TOM MCCLINTOCK DAILY EDITION - 8/28/2003(CA GOVERNOR'S RACE)

Rabid Republican

[Rabid Dog]

Please post local, regional, national news and views on Tom McClintock. The following guidelines for posting are per DoughtyOne's most excellent suggestion.

McClintock Camp - Supporters or Defenders

I would like to ask you all to please post positive articles about your man's policies and leave the Schwarzenegger bashing to the Democrats.

Schwarzenegger Camp - Supporters or Defenders

The call for McClintock to withdraw right now, or the tactic of calling him and his followers names for not doing so, is not productive and isn't good for the party.

IN OTHER WORDS, SAVE THE RINO ARNIE/UNELECTABLE TOM RANTS FOR THE OTHER THREADS.

[Rabid Dog]

Can you change the date to the 29th? Thanks.

[AmericanInTokyo]

This will be a good thread.

It will be informative, for the supporters of Tom McClintock.

I wonder, though.

Whoever is the first to violate your excellent, fair rules, is low-class and retarded in my book.

Now: Which FReeper is going to show up now on this thread and make a ass out of himself or herself by disregarding your reasonable and polite request to keep this thread positive for Tom and his camp, and informative?

I'm waiting. Good luck to you on this thread and to your CONSERVATIVE candidate for Governor.

[Rabid Dog]

Good morning everyone! Yesterday Tom hosted a three hour radio show down in San Diego. He was excellent!!

[AmericanInTokyo]

Do you have an updated speaking schedule for your candidate? What is the status of DEBATES to take place that will include Conservative McClintock?

[Rabid Dog]

"Walk for Tom" Statewide Precinct Walk Scheduled for Saturday, October 4th!
We need your help to make Governor Tom McClintock a reality this October 7th. Many of our dedicated E-Team members are going to be joining together in the first ever statewide get-out-the-vote neighborhood walk. This army of dedicated volunteers will be making history as they take Tom's message of hope and opportunity to hundreds of thousands of Californians.

Can you give up a few hours on Saturday, October 4th for the future of our state?

We promise to make it easy for you, and to appreciate you as a volunteer. We'll match you up with a Walk for Tom group in your local community, and provide you with an easy-to-use targeted voter list and McClintock literature to leave at each door. Our campaign staff will be standing by throughout that Saturday as your "support team" to answer any questions you have.

» Join the Walk for Tom on October 4, 2003

[Rabid Dog]

Maybe we should have a reward or a trophy?

[AmericanInTokyo]

Idea: A good, one page, 'comparative' flyer comparing McClintock with his closest GOP rival. I think the clear differences and distinctions should be drawn. These will be good for precinct walks if targeting GOP voters at the door. The flyers can also make the rounds at various GOP functions, etc. I like the approach of the McClintock campaign so far.... making this issue-based and showing clear distinctions so voters (and particularly Cal Conservatives) DO have a choice in Oct.

[Rabid Dog]

SCHEDULED EVENTS FOR TODAY (IF YOU CATCH THEM PLEASE REPORT THEM)


Television HBO
August 29, 2003 at 8:30PM

Real Time with Bill Maher


Television Los Angeles KTTV FOX 11
August 29, 2003 at 10:30PM

[AmericanInTokyo]

I say, conduct a "shame campaign" and they will leave your good Tom Mc thread alone in humiliation or otherwise realize it is meaningless to disrupt and it will all splash back on themselves and their little minds.

[Rabid Dog]

Posting one of his speeches to start the morning off with a little food for thought.

California Commission on Tax Policy in the New Economy

Senator Tom McClintock
Date: March 12, 2003
Publication Type: Speech or Statement Print Version

Thank you for the opportunity to address your commission on the future of tax policy in California. I would like to focus on two general themes - one is the natural limitations that operate upon any system of taxation, and the other is a few general principles that I believe would produce great improvements to the state's overall structure of finance.

Let me begin with the natural limitations that act upon our tax system. I know that there is a great deal of pressure on this commission to raise revenues to deal with the state's budget deficit. But it is important to recognize that raising tax rates is quite a separate thing from raising tax revenues - one does not necessarily follow from the other.

California found that out the hard way when it attempted to increase tax revenues by raising tax rates in 1991. The increases in tax rates that year, principally an 18 percent increase in the sales tax and a 15 percent increase in upper brackets of the income tax, were supposed to produce a net of $7 billion of new revenues. But they didn't. In fact, total general fund revenues dropped by $1 billion after the tax increases were instituted. We didn't take in $7 billion more - we took in $1 billion less. We lost another $1 billion the next year.

Great concern has been expressed over the tax revenues lost to the Internet. This is not a problem - it is a symptom of a problem - and that problem is an excessively high tax rate. Commerce in the new economy can move with increasing ease around any obstacles - and it is.

When taxes are uniform and low, tax compliance is high. But when those taxes become excessive or disproportionate, an increasing incidence occurs first of tax avoidance, then tax evasion and then finally tax flight. There are natural bounds upon any tax system. To the extent the taxes are deemed uniform, people do not resent paying them; and to the extent the taxes are deemed moderate, people do not resist paying them.

But a disproportionate tax system loses its moral authority and an excessive tax system inspires tax revolts. A disproportionate tax destroys the taxpayers' willingness to pay and an excessive tax destroys their ability to pay.

I spoke to a woman two weeks ago who told me that she and her husband had just sold their business in San Diego. But before they did, they, like so many others, took the necessary legal action to assure that it was a Nevada corporation and that they were legal citizens of Nevada. All the expense and inconvenience to do so was worth it to them to avoid California's excessive taxes. California received none of the proceeds; Nevada got everything.

And she said, "Have you seen Reno recently?" And she described in vivid detail the economic explosion taking place there today - the construction, the investment, the booming job market - all fueled by a steady stream of California ex-patriots like herself.

It put me in mind of an observation Alexis de Tocqueville made during his travels in America in the 1830's.

He wrote of the Ohio River Valley and the remarkable difference between what he saw on the left bank, in Kentucky and on the right bank, in Ohio - one slave and one free. And he wrote, "The traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio … may be said to sail between liberty and servitude, and a transient inspection of surrounding objects will convince him which of the two is more favorable to humanity.

"Upon the left bank of the stream the population is sparse; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-deserted fields; the primeval forest reappears at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and life.

"From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard, which proclaims afar the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvest; the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborers; and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor."

I am becoming concerned that a similar demarcation between liberty and servitude can now be glimpsed by floating down the current of the Colorado River. And I offer this as a sobering reflection upon the incessant efforts to take from Californians more and more of "that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor."

And that concludes my first theme, that anyone who aspires to just governance must take fully into account the natural limitations into which any successful tax system must fit - moderation and uniformity must be the abiding principles.

And this brings me to my second theme: that California's structure of finance and taxation suffers from four fundamental flaws, which we must repair.

Those four flaws are: first, a reliance on asset taxes that place undue burdens upon people when they can least afford them; second, a highly disproportionate structure of taxation; third, a commingling of revenue streams -- and therefore functions -- between state and local governments; and fourth, the combination of the powers to spend and to tax.

Let me take each of them in turn, beginning with our over-reliance on asset taxes. I would offer the observation that there are two general categories of taxes: taxes that are applied to wealth as it is grows, and taxes that are applied to static assets. Let us call these growth taxes and asset taxes.

Growth taxes, unless set at 100 percent, cannot destroy the wealth being taxed. They merely take a slice of an expanding pie. There are only three such measurable points at which these growth taxes are applied: income when it is received, either as salary, wages, dividends or benefits; capital gains when they are realized; and business profit (defined as gross receipts minus operating expenses).

Asset taxes destroy wealth by progressively reducing an asset. A tax on property, for example, eventually will consume the value of that property. A tax on the sale and resale of a commodity eventually will consume the value of that commodity. Asset taxes also constitute a double-tax: a dollar earned is taxed as income, and then taxed a second time when it is used to buy a commodity.

The ideal tax system would rely strictly on growth taxes.

Objection will be made that shifting the entire fiscal system to a combination of personal income, capital gains and business profits will create a highly volatile revenue stream, and this is true. It will require greater fiscal responsibility than recent legislatures and governors have demonstrated.

But here is the flip side of the volatility question: a stable tax source takes a huge bite out of taxpayers when they can ill-afford it. A growth tax requires taxpayers to pay more in good times (when they can afford it) and less in difficult times (when they can't). The only objection that can seriously be made to a volatile tax system is that it requires grown-ups in public office who can restrain their impulse to spend in good years so that they can build surpluses for bad ones.

If this doesn't provide sufficient reassurance, a provision can be made requiring a certain percentage of year-over-year revenue gains to be set aside for those periods when revenue declines.

The second point, regarding uniformity, I will mention only in passing since much has been written about it over the years. I believe that the only just tax is a uniform flat rate tax. Variable rates and progressive tax schedules allow one group of citizens to tax another group for their own benefit. We have watched for years as businesses have shifted the tax burden from business profits to sales and personal income taxes. Debates over progressive schedules invariably set rich against poor. With a flat and uniform rate, every single citizen is in exactly the same boat - in exact proportion to their income. Raise the uniform rate on personal income, the rate increases proportionally on businesses too.

This is not to say that provision should not be made for low-income families, and the flat tax can be modified to do so to assure the basic necessities of life are available to all.

The third point is that state and local revenue streams must be completely separated.

It once was clearly understood that taxes paid by state taxpayers would be used for genuine statewide purposes. A prison, for example, removes a criminal from the streets wherever they are in California - a county jail does not. Thus, prisons were funded strictly from state resources and county jails strictly from county resources.

This is no longer the case. Because of the usurpation of local prerogatives by state government that has accompanied a blurring of distinctions between state and local revenue, state government has succumbed to the temptation to rob Piedmont to pay Pasadena. If revenues were again strictly separated -- and unfunded state mandates upon local governments prohibited -- the natural result would be that local taxpayers would be more likely to finance local projects and state taxpayers more likely to finance state projects - because they would be guaranteed of the benefits the proceeds of those revenues.

Fourth and finally, the taxation and spending functions of government must be separated. Charles Adams wrote, "when the power both to tax and to spend resides in the same political entity, whether king or legislature, without controls, the spending power will override the taxpayers' interests." He looks to the model of the Magna Carta. During the reign of King John, spending was brought in line with taxes when the King was made the organ of expenditure, and the Parliament was made the organ of taxation.

This arrangement finds modern expression in Switzerland - where the power to spend rests with the legislature and the power to approve taxes resides exclusively with the people. With the power of taxation back in the people's hands, an equilibrium can be restored between spending interests and taxing interests - the consent of both bodies - legislature and taxpayer - will be required to bring the public appetite back in line with the public's means.

So in short - two themes: First, we must recognize the natural limitations of taxation and work within them. And Second, there are four flaws in our current process that can and should be corrected: First, that we should rely on taxes upon growth and not upon assets; second, that we must seek uniformity among our rates; third, that we must again separate local and state revenues and functions; and fourth, that we must separate the power to spend and the power to tax.

I appreciate your invitation today and wish you good luck in your work.

[kellynla]

McClintock vs. Maher! Definitely a program to tape. The "Two Liberals" will get an advance of what they can look forward to on September 17. I understand Aunold is still playing "hide & seek"...won't be appearing for the debate next week. VOTE4MCCLINTOCK or pay the con$equence$! click here to learn more http://www.tommcclintock.com

[Kevin Curry]

Soft-peddling or ignoring the real and vitally important differences between Schwarzenegger and McClintock is misguided and benefits no one except Schwarzenegger.

Pretending that acts of gross licentiousness and narcissistic personal behavior are irrelaeant to a candidate's fitness for high office was wrong when the Dems pitched it as an excuse for Slick Willie's behavior, and it is wrong in the case of Schwarzenegger.

Sorry, but Doughty One's "Can't we all just get along" frou-frou misapprehends just what is at stake.

Let this particular thread be dedicated to positive news about McClintock; let the Schwarzepubbies do the same with their particular thread. But may the battle rage in full force on other fronts.

[kellynla]

I just made a donation to the Tom McClintock for Governor campaingn. Won't you make a donation now too! Tom needs your financial support! Click here to make your donation. Thank you.

https://www.tommcclintock.com/getinvolved/contribute.cfm?CFID=698241&CFTOKEN=86445599

[Rabid Dog]

Good for you kellynla - a man who stands behind his convictions - just like Tom.

I'm going to order some signs today and let them know I have room for one of the big hummers. Will really p*ss the neighbors off.

[Rabid Dog]

Opinion piece in our local paper - The Ventura Star

GOP wrong about Schwarzenegger; McClintock better
By Andrew Russo
August 29, 2003

Arnold Schwarzenegger's failure to move beyond the 22 percent to 25 percent range in most recent California surveys is sending the Republican Party's country-club establishment into panic. Schwarzenegger, after all, fits that mold perfectly. A so-called "fiscal conservative," but "social moderate," the Terminator was supposed to be the great white hope of the comatose California GOP. We all know true conservative Republicans can't win general elections in the Golden State, so the Republican rank-and-file were supposed to play good soldiers, follow the lead of the moneyed party elite, and joyfully climb aboard the Arnold Express for the only train back to the statehouse.

Well, as is usually the case, the GOP establishment was wrong. Its great white hope isn't quite catching on. Between his questionable choice of advisers (one a prominent Democrat who wants to scuttle Proposition 13) and his liberal views on a host of issues, ranging from abortion, gun control and gay marriage, to his support of new high-spending big government programs (i.e., Proposition 49), the Terminator is a hard pill for the hard core to swallow. And, if the polls are correct, they're not swallowing.

The Los Angeles Times poll showed Schwarzenegger drawing only 39 percent of the Republican vote. This despite the fact he's a household name, a movie celebrity in a state where Hollywood is king, the massive media buildup prior to his announcement ("will he or won't he?"), and the subsequent Arnoldmania that has swept the state. Yet, fewer than four in 10 Republicans in California are biting.

This fact alone proves once again that the Republican elite is all wet and that it's the grass-roots Republicans -- the precinct walkers and envelope-lickers -- who are the real representatives of the state GOP. It proves conclusively that one endorsement from the California Republican Assembly is worth a thousand endorsements from the Lincoln Club of Orange County.

Now, the party bigwigs are desperate to save Schwarzenegger. As Cruz Bustamante roars ahead of the Terminator, are the bigwigs having second thoughts about the actor-turned-politician they have put their money on? Have they seen the light and are they perhaps reconsidering?

No way. This gang is temperamentally incapable of admitting error. They have decided instead that the only way to salvage their political mistake is to demand that the real Republican in the race for governor, state Sen. Tom McClintock, drop out and toss a life preserver to their golden boy.

Yet, why is Arnold's weakness the fault of McClintock?

Is it McClintock's fault that Schwarzenegger's negatives are almost as high as his positives?

The truth is that voters are beginning to recognize that the Hollywood megastar is, to use Texas terminology, all hat and no cattle. Any individual who seeks to be governor of California but has to seclude himself for 10 days with consultants and counselors to tell him what to think simply cannot be taken seriously. You just can't cram for the governorship of the nation's largest state (and one that's suffering the worst financial crisis in history) like you would for a 10th-grade history exam.

McClintock doesn't need anyone to tell him what to think or what to say. Motivated by a strong Jeffersonian philosophy of limited government and with a 20-year track record of carefully dissecting the problems confronting California, McClilntock is perhaps overqualified to be governor. And, look what his dark-horse candidacy has accomplished in less than a month:

With a limited campaign budget (and no personal fortune to pour into the contest), a small staff and no box office sensations to his credit, McClintock is quickly becoming the candidate to watch in the recall race.

Doubling his voter strength in the Times poll in just a few weeks, McClintock is generating the kind of enthusiasm and excitement among rank-and-file Republicans not seen since Ronald Reagan's first campaign for governor in 1966.

Actually outraising Democrat presidential candidate Howard Dean on the Internet, the insurgent Thousand Oaks senator is attracting the support of Californians fed up with the deceit and doubletalk of conventional politicians and seeking a breath of fresh air. McClintock offers them that and more: He's an authentic populist who, if elected, will shake California's political establishment to the core.

And, isn't that what the Gray Davis recall is all about? A true populist uprising against the same kind of corrupt politicians beholden to special interests that Hiram Johnson, father of the recall provision, railed against in the early 1900s.

With an agenda that is simple and direct, McClintock is rallying Californians fed up with high taxes, out-of-control spending, a laughable public school system and stifling bureaucracy. He is offering hope to voters in a state where cynicism reigns. He is speaking truth to power. And, in the year of the unprecedented recall election in this, the trendsetter of states, that could just be the ticket to victory.

-- Andrew Russo, of Salinas, is a California political consultant and former executive director of The Lincoln Club of Monterey County.

[b9]

Thank you so much for posting this tax speech.
I know this thread is supposed to be mainly informational, but I want to say, as a new supporter it's like finding an oasis in the desert.

Tom on Hedgecock yesterday was just a tease with all the interruptions. He is incredibly canny.

[Rabid Dog]

It's for information, news and views per the guidelines above. So feel free!

[strela]

(Rabid Republican, Post 1) SAVE THE RINO ARNIE/UNELECTABLE TOM RANTS FOR THE OTHER THREADS.

(American in Tokyo, Post 3) Whoever is the first to violate your excellent, fair rules, is low-class and retarded in my book. Now: Which FReeper is going to show up now on this thread and make a ass out of himself or herself by disregarding your reasonable and polite request to keep this thread positive for Tom and his camp, and informative?

(Kevin Curry, Post 13) Pretending that acts of gross licentiousness and narcissistic personal behavior are irrelaeant to a candidate's fitness for high office was wrong when the Dems pitched it as an excuse for Slick Willie's behavior, and it is wrong in the case of Schwarzenegger ... Sorry, but Doughty One's "Can't we all just get along" frou-frou misapprehends just what is at stake ... let the Schwarzepubbies do the same with their particular thread.

American in Tokyo, I think your "shame campaign" has its first winner! It had everything; Slams at Schwarzenegger, cowardly referring to another poster without pinging him or her (which I have corrected by pinging him to this post), the works.

So when will the "Horse's A**" awards ceremony be held for Kev? I want to take pictures.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Check #19. LOL!