Replies

Reformatted, and various grammatical corrections made.

Originally posted by sruleoflaw:

As printed in today's Tracy Press September 14, 2003

(There is no exact link because the Tracy Press does not post its op-ed pages on the Internet).

Among the three leading candidates to replace Gray Davis in the gubernatorial recall, only one – State Sen. Tom McClintock – seems to have the interests of California taxpayers at heart. McClintock is one of those exceedingly rare politicians who has never voted for a tax increase. He is the only gubernatorial contender who has promised not to raise Californians’ taxes under any circumstances. And, heaven knows that Californians, who are paying their highest taxes in the Golden State’s 153-year history, could use a break.

Citizens here are weighed down by the third-highest federal/state tax burden in the nation, trailing only Connecticut and Massachusetts. “Statistically speaking, every aspect of California’s tax system is antagonistic to business development and economic growth,” conclude analysts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Except for property taxes, almost all the other taxes – income taxes, sales taxes, and corporate taxes – paid by Californians are among the highest in the nation. So is the amount of state debt financed by taxpayers.

The problem is massive overspending, as Davis and the Democrat-controlled State Legislature increased spending by 40 percent between 1998 and 2002. Among the three top replacement candidates, Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is a proven foe of taxpayers and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a Trojan horse candidate who will probably raise taxes. Only McClintock is a tried-and-tested friend of taxpayers and he has one of the best grasps of California’s finances of anyone.

While Schwarzenegger was making movies and Bustamante was supporting tax increases, McClintock was looking out for the interests of Californians; warning in June 2000 of the state’s impeding budget disaster. “It is said the state’s riches make this the easiest budget in a decade. Yet if lawmakers don’t take a strong stand now to control spending, they are setting California up for very hard choices and hard times just around the corner.” He was spot on. Already, McClintock is putting out the alert that this year’s state budget deficit will exceed last year’s state deficit of $38 billion.

Some of McClintock’s plans to balance the state’s budget include, using Arizona’s worker’s compensation laws to save $2.5 billion for state and local governments, abolishing duplicative state agencies to save $6 billion, and working to end the $42 billion of excessively priced electricity contracts. “Tom McClintock is a 100 percent legislator on taxes,” said Lew Uhler of the Sacramento-area National Tax Limitation Committee. “He’s an A+. He has always opposed expansion of government and higher taxes.

The McClintock name is synonymous with lowering the car tax.” In the 1990’s, McClintock led the fight against the car tax and he prevailed in the Democrat-controlled Legislature in 1998 as California drivers saw their car taxes reduced by 66 percent. In 1987, McClintock was the co-author of a $1.1 billion tax rebate act. Bustamante’s answer to the state’s burgeoning deficit caused by overspending is to sock taxpayers with a mountainous $8 billion tax hike – even though the state’s last major tax hike, pushed by GOP Gov. Pete Wilson made conditions worse in similar circumstances.

The Bustamante tax plan, to boost commercial property taxes by $2.9 billion and require more health insurance by employers at a cost of $2 billion, will probably lead to the loss of at least 200,000 jobs. Bustamante does not only like to tax, he also likes to spend. After each legislative session, the National Tax Limitation Committee rates the spending habits of state legislators. During his three terms in the Assembly, from 1993 to 1999, Bustamante received the same grade for all three sessions – an “F”, for supporting the expenditure of huge amounts of taxpayer dollars.

Despite some taxpayer-friendly rhetoric, no Californian should be surprised if the strongly social liberal Schwarzenegger also proves to be no fiscal conservative and raises taxes. Like his mentor, former Gov. Wilson, Schwarzenegger has refused to promise he won’t raise taxes. It was Wilson, who in 1990, called Democrat gubernatorial candidate Dianne Feinstein a tax hiker – and then cooperated with Democrats a year later on a $7.3 billion tax increase, one of the largest tax hikes of any state in U.S. history. That tax increase spawned all kinds of negative effects on the state and its citizens. The 1991 tax increase produced less than half of the revenue projected; the state’s general revenue fund slumped by $1 billion and retail sales went into a nosedive.

During the next three years, while rest of the nation prospered with an economic recovery, personal incomes in California fell by more than 5 percent. If Schwarzenegger is elected and hikes taxes, as his campaign leader Wilson did, the results for California will probably be even more disastrous as California’s economy is in even worse shape now than in the early ‘90’s.

Schwarzenegger, who has absolutely no experience in government, has other tax hike advocates for advisers, including billionaire Warren Buffett and ex-Los Angeles Mayor Dick Riordan, who both think California’s property taxes need to be increased. In addition, a top campaign spokesman stated – and then retracted – that Schwarzenegger would raise taxes if the state’s credit rating worsened.

Out on the campaign trail, Schwarzenegger has claimed, “You know, I don’t believe in spending.” Apparently, the actor’s memory is slightly flawed. Only 10 months ago, Schwarzenegger crusaded for a ballot proposition that will require the dedicated expenditure every year of $550 million on before- and after-school programs once the non-education budget grows. In other words, as quickly as the state deficit situation improves, the state can start back down the road to new fiscal woes.

Apparently on a tight lease from his advisers, Schwarzenegger won’t discuss any issue in detail, won’t publicly debate other candidates without the questions in advance, engages in “forums” with handpicked audiences, and will not even name one program he would cut. California deserves better.

A McClintock victory on Oct. 7 would rock the Democrat-controlled Legislature, the state capitol-spending lobby and even the GOP country club establishment. It is up to California taxpayers to decide if they want a foe, a Trojan horse or a friend in the governor’s office – before the state goes off the fiscal cliff.

Wampler, a Tracy resident, hosts a radio talk show heard Sunday nights at 8 p.m. and Saturdays at 3 p.m. on KCBC (770 AM)in the Stockton-Modesto-Pleasanton area of Northern California.

(His guest tonight will be Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Tracy), chairman of the House Resources Committee.) He holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Kent in Canterbury, England.

Some of McClintock’s plans to balance the state’s budget include: using Arizona’s worker’s compensation laws to save $2.5 billion for state and local governments, abolishing duplicative state agencies to save $6 billion, and working to end the $42 billion of excessively priced electricity contracts.

So he just suspends the California Constitution to borrow Arizona's Laws? The Dems just passed a Workman's Comp Bill on Friday. They feel that bill addresses the situation. McClintock will get nothing new will come from this legislature, special session or no special session. They have heard everything he has to say, 20 years worth.

Abolishing agencies will not be done by McClintock, he has proposed that a Commission will decide what is wasteful and what is not. He has no idea what numbers they will come up with. He has also proposed to give control of some state controlled services to the feds, a possible blow to states rights.

He may work to end $42Billion in energy contracts and waste even more money in court. Courts and defendants will site the previous investigation and findings. Not even $4 Billion would be cut even if he was right about the conflict of interest, it was limited to two smaller contracts. The energy would still need to be purchased at a substantial rate.