978 Proposition 13, which capped property taxes at 1% of the value of a property. Under Proposition 13, local governments may enact special taxes exceeding the 1% limit with a two-thirds-majority vote of the populace. Proposition 26 in 2000 would have fatally weakened 1978's Proposition 13, by lowering the two-thirds requirement for local special taxes to a simple majority for education-related purposes.
In short, Proposition 26 would have ended Proposition 13 as a meaningful protection for California's over-taxed homeowners. That's why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, which has endorsed Chuck DeVore, fought successfully to defeat it at the polls.
And that's why Carly Fiorina -- an instinctive liberal in nearly every instance before the present election campaign -- supported it.
Carly Fiorina will have a tough time explaining why she joined in a fight to overturn Prop. 13 in the final two weeks of this campaign. But Republican voters must know that when the time came to defend one of the signal accomplishments of modern conservatism in California, she stood on the other side.
Oh, and the punchline to all this? She didn't even vote in that election.
All the best,
Joshua Treviño
Joshua S. Treviño
Communications Director
DeVore for California
Online: ChuckDeVore.com
San Jose Mercury News
Posted at 6:05 p.m. PST Wednesday, March 1, 2000
A yes on Prop. 26 is crucial for California schools
BY CARLY FIORINA AND JOHN DOERR
Most of the tremendous technological innovations leading us into the 21st century were born in California, right here in Silicon Valley. The economy and population of California is exploding, yet our school facilities are being left behind.
More than half of California's schools lack adequate electrical power for computers and communications technology. Our state ranks 42nd out of the 50 states in students per Internet-connected computer, and we rank dead last in students per instructional computer.
Silicon Valley executives are disturbed to find that a 19th century provision of our state Constitution is keeping us from bringing our schools into the 21st century, and that is why HP and other TechNet companies are supporting Proposition 26 on the March 7 ballot.
Though Santa Clara County is home to Silicon Valley, most of its schools were built at least 25 to 30 years ago. They are old and out of date. We must fix them. In Santa Clara County, 19 percent of school buildings are temporary. Compounding the situation is the enrollment growth of nearly 30,000 new incoming students annually. This enrollment will continue to grow in the coming years. It will require 50 to 60 new schools per year in this county alone.
Just up the road, the San Mateo Union High School District typifies the problems of districts around the state. Faced with serious modernization and classroom needs, the district has been attempting to win passage of a local school bond for the past two years.
The roofs are leaking at Aragon High School, fire alarms and other safety devices at Burlingame High School need to be replaced, old irrigation and drainage systems need to be renovated at Capuchino High School in San Bruno, and old heating, electrical and ventilation systems must be replaced at Mills High School in Millbrae.
The district has attempted to improve its schools with local bonds, but even though they received more than 66 percent support, the will of the majority of the voters was not enough to make much-needed improvements to these schools.
Districts in Santa Clara County have met a similar fate. Since 1986, 10 bond attempts have failed in Santa Clara County despite majority support.
The current two-thirds vote requirement carried over from the 19th-century has taken a serious toll on local schools, particularly in our poorest communities where the need is greatest. The answer to this crisis is Proposition 26. Prop. 26 makes it easier to invest in our children's education by reducing the unfair two-thirds vote requirement for passage of local school bonds to a simple majority. It also institutes strict new accountability standards to ensure that school facilities are finished on time and on budget. All local school bonds must include a list of specific projects that would be completed with the funds. In addition, an annual audit will be required for every project until all funds have been expended.
California is one of only four states to require a two-thirds vote to fix our schools. It is an unfair, 120-year-old law that prevents a majority of local voters from deciding the fate of their school's future and leaves our children and grandchildren in dilapidated, unsafe and severely overcrowded facilities.
Now is the time for California to join the vast majority of other states that make investing in their children's education a top priority. The coalition supporting Prop. 26 is one of the largest and most diverse in the history of California initiatives: Gov. Gray Davis, former Gov: Pete Wilson and more than 500 organizations.
The reason is simple: Investing in our children's schools is the key to preparing students for jobs in the 21st century to what we call e-inclusion (educational and electronic inclusion). It's the key to economic prosperity and safe communities. Put simply, it is the right thing to do. That is why we should all vote yes on Prop. 26 on March 7.
_________________________________________________________________
Carly Fiorina is president and chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard. John Doerr is a general partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
I'm sure you supported many liberal initiatives or candidates in the past right?
Listen toots - you're the one who equated Carly supporters with those of Obama supporters and called us uninformed and nearly demented.
No, we just recognize that from a realistic political standpoint, Carly would be the best possible choice to defeat Boxer. It has nothing to do with being "starry eyed" or supporting Carly like sheep. We analyzed the political data and did the math, and DeVore simply drew the short straw.
Her campaign ammo has been to project herself as a non-politician and complain about her opponents being "career politicians" to deflect the fact that she has very little in political advocacy (even in voting), so why would any sane person take what she says at face value? And the fact that she backed and worked for "career politician" McCain (who has more years in office than Campbell and DeVore combined!) just makes her a two-faced phony... I guess some career policians are more acceptable when you're not running against one, eh?
So with little in her political resume, what she has advocated for in public life is very important, and starts to paint the picture of the REAL Carly Fiorina, not just some image designed by her and her political consultants.
INTEGRITY... a trait still important to some Republicans.
Devore is gonna win this thing.
BUMP
Carly is the best bet to defeat Campbell.
Carly, with her job & company killing past, is the worst bet to defeat Boxer.
The Governor and Senator elections in CA this cycle are a real s*** sandwich.
I'd be happy if he does. I've never torn him down or attacked him personally. I just feel that the traction isn't there and he'll give Campbell the victory.
yes.
That’s right. The press and polls want us to write off DeVore and vote for lesser of evils. NO F’N WAY! We, the people, not the press or polls, will decide our senator.
No, it simply speaks to her being involved on an issue even if she may have been on the wrong side of it. Co-publishing an op-ed is not a violation of the law.
Her campaign ammo has been to project herself as a non-politician and complain about her opponents being "career politicians" to deflect the fact that she has very little in political advocacy (even in voting), so why would any sane person take what she says at face value?
So we can disregard this article then, right?
After all, her words meant nothing. She was just a private individual speaking out on an issue.
And the fact that she backed and worked for "career politician" McCain (who has more years in office than Campbell and DeVore combined!) just makes her a two-faced phony... I guess some career policians are more acceptable when you're not running against one, eh?
That doesn't mean anything.
So with little in her political resume, what she has advocated for in public life is very important, and starts to paint the picture of the REAL Carly Fiorina, not just some image designed by her and her political consultants.
I see it differently. I see someone who is the head of a major trans-national corporation and thought this idea would be the best way to improve the schools in CA. Whether or not she was right or wrong isn't the point. It is not unusual for a corporate executive to get involved with issues pertaining to their community or state. And this issue is irrelevant to her campaign. She's not going to be dealing with CA property taxes in the Senate.
It’s speaks to her character (or lack thereof) and her so-called conservative beliefs.
If she is not willing to help hold back runaway state government that is chomping at the bit to raise taxes to support their spending, what will she do (or not do) in Washington D.C.?
This was ten years ago. I don't think it's an indicator of some sorts.
Well...you did ask how we thought it was related to her Senate campaign.
I just have a hard time finding anything positive about a failed businesswoman and a so-called Republican in CA who once advocated repealing Prop 13.
You should know, we just got our asses handed to us by 3 turncoat “Republicans”, two of whom signed no new taxes pledges and one of those who went on a radio talk show and told the hosts 17 times in various ways that they would not raise taxes.
I hope you don’t blame us too much for being extremely skeptical of anyone who has demonstrated a willingness in the past to screw the taxpayer. Especially one who claims to be a conservative “Republican”.
Thanks to Freep, I’m changing my vote from Carly to Chuck Devore...
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.