Posted: September 25, 2003 at 12:07 a.m.CALIFORNIA (AP) -- Here is a transcript of Wednesday's debate between the California gubernatorial candidates, sponsored by the California Broadcasters Association at California State University, Sacramento.
The participants were Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, Green Party candidate Peter Camejo, independent candidate Arianna Huffington, Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock and Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The moderator was Stan Statham.
MODERATOR: What do you think of this recall, Mr. Schwarzenegger?
SCHWARZENGGER: I think it is a great idea, and I thank God every day that we have Hiram Johnson that created this more than 90 years ago. His intention was to create this recall because of special interests controlling politicians, which is exactly what is the case today. And when six million people have signed the recall petition, they basically have said we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. And the 60 percent of the people have said in the polls that they want to have a recall, so it is terrific that the people's will is being acted out.
MODERATOR: Let's take this question, just down the line. From this point forward, jump in after the question is first answered.
McCLINTOCK: The recall is there so that people can correct a mistake that was made at the ballot box. Our entire form of government is based on the assumption that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. That doesn't mean that every now and then they're not entitled to make a mistake. The re-election of Gray Davis and the course that he has taken this state down was a mistake and it must be corrected. We cannot afford to go down this road another three years. It has led our state to the brink of bankruptcy, and despite the highest percentage of personal income being spent in the history of California and less to show than any administration in the history of California.
CAMEJO: This recall exists because we have a crisis in California. There's no question that in the last five years we have the highest income the state has ever had, and instead of ending up with a surplus we ended up with this disastrous deficit. The polls have taken the governor, Gov. Davis, down to 22 percent and that can't be done by the Republicans alone. They were only 35 percent of the registered voters. So we do have a crisis here. And this election is the worst election we've ever had and best election we've ever had. Why the best? Because the public has really gotten a chance to see more than two points of view. To all of a sudden have two candidates here who are not Democrats or Republicans... And it's the worst because we don't have a runoff system. We have no way for the will of electorate. ...
MODERATOR: Thank you. If we can make this as quickly as possible. Arianna Huffington, what do you think of the recall?
HUFFINGTON: I'm troubled that Darrell Issa could spend close to $2 million to collect signatures, paid signature gatherers. There are a lot of elements which are troubling. But nevertheless there is an unprecedented, historic opportunity here to elect an independent progressive governor on a simple plurality. And the state desperately needs that because the two party political system is dropping and that opportunity will not come again in a. ...
BUSTAMANTE: I think the recall is a terrible idea. I think it's bad for democracy. I think it's bad for our state. I know people right now who are organizing to recall the next governor if it's a Republican. I think that's a bad way of doing politics. I think it's a perpetual type of politics. I agree with my colleagues that there is some good that could come from this as a result. But I think that to do it in this way, even Hiram Johnson as Arnold talked about in terms of him creating the recall process, even in his inaugural address said that it wasn't the panacea. The recalls are not the panacea for government. I really think that we have a situation here that we have to deal with in terms of the budget crisis. That's true. ... But this recall could end being an era of perpetual politics that I think would be bad for California.
CITIZEN QUESTION: What should California's top priority be right now?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that our top priority right now should be turning the economy around. We have the worst economic atmosphere, worst business atmosphere in California. And what we see is that because businesses are leaving the state and jobs are leaving the state. We have the have highest workers' compensation costs. We have the highest energy costs here. We have the worst money management. We have the worst credit rating. We have all of those things that drive business away. And we are over-regulated, over-taxed, over-burdening our businesses. And so no matter where I go in this state it is the same thing -- that workers' compensation is killing business and we have to stop and reverse that.
HUFFINGTON: Actually, you know, I agree with one thing you said, that the worker's comp system is broken. But everything else you said is simply untrue. In the last year, there is an increase in business in the state of 3.7 percent. This state right now is taxed at a lower rate than when the chairman of your election committee, Pete Wilson, was governor. This gloom and doom statistics about business leaving are simply a perpetuation of the Republican idea that if you simply do everything that businesses want, if you simply let them have all the loopholes they want, that all will be well. And we saw in the 1990s that was not the case. You ended up with Enron, Global Crossing and billions of dollars lost in shareholder wealth and in pensions. And I would really like you to tell the people the truth because these illusions are simply hurting us.
McCLINTOCK: Arianna, if I may, the statistics that we're seeing reported across California directly contradict what you have said. We've had a net loss of nearly a third of a million jobs in the last two-and-half years. We've had the first net out-migration of domestic population in our state's history. And a lot of that is going to Arizona and Nevada. Now that's a pretty profound development in the history of the state -- when families looking for a better future, a better place to raise their kids, look at our beautiful state with all of the blessing that God could bestow upon a land and find a better future out in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona deserts than they found here in California. When Fidelity National announced they were leaving for Jacksonville, Florida, their CEO, taking 400 jobs with them, their CEO was quoted on local TV. He said this wasn't a complicated decision. In Florida there is no income tax. The sales tax is 6 percent. It costs 40 bucks to register your car. Why is everybody surprised we're leaving?
MODERATOR: Thank you. What side are you taking, Mr. Camejo?
CAMEJO: I think both Tom and Arnold are both factually wrong here. First of all, corporations are now being charged the lowest tax rates that they have been for decades and decades. Their tax rates have gone in the last 60 years from 9.6 to 5.3 percent. In fact, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona, three states where the Republicans dominate, have higher taxes than California. So I want to ask Tom and Arnold to go visit those states and have a talk with them before they come and tell us to lower taxes when their Republican Party has higher taxes than our neighbors. People are not leaving California. They're pouring into California. This is a place people want to come to. We're right now hitting a record GDP. But we have too much unemployment because we're having a jobless recovery. That is, the corporations are making more money than ever before but not the people. We need to look at the fact that people are paying much higher taxes than the wealthiest people in our state or what the corporations are paying. I want to cut taxes on the majority of the people, but I want the richest people, that 1 percent that have more income than 70 percent of our people to pay the same taxes you're paying, the average person, so we can balance our budget and start moving in the right direction.
BUSTAMANTE: There are a couple things first. During the dot-com boom, we were doing about 7,100 new business startups in California. Today we're averaging 7,700 new business startups in California. The work productivity of the workers of California are more productive than Texas and Florida combined. There are problems, however. We do have a great economy. We are a $1.5 trillion economy, but we do have to fix this workers' comp issue. And what I would propose is that we do it much like we do the safe-driver proposal. There's no incentive for a good workplace and a bad workplace because they get paid or they get a premium that's exactly the same amount. So if we were to provide a worker a safe workplace discount, and we'd be able to have an incentive for those people who are not doing a good job to do a better job, we could lower premiums on those that are good worksites and increase the premiums on those that have the bad work sites.
McCLINTOCK: Let me do you one better. Let's just replace our workers' compensation law with Arizona's. Arizona's costs one-third of what ours does. Injured workers are being fully compensated.
BUSTAMANTE: No, they're not. No, they're not, Tom.
McCLINTOCK: And just replacing the systems, that's a two-thirds reduction in workers' comp costs, which not only lifts an enormous burden from business, but it also reduces direct state and local cost by $2.5 billion.
HUFFINGTON: First of all, you know, this is the two parties that brought us the broken workers' comp system. In 1993, you voted for the deregulation of workers' comp. And Pete Wilson was over there, your chairman. You can't just say we did that and now we're thinking something different because that really has been the problem. Workers' comp deregulation, energy deregulation and all the problems of this past are now coming to haunt us, and there has to be some accountability, Cruz.
BUSTAMANTE: No, I think you're absolutely right. In the first situation, we really did try. You're absolutely right, what we tried to do is tried to fix the workers' comp issue by squeezing down on the insurance companies. They were clearly price-gouging. They were clearly doing things that were affecting the premiums, and we tried to squeeze down on that. Unfortunately, they went into some predatory pricing. They drove the small guys out, and then the rates started going out, going back up again. Here, we have an opportunity to change fundamentally the system by providing work safe places where they have good solid work safety places that will ... give them a lower premium.
SCHWARZENEGGER: ... That you guys just did was total pre-election bogus and you know that. This is all trickery, just like the budget was trickery. This was a trick again ... because you wanted to put wool over our eyes.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Let me just tell you that the next year, you say this reform, but next year the workers' compensation costs are going to go up. This is not what's going to help our businesses in California. Our businesses are moving away because we're not competitive in workers' compensation. There's tremendous fraud there and all those kinds of things. What we have to do is, when I go into office I will create real workers' compensation, cut the cost in half. That's what we need to do. I visited companies here in California. I visited the farmers and the small companies, big companies, bankers and all that stuff. Everyone is saying the same thing, that our workers' compensation is way too high. We are paying three times the amount of the national average, and as Tom was saying, that our neighboring states are much more competitive. This is the problem we have, and that's why business are moving out of the state.
MODERATOR: Mr. Schwarzenegger, thank you very much ... convinced we've pretty much done with this subject.
McCLINTOCK: We all have friends, family, neighbors who are leaving California and finding a better place out in the Nevada and Arizona desert. That's what's happening.
MODERATOR: Excuse me. We're going to wrap this subject up in one minute. Go ahead, Mr. Schwarzenegger.
SCHWARZENEGGER: It's ridiculous for Cruz and Arianna to say that everything's fine and dandy and everything's perfect. It's not. Let me tell you something, we have never seen a situation like this, a $38.2 billion budget deficit. We just found out that they did the operating deficit, this is operating deficit ... up to $10 billion. There's so much trickery ... Remember one thing, in California we have a three-strike system. You guys put wool over the people's eyes twice, the third time now, you're out. On Oct. 7, you guys are out. It's that simple, OK?
CITIZEN QUESTION: My question is how would you propose enhancing revenue and or what specific cuts would you make to spending in order to achieve a balanced budget?
MODERATOR: Senator McClintock, this question is yours.
McCLINTOCK: It's a great question, and I do have to correct Arnold. It's not called a three-strikes law. That's the lemon law where you have a car that doesn't work, you get to take it back. That's a very important question. First of all, this state is already spending a larger portion of people's earnings than at any time in its history. We are not suffering a revenue problem. In the last four years of this administration, inflation and population combined has grown 21 percent. Our revenues are up 25 percent. That's after the dot-com collapse, after the car tax and after state revenues. We're taking in significantly more revenues than inflation and population. The problem is, we have a 38 percent increase in state spending in that same period of time. We haven't gotten a 38 percent increase in highway construction and school construction. We're paying through the nose for this government to provide. And it's not hard to find ways to find a system that produces as little as California and costs as much. Let me just give you some examples. If we simply restored to the California government the same freedom that every family or every business has to shop around for the best service at the lowest price, there's about $9 billion in savings across all departments in that one reform alone.
MODERATOR: Let me you cut you off for a second. I'm going to let you continue. You've got a minute and a half, we're gonna try to get as many questions as possible, so wrap this up if you could, please.
MC CLINTOCK: Let me come to about $8 billion of specific cuts and then we'll move on. Six billion dollars can be saved simply by reorganizing the state's bureaucracy. That means abolishing agencies that duplicate federal functions, or that overlap each other's jurisdiction. As I said earlier, workers' compensation reform ... simply swapping our plan for Arizona's. That's about $2.5 billion of direct savings to local governments and state governments alone. That's about $18.5 billion without even breaking a sweat.
MODERATOR: Mr. Camejo?
CAMEJO: Look, we pay ... the average person in California pays about 9.2 percent of their income in taxes. The wealthiest one percent pay 7.2. If we just had the wealthiest 5 percent, who receive all the advantages of the great strides in the economy in the last 10 years -- their income rose 113 percent. Your income only rose 8 percent. Latinos actually declined 3 percent. If we taxed them at the same rate that you pay, we would now have a surplus in the budget. We're 27th in education, we were No. 1 in the nation in the economy. And Tom wants to cut, cut, cut. I want to put more money into education. I want a fair tax. On my Web site, votecamejo.org, we showed exactly how it can be done. How we can have a $19 billion surplus, and that means we can start developing affordable housing, we can make California the leader in renewable energy. These are the things California could be doing, and all they want to do is cut, cut and rip, rip over here on my right, and the others, I don't know what they do. They get all the money in the world, they spend it all, we don't know where it went. I'm calling for a five-year audit. I want a five-year audit to find out how we had a $30 billion surplus turned into a $38 billion deficit. Because I think we just don't know for sure how some good things were done. And let's say it, more money was put in to give teachers a higher pay, some steps were made in taking care of some of our infrastructure. We don't want to go back on that, but it was done irresponsibly. They didn't worried about the income. They were cutting the taxes on the wealthiest people while they raised your taxes. I want to reverse it.
MODERATOR: Thank you, we're going to have Arianna Huffington. How are you going to balance the budget, Ms. Huffington?
HUFFINGTON: Well, the first thing I would do is close corporate tax loopholes because right now, just in terms of how they're assessing commercial properties, we are losing about $2 billion in revenues. And if we just change that, if we just assess commercial properties fairly, that would be $2 billion. If we just close the loopholes when it comes to tax shelters -- both domestic and offshore tax shelters -- that would be another $2 billion. And what I find amazing is that Republicans really do not believe that morality applies to businesses. You know really for them it's just sexual morality. And I think it's time. You know, Arnold mentioned the three strikes and you're out law. I'd like a three strikes and you're out when it comes to corporate spenders. And right now we have something like that right in front of the Legislature, and it should pass because it should be absolutely unacceptable that companies defraud the California public and then the state continues to do business with them. Is this the kind of business climate that we want to bring to the state? The same kind of business climate that brought us Enron and Global Crossing and Adelphia? And it's cost millions of jobs and we're still paying the price? And one more thing Arnold, you know you talk about ...
SCHWARZENEGGER: I love it. Arianna, let me say one thing. Your personal income tax has the biggest loophole -- I can drive my Hummers through it. That's how big your loophole is. Let me tell you something. I don't know what you're talking about. I cannot believe you.
HUFFINGTON: We've got advanced notice in the New York Times that you're going to say that. And you know very well that I pay $115,000 in property taxes and payroll tax. And you know what? I'm a writer. In these two years, I was writing and researching a book and I wasn't making $20 million violent movies. I'm sorry.
MODERATOR: We need to move, we need to move.
HUFFINGTON: Let me finish, because we're talking about something very, very (unintelligible).
MODERATOR: Can you do it 30 seconds?
HUFFINGTON: Yes, I can do it in 16 because the truth is that small businesses sometimes make losses, sometimes make profits. When my book (unintelligible) was published in 2003, it became a best seller. That was a great year, and I'm going to be paying a lot of taxes. There was no loophole. And instead of focusing on distorted information, you should be focusing on the huge loopholes that the Bush administration and other Republicans around the country have allowed that have defrauded us of billions of dollars.
MODERATOR: Thank you, and before we get to the lieutenant governor, I'd like to admonish the candidates very politely. Because we're supposed to stay on topic, I don't know how Ms. Huffington got to Republican sexual morality and balancing the budget, but she managed to do so.
SCHWARZENEGGER: That's our Arianna.
MODERATOR: Let's get to the lieutenant governor. He's been around for some time, and he just came from being speaker of the Assembly before that. Mr. Bustamante, how are you going to balance the budget?
BUSTAMANTE: Well clearly we spent too much. We spent more as a government, we spent more than it was coming in. There's no rocket science to this. We clearly knew that there were certain incomes that were coming in, and we spent more than we had. But what I've decided to do, what I've decided, to face this realistically, to deal with this practically, to understand it and not tell half-truths about what we're likely able to do. We've done all the easy things, and now it's time to do the tough things. That's why I submitted a plan. A plan that I called tough love for California. In that plan, I raised tobacco taxes, I raised alcohol taxes, I raised the upper income tax brackets on the largest and the highest 4 percent of all Californians. I do that, but in return we close the budget gap, we fully fund education, we put 123,000 community college students back into our colleges, and we relieve the car tax for all those vehicles that are under $20,000. We do something in terms of raising taxes. She called it raising revenues. We know what it really is. But at the same time, we get something good for California.
HUFFINGTON: You know it's tough love for everybody except for Indian gaming tribes and the prison guards union. And that's really the problem here, it's tough love for everybody except for big campaign contributors.
McCLINTOCK: It's certainly tough on taxpayers, that's for sure. And here's the problem that I would pose. What makes you think that your $8 billion in tax increases is going to do anything differently than when Pete Wilson raised taxes $7 billion in 1991? Those taxes broke the back on the economy and they turned a recession into a near depression. And we actually ended up collecting a billion dollars less total revenue after those tax increases went into effect than what we had been collecting before they had gone into effect.
BUSTAMANTE: Exactly. I believe, Tom, that the future of California really is investing in our education. You know we're closing down community colleges, 123,000 students are not going to be going to community college this year. Everything we have done in California has been based on research, you know that. Unfortunately, those of us who have been working diligently to try to make sure that we keep tuition low, and allow (unintelligible) for every single student, we know that our future really is .... It's not just some slogan, it's not something we put on a brochure.
MODERATOR: All right, you've both made your points on this. Except for Mr. Schwarzenegger needs another shot at this.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Yeah, I don't understand all this ... so what you're saying all this ... The politicians make a mistake, they keep spending and spending and spending, then when they realize they made a mistake and spent money they don't even have, then they go out and go tax, tax, tax. That's the answer to the problem? What about finance spending?
BUSTAMANTE: Well, in fact, when I was speaker, we voted a middle-income tax cut.
SCHWARZENEGGER: What you have to do is put a spending cap on it. You guys have an addiction problem. You should go to an addiction place because you cannot stop spending. What happens then is if you keep spending.
BUSTAMANTE: Well, that's what happens when you simplify things.
SCHWARZENEGGER: What happens then is if you spend, spend, spend, then you have tax, tax, tax, but all of a sudden you say, 'Where are the jobs?' Gone, gone, gone. That's the problem that we're facing here.
MODERATOR: All right, thank you. Hang on right here, what do you got, Arianna? Short?
HUFFINGTON: Arnold's analysis fits perfect the Bush administration in Washington. They keep spending, spending, and you have to...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, you can campaign against Bush. Arianna, if you want to campaign against Bush, go to New Hampshire.
HUFFINGTON: No.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Go to New Hampshire. It's the perfect place for you. You're in the wrong state right now.
HUFFINGTON: No, you know, because otherwise, it's so hypocritical for you...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Or maybe a little bit more decaf.
HUFFINGTON: No! You know what?
CAMEJO: It is amazing that you will not say, you will never say that the wealthiest people should at least pay the same tax rate as the average person. You will never say those words. And in fact, you've been raising the taxes in California on the poorest people who pay the highest tax rates. And I'm the only candidate saying cut taxes on 60 percent of our people that are overpaying. I'm the only one who says it. But I want the rich to pay their fair share. And neither Tom or Arnold will say it. All you got to say is, 'Yes Peter, you're right, the rich will pay the same amount as the average person.'
SCHWARZENEGGER: Peter...
CAMEJO: It's just four words.
SCHWARZENEGGER: You know something, you talk about Bush and all this stuff. Let's talk about California. This is ... We're not in Hampshire. We're not in Washington. Arianna, it's our problem...
MODERATOR: Your attention. Your attention. Candidates, can I have your attention? I think I actually I have a budget-related question that may be on point and you can all get specific because somewhere in all of this, somebody mentioned a vehicle licensing fee. So let's, I'll jump in and see what you're going to do about vehicle licensing fees in California. Who wants to go first?
CAMEJO: Let's let Tom go first. I agree with you on this.
MC CLINTOCK: That's actually the campaign that I started five years ago, to abolish California's car tax. It is a tax on a necessity of life. Not a penny of it goes to fixing the roads. I have said from the beginning of this campaign, that the very first act that I will take within moments of taking the oath of office will be to sign an executive order to rescind the governor's crippling of this tax. If he can claim that he has the authority to raise the fee, then by God I can claim the same authority to lower it right back again. But I want to see it abolished. That's why we're circulating an initiative right now to abolish that entire use of tax and to guarantee local governments full reimbursement.
CAMEJO: Amazing, Tom, but as a Green I agree with you.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I agree also, Tom, on this because I think it's a difficult situation for you to (spend) too much money and now you want to tax the poor people. That is the problem.
HUFFINGTON: Everybody agrees with the (unintelligible) and the car tax. But I want to return to something very important because the people of California need somebody who is going to fight the Bush administration for that, because you know what? Let me just tell you the facts, let me tell you the facts. The repeal of the estate tax alone is costing us over $3 billion.
MODERATOR: We're starting the clock. Two more minutes left on this. Two more minutes on the budget.
HUFFINGTON: Right, well there's a huge connection between our budgetary problems here and the decisions made in Washington. And we need somebody who's going to fight for properly funded mandates -- whether it's on education or in health care -- and who's going to fight the administration when it's completely costing us jobs? It's completely hypocritical of Arnold to come here...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, we're talking about the car tax right now and not about education.
HUFFINGTOM: Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. You know, this is completely impolite and we know this is how you treat women and we know that, but not right now.
MODERATOR: On that point, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. Candidates please, let me take control of this for a moment. I'm going to decide it is my privilege as moderator that that was a direct and personal attack on Mr. Schwarzenegger, so would you respond?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I would like to say that I just realized that I have a perfect part for you in 'Terminator 4.' That's it.
MODERATOR: All right, I think at this point.
CITIZEN QUESTION: How are you going to ensure that all Californians have adequate health care?
CAMEJO: All advanced Western countries have established universal health care. We are the only nation that hasn't. And we really have to realize that having the insurance business running our health care is not working. We have to turn to a single-payer system. I support (state senator) Sheila Kuehl's proposals. I think SB2 that John Burton has raised is a step in the right direction but not the real answer. Actually, if we did this, a study was done that shows that we would save $7.3 billion in California, about $4 billion actually out of our budget and we'd have everybody covered. We've got to learn from Canada and Europe. There are things that other people can teach us. America is not always right at all, and in fact this is one of those issues where we have to move to universal health care for everybody. Single-payer system, that's what we advocate and that's why the whole world is watching. Why America? Because of a (unintelligible).
BUSTAMANTE: Well, I actually agree with Peter about universal health care, but we're in a budget situation where I don't think we can get there. I do believe, I do believe also that SB2 is probably the most important piece of legislation that has not yet been signed by the governor. I think it is very important because it would provide one million working people health care in California. It's probably the most significant piece of legislation I believe that is going to come out this year in California.
HUFFINGTON: As for the John Burton thing, there is nothing good on cost control. And that's the problem with these half-baked measures out of the Legislature. That was the problem with workers' comp. This is the problem again now. I don't believe we should implement another thing that does not include cost controls. (unintelligible). It's another half baked measure But ultimately we need universal health care and the only reason we don't have it is because of the millions of dollars being paid by insurance companies and the medical industry to politicians, and that ultimately is the only reason. If that were not the case, we would have universal health care by now. You know what is the only state that has universal health care? Maine. And you know why? Because it has introduced a public financial campaign limitation. And that is why tomorrow morning I am introducing an initiative in Sacramento for publicly funded campaigns. There is no other solution to break the hold of special interest.
MODERATOR: What is your solution to California's health care problem, Mr. Schwarzenegger?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think first of all that it is very important we have as many companies bidding for (unintelligible) and make it available. What Cruz is suggesting, that to have health care and have the companies pay for it, they cannot do it right now. We have really a crisis here with our companies, with our businesses, because they are overburdened as it is right now with workers' compensation and with Medi-Cal and all those kinds of things -- high electricity costs that are much, much higher than anywhere in the nation. They cannot afford it. What you will have then is no jobs, no businesses and no health care. What we need to do right now is protect the businesses and protect the people so they have jobs. It doesn't surprise me that this comes from you because you've never run a business. I am the only one here that has run businesses, developed them and met the payroll and has paid for workers' compensation and taken care of the health care of the employees. You have never done it. It's easy for you to sit there because you are only used to signing the check on the back, but not on the front. You've never signed in the front. So this is what you have to do. You have to realize that.
BUSTAMANTE: I understand. I'll just have a very brief response. You know, when you have a mega-corporation, the biggest in the history of the world like Wal-Mart who are underpaying their people and then as a result give them official documents to go and apply for food stamps and public health care. That's a burden that taxpayers can't afford any longer either.
MCCLINTOCK: I think there's a much better way to do it and it's not SB2, which requires businesses to provide health care plans for their employees -- that the businesses own and the businesses control and are paid for through the lower wages of employees. The very first impact of that bill, Cruz, is going to be an awful lot people who are thrown out of work as businesses pare back their payrolls to avoid the threshold that triggers that obligation. I do believe that we ought to have a society where everyone has access to health care. Unfortunately, I believe we can do that in a much more rational way through a simple tax credit on a sliding income scale that will bring within the reach of every California family a health plan of their own choosing and selection that they will control. They don't have to worry about losing a job or staying in a dead-end job because they have to keep their health care. If your employer chose your grocery store for you, I'll guarantee you two things: It will be cheap for the employer and it will be very inconvenient to you. And health plans are no different. We've got to bring within the reach of families again control over their own health plans. When I proposed that as an alternative to the Healthy Families Plan, the legislative analyst's office reviewed it and said we could provide much, much broader coverage at much lower cost than the bureaucratized system that was ultimately offered.
MODERATOR: I've thought of something to make this a whole lot more controversial in the area of health care. So why don't each one of you tell us how much money the state of California should spend on health care for the kids of illegal immigrants? Who wants to go?
BUSTAMANTE: I'll go. I'd be more than happy to deal with that immigrant issue because I think that you know the one thing you shouldn't do in life is take it out on the kids. It's not their fault that their parents are here. Let's put that aside for a minute. The people who are here. You know, I know, that sometimes people think that their food comes from Safeway or Ralphs, but it really doesn't. It comes from 70 percent of the people who pick our food and put it on our table are these immigrants. They are also the same people who work hard every day. They pay their taxes. They stay out of trouble with the law. Thirty percent of the construction, 40 percent of the hotels, all these folks who are here, who are working, they are taking care of their families. They are paying taxes. You know, for them not to be able to have a driver's license or to be able to put their kids in school is just plain wrong.
CAMEJO: I just want to say this, the people we are talking about are the lowest paid workers in California who work the hardest, who pay taxes and receive almost no benefits. They are essential to our economy. We loosely use this word, I think totally inappropriately, illegal. No one is going to arrest them. If somebody is illegal, you arrest them. But nobody is going to arrest them because they are essential to California. Everybody knows they are here to stay. They are part of our family. We have to end this apartheid system that we have toward them. They are part of our community and are essential to our economy. I really object to this term illegal. I mean, you know, in the first debate I referred to who came over here totally illegally and it was European Americans who came over here. But they are here. So give them a driver's license, give them their rights. I'm not going to object to that. But these are the people of the indigenous people of this continent. Let's understand that if your economic situation was the same as theirs, you would do exactly the same thing. People all over the world are moving through borders to try to feed their families. Let's look at this as a human problem we face, not as criminality. These are part of our families. We need to help them and work with them and give them medical insurance and the cost that will come about, they are paying for it because right now they are contributing as taxpayers.
SCHWARZENGGER: We have to make sure that every child in California is insured. That is the most important thing. I'm very passionate about children's issues. It is very important because they cannot fend for themselves. The children, we have a healthy family program here in California, and it is a very, very good program (unintelligible). The only problem with the program right now is that only two-thirds of the people that are eligible are not having this health care. And because the government has not done a good job in reaching out and finding the people and letting them know to sign up and find easy ways for them to sign up. Two-thirds of the people that are eligible do not have the child care. It is really terrible. If I become governor l would immediately go out there (unintelligible) and get it out so everyone knows about it and every one signs up because we must insure our families, the low-income families, especially the children.
HUFFINGTON: I'm very glad that Arnold is in favor of providing health care for illegal immigrants. That's really good news because you did vote for 187. And also I'm really glad that you say that because you have also come out against licenses for undocumented immigrants. There is a bit of a contradiction here. In fact, I was really saddened that you are an immigrant who has come out against giving the basic right to immigrants here like trying to drive to go to work or take your kids to school. It's all very well that that you say you are for children, you want them to be insured. But if their parents cannot legally drive them to work in a way that they are insured and safe, don't you think that is a bit of a contradiction?
SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, again, as usual, you are off here. We are talking about health care and you are talking about driver's licenses.
HUFFINGTON: But they are connected.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I am against the driver's licenses because it is (unintelligible) Therefore it is dangerous to the security of California. Governor Davis came out about a year ago, had made it clear, has said we cannot do that because it is dangerous. It is a security problem. Notice now because there is an election coming up on Oct. 7, now all of a sudden he says let's get some more votes. That is the idea of this thing. It is wrong to do that. And he knows we have a security problem. The governor is supposed to represent the people of California not special interest. That is the problem.
MCCLINTOCK: I think you are all losing sight of a very important fact, and that is we are talking about families that are in this country in violation of our nation's immigration laws. Now this nation has the most generous immigration policies of any nation in the world. Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that's the strength of our nation, and there are millions of people who are willing to abide by our immigration laws to come to this nation, become Americans and see their children grow up and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is the process of cutting in line in front of them, and I don't believe we should be rewarding such behavior. Illegal immigration is costing this country $4 billion in direct costs out of our treasury by the most conservative estimates available. We've got to make sure our immigration laws are enforced. I led the opposition to the measure on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants because it undermines the enforcement of our immigration laws.
HUFFINGTON: (unintelligible) We are for taking care of the kids, but not for driving them safely to school or to the emergency room or wherever their health care is to be provided. And ultimately that is a kind of pandering to this Pete Wilson team that you are surrounding yourself with because ultimately they are not going to change. They don't really fundamentally care for those immigrants in this country.
SCHWARZENEGGER: There is no background check. It is dangerous for our security.
CITIZEN'S QUESTION: Everybody talks about wanting a colorblind society, but what does that actually mean to you? In other words, how do we know when we have succeeded?
HUFFINGTON: Well, first of all, we will never know if we've achieved a colorblind society if we pass Proposition 54, because it would make it impossible to collect the kind of data we need to know whether we are making progress.
MODERATOR: Would you please explain what (Prop.) 54 is?
HUFFINGTON: Prop. 54 is basically racial discrimination without leaving a paper trail. I will be more explicit. It would make it impossible for government institutions to gather the data we need to establish where we are. But also, just let me say how we are going to know when we have a colorblind society. We don't have a colorblind society while people can get into Yale with a C average just because their daddy went there, like our president did. We don't have a colorblind society when you have minorities, especially African-Americans in this state, who have a much bigger chance of getting into jail than getting into college. We don't have a colorblind society when there's one-third more uninsured Latinos than whites. We don't have a colorblind society when minorities are more likely to be in dysfunctional schools with teachers who lack certification and with no textbooks.
MODERATOR: Thank you. For clarification of 54, and she did a rather good version of what 54 is. Proposition 54 does prohibit the state of California from collecting most race-related data.
HUFFINGTON: That's not what I said.
MODERATOR: Am I debating? Can we hear from Arnold Schwarzenegger on this? Let's get in on this one, gang.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that it's very important that we preach and practice tolerance, equality for everyone, and it starts with education. This why I got involved with after-school programs in the inner cities. I started the Inner City Games after-school programs that are now nationwide and we are reaching out to 200,000 children because I feel very strongly that the kids in the inner cities get disadvantaged, with education especially. Just recently, our governor and Cruz Bustamante has cut $122 million of textbooks for inner-city schools, which is unfair. (Interrupted, unintelligible) It's the same administration, it's the same mold. Don't tell me otherwise. Let me just tell you, we need to make sure that our kids get great education everywhere, and this is what I'm fighting for. It's the same thing in the job market. The people have to have the same right for work and the same kind of opportunities. Right now, for instance, we have a 6.6 percent unemployment rate in California. We have an increase of unemployment amongst women, 25 percent, among Hispanics, 20 percent, and amongst African Americans, 45 percent. Where is the equality here? We need to fight for equality, and I will fight for it when I'm governor. I think the governor sets the tone on that. We need equality here in this state.
MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. Schwarzenegger. I know that Cruz Bustamante wants a piece of this. Go ahead.
BUSTAMANTE: Arnold, I know that you probably don't know, but I'm the author of the textbook bill. During the entire time I was in the Legislature, I fought for textbooks for schools. In the last year I was in the Legislature, we got $1 billion for textbooks in schools. Because everybody had their great ideas about reforming schools and I went to schools and I didn't see textbooks. And so my great reform was to try and make sure that every kid in California had updated textbooks. I know you probably wouldn't know that...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Just so you know, you guys cut out $122 million dollars, and the ACLU has sued the Los Angeles Unified School District because they have no toilets there that are flushing, paint is peeling off. If you call this equality in education, I think it is outrageous. You know what you guys do, you politicians...
BUSTAMANTE: Yes, Arnold, go ahead.
SCHWARZENEGGER: You go into the classroom, you do the photo op. You do the photo op, and then you leave and we may never see you again.
BUSTAMANTE: You're one to talk about photo ops, Arnold.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I'm providing the after-school programs, Cruz, and you know that.
HUFFINGTON: Hold on a second. Let me just counter that. You said that you were providing after-school care. You know, you're crowning achievement, the passage of Proposition 49, has not provided after-school care for a single child in the state of California because there was no funding stream. It was nothing but a photo opportunity initiative. It was nothing but a springboard for your run for governor. And it is really irresponsible for you to stand or sit here and tell us that you're providing after-school care. Isn't it true that not a single child has gotten after-school care because of Prop. 49?
SCHWARZENGGER: First of all, our after school programs...
HUFFINGTON: Yes or no?
SCHWARZENGGER: Like I told you already...
HUFFINGTON: Yes or no?
SCHWARZENEGGER: (Unintelligible)... has provided after school programs for 200,000 kids. Proposition 49 was the responsible way to go about it to get after-school programs. Because what the initiative says, it has a trigger mechanism. Only when the state makes an additional $1.5 billion in revenue, then the program can get funded. Right now we have a financial crisis, that's why it's not getting funded. If the Cruz Bustamante/Davis administration had done that since the year 2000 with all of the programs, we wouldn't have a budget deficit right now. (Interrupted, unintelligible) That is correct because I don't want to use money from other programs.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Schwarzenegger. We have gotten off point and I'd like Cruz Bustamante to finish his comments on this issue of colorblindness.
BUSTAMANTE: Thank you. Just to complete the thought, however, in the call that Arnold had presented. If you go to any school in California and you ask them the name of the author of the textbook bill, they'll tell you, Arnold. All you have to do is ask. But in terms of the issue of equality, I think Arianna in this particular case is absolutely right. We cannot get there if we're going to pass Proposition 54. It's bad, it is a bad proposal. In fact, we believe it will jeopardize the health care. And all you have to do is ask all the doctors and all the nurses, ask any health organization in the state. They are opposed to Proposition 54. I hope people make sure they do not vote for Proposition 54.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I totally agree with you, Cruz.
BUSTAMANTE: And the last thing is that equal opportunity doesn't come from tolerance. I'm going to tolerate somebody? No, it comes from acceptance and making sure that everyone is accepted and that we embrace our diversity. We don't attack immigrants, we don't attack Native Americans, we don't attack people. What we do is accept people and try to have everyone have an equal opportunity in California.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Cruz. We need two more comments on this issue and those comments will come from Senator McClintock and then Mr. Camejo.
MCCLINTOCK: Well, thank you. In respect to Prop. 49, I don't think it's fiscally responsible to obligate to spend money when we don't have it. But, getting to the main point, and this is something that I think everyone has lost sight of, disadvantaged children come in all colors. It is their condition of disadvantage that we seek to compensate. It is not a question of race. Proposition 54, I believe I'm the only candidate on this platform who supports Proposition 54, simply says that our government has got to stop classifying us by race. It doesn't matter what race you are. The government should treat everyone exactly the same. And again, when you talk about disadvantage, it's the disadvantage itself that we should be correcting and compensating. I think that this nation's best when we are all one race, an American race. And this business of government classifying us according to different ethnic groups, different racial categories, that is foreign to the whole concept of one great American people.
MODERATOR: Mr. Camejo, go ahead.
CAMEJO: Well, you know, the issue here is this is a proposition that promotes ignorance. It says we will not know. Look, if you made a poll right now and asked people what you're income level is between right- and left-handed, we all know it would be about the same, or education level. But it isn't on race. If you ask the Latinos, do they have the same education? They have less. They have less income and they pay a higher tax rate. Do you know that? Latinos in California pay a higher tax rate than European Americans. But Prop. 54 doesn't allow us to know that. We're not allowed to ask the questions. So how can we correct problems that exist in our society, which are complex? And I welcome what Tom says and Arnold says that they are for equality, but if you're for equality you have to be willing to have the information so we can take the necessary action to change this. And Prop. 54 is a very dangerous bill because what it does is leads the people to begin to think that these problems are behind us. They are far from behind us. We still have enormous problems to solve in our society.
CITIZEN'S QUESTION: Leaders in the business community are convinced that this state is losing jobs and unable to attract new businesses. If you agree, what are two things you would change to make this a more business-friendly state? If you disagree, what are the misconceptions you would like to correct?
MODERATOR: Candidates, if you would be so kind as to keep your answers short on this because we rather hit this subject earlier in this one-hour debate, so far in this 90-minute program. This question does go to the lieutenant governor first, Cruz Bustamante.
BUSTAMANTE: Absolutely. I think the very first thing we need to do is continue to invest in higher education. It is essential if we're going to stay on the cutting edge of a global economy. We have to be able to invest in our children. We must have access of every qualified student to our universities and our colleges. The kind of creativity and the talent that comes from those universities is what created the boom in our economy. In fact, the boom in California's economy led the way for the nation's boom in their economy. We can do this again, but only if we invest in our higher education system and not allow 123,000 community college students to be left out of the system this year. The second thing is we need to absolutely fix this workers' comp issue. There's absolutely no doubt about it. I've already talked about how we need to find an incentive for good workplaces and have a disincentive for bad ones. I think that's the way we should go with workers' comp fixes.
MODERATOR: Next.
HUFFINGTON: Absolutely, I agree with fixing the workers' comp system and going beyond the bill that already passed the Legislature, which was insufficient. But also, you know, Cruz, when you talk about the fact that we have increased tuition fees and the fact that...
BUSTAMANTE: I opposed them.
HUFFINGTON: ...there are many college kids who can't go to college.
BUSTAMANTE: I opposed them.
HUFFINGTON: I know you opposed them.
BUSTAMANTE: I opposed them all.
HUFFINGTON: But your party, Governor Davis, you know, supported them.
BUSTAMANTE: Then talk to him.
HUFFINGTON: I will. But the bottom line is that it should never have been on the table. The bottom line is that this is a great demonstration of how broken the system is. And I have a very specific proposal...
BUSTAMANTE: On that we would agree.
HUFFINGTON: ...that I would like you to join me in. Would you help stop or help me stop the construction of the Delano II prison project? That is $600 million -- $600 million would completely make it possible for us to rollback all the tuition fee hikes and have $150 million to spend. So would you be in favor of that?
BUSTAMANTE: Let me tell you, Arianna, you may not understand how the process works.
HUFFINGTON: Oh please. You keep saying that to me and it's getting a little tired.
BUSTAMANTE: Just let me say this so you can understand it for the final time.
HUFFINGTON: You know what? I have been writing about these things, you can go to votearianna.com and see a complete proposal.
BUSTAMANTE: Yes, Arianna.
HUFFINGTON: Before you say anything.
MODERATOR: Cruz, Arianna, Cruz, Arianna, Cruz, Arianna, there are three other candidates.
BUSTAMANTE: There is specific bonds that are let for specific construction projects. If that facility was not built, the taxpayers of the state of California would not save one dime. The bigger issue, and I agree with you, is fully funding education. I absolutely agree with that, and my Tough Love plan, in fact, does that. It provides full funding for Prop. 98 and all our schools.
MODERATOR: We're off topic.
BUSTAMANTE: It closes the hole for community colleges.
MODERATOR: Off topic. You said schools, we're off subject. The subject at hand was a two-part question. Do you think California has a bad business climate and, if you do, what are you going to do about it? Senator McClintock.
McCLINTOCK: Well, of course it does and we've talked about that already. There are basically Four Horsemen of this recession: Workers' compensation, taxation, litigation and regulation. And all four of those have got to be addressed fundamentally. We talked about workers' compensation. We sit right next door to Arizona. The workers' comp costs are one-third of what they are here. Let's just swap the systems. Taxation. We've got to lower the overall rate of taxation, as we saw from the story of Fidelity National leaving California and taking 400 jobs with them. You start that with the abolition of the car tax. In terms of regulation, that's why I introduced the Bureaucracy Reduction and Closure Commission so we can begin weeding out these duplicative bureaucracies and provide that businesses don't have to needlessly respond to multiple agencies every time they want to do something.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
McCLINTOCK: And if I could just say in litigation. We have got to overhaul the tort reform system, the tort system in this state. One of the major initiatives that I will be introducing will be a general measure to restore our civil courts to the simple process of compensating victims of torts and move all the punitive damages into the criminal courts where they belong or at least apply a criminal justice standard to them.
MODERATOR: Thank you, senator. We have two more opinions on this question. Peter Camejo from the Green Party.
CAMEJO: Well, first of all, (citizen) Mike, I want to thank you for the question. But I'll tell you that I think there is a myth here. The biggest problem we're facing is the outbreak of a crime wave. You have the Enrons and the Worldcoms, and why is it that the managers are all stealing all over the country? In fact, there was a study done for two years, and this was a ways back, but it was very interesting. It showed that of the largest 538 corporations, in two years, 67 percent of them violated the law. There is no other neighborhood with that type of criminal record. So the corporations, what we need to do is get the rule of law established. We have companies with felony convictions every single year. Nobody goes to jail. Part of the problem is that the owners of these corporations, the largest ones, are the pension funds. And working people actually own these companies and don't even know it. What we need to do is democratize, change our 1937 act, democratize our pension funds so they can exercise control. You know what we should've done during the energy crisis with these corporations? Voted out all of their boards and put law-abiding citizens in there and stop them in their tracks.
MODERATOR: Thank you.
CAMEJO: That's what the answer to this problem is. Business is welcome in California and has been super-welcome. Their tax is as low as it can possibly go.
MODERATOR: We are going to end this particular subject with an answer from Arnold Schwarzenegger.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that I agree with Tom, that we have the worst business climate right now, anywhere in the nation. And I think this is what drives businesses and jobs out of the state, and I think that we have to reverse that. Because the only way we can pay off our inherited debt, which experts are now saying is between $12 and $20 billion, and deal with also the current operating deficit, is by bringing businesses back. Because if we bring businesses back, we bring jobs back. And when we bring jobs back and the economy is booming, then we create more revenue and then we can afford some of the programs and are also able to pay off the debt, which is important, because we are not going to get any more credit now the way things are going right now.
CITIZEN'S QUESTION: What services will your administration expect local governments to provide, and what sort of stable funding will you give them to do it?
MODERATOR: All right, you're still on deck for this one, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I think it's very important that we have a good relationship between the local and state government right now. It doesn't really make much sense. I think that first of all that the local government should continue with the service that they're providing right now, but it is wrong for the state to go there and take half of the property tax away and then have the cities, the local government, go up there lobbying in Sacramento continuously to get their money back. I think that they know best how to spend the money. The local people down on the ground, they know which program they need, how to incorporate education. Each one of the communities have different needs. I think they should continue with the services. If it's job training or if it's drug rehabilitation programs or the services they provide with police or fire department -- all of those kind of things that they should have their own way of funding those programs.
CAMEJO: Arnold, it's Pete Wilson, your campaign director, who took the money from the counties and then...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Let me make one thing clear, Peter. Let me make one thing clear. On Oct. 8, it's not going to be Governor Wilson or Governor Bush or any of those things, it's going to be Governor Arnold, OK? So let's make that clear. Thank You.
HUFFINGTON: Let us just brace now, because the last thing the state needs is Governor Schwarzenegger. And in fact, it's very important that the people of California know now who you really are, because you've been saying so many things and they're contradicting a few weeks later. First of all, the day you decided to run you said you would never take any special interest money.
MODERATOR: We're talking about local government. Excuse me, I believe you're off the subject.
SCHWARZENEGGER: When you waited an hour-and-half to do a photo op with me? Was that the day?
HUFFINGTON: No, it was the day you were on the Jay Leno show. But you know it's very important. We want to know who you are. And if the public is to find out who you are. We're actually exposing inconsistencies.
MODERATOR: We're trying to find out who you are, Governor Schwarzen... Pardon me, I'm getting mixed up here. I'm going to have to lower my meds. Governor Huffington, what would you do for local government?
HUFFINGTON: What I would do is that I'd actually approach it from the most fundamental problem we're having, which is the fact that Prop. 13 is responsible for the fact that local governments are left with so little money that they have to go begging to the state government to get their money back. And what we need to do, as I have said, is to mend Prop. 13. Not end it, but mend it. And that means, protect its original intent. Which is protect middle class homeowners, protect people on fixed income and seniors. But when it comes to my multimillionaire living in my $1 million homes, why shouldn't they pay their fair share? Even Warren Buffet, that Arnold Schwarzenegger brought to California, said that for (unintelligible) we should do 500 sit ups. Well, I'm telling you, keep talking Warren, and I'm going to make you a big fat Greek dinner. The bottom line is, unless we fix Prop. 13, we're not going to be able...
SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, you cannot increase...
HUFFINGTON: Hold on a second.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Excuse me Arianna, you cannot...
HUFFINGTON: You know I'm not easily intimidated. Let me finish.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Arianna, I'm trying to tell you you can increase property taxes all you want.
HUFFINGTON: Let's see who can talk louder in a foreign accent, all right?
MODERATOR: Well, all right
SCHWARZENEGGER: You can increase all the bills all you want, but you will be having empty buildings out there. There will be no companies left. They will be moving to the next state, so you will have nothing.
MODERATOR: All right, I appreciate it, I appreciate it. I'm so grateful that these candidates can engage one another, but we have irreconcilable differences here. And so we're going to go to the Green Party candidate.
CAMEJO: Yeah, I'm trying to be respectful to everybody here and, you know, I'm trying to say, I want to thank Helen for her question because this is a mystery in California. There is a problem here that most people are not aware of. Our county governments are starving for money now. Most of the money they received is already al, located. The county supervisors have almost no power at all, and the fact is about half of the discretionary money was taken away from them and then when we had surpluses in the budget of the state. And instead of giving back the money, they refused to. This is creating a crisis and I'll tell you where it starts hurting. Counties start looking at their pension fund as a big pile of money that maybe they can somehow they can lower, solve their budget problems by not making the payments that they should be making. So what we need to do is give that money back. We have to empower the local government. We have to give them more freedom. We have to look at these issues more carefully, and I think that as a supervisor that Helen's raising, the stress that she's feeling, the stress that all supervisors are feeling, the lack of funding to be able to carry out the very important tasks they do, including preventive, uh, medical, the health care, the issues of -- if we cut those, we'll end up paying more because that simply becomes the problem in emergency rooms.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Peter. We've gone beyond an enjoyable hour and five minutes. We're going to go to Senator McClintock.
McCLINTOCK: When Governor Wilson raided the local property tax, I was one of the very few members of the state Legislature who stood up and tried to stop him. This is a cause near and dear to my heart. It seems to me that the biggest problem that we've had with local government is the blurring of revenues and authority. Sacramento has not only raided their own money but also usurped their authority. We have got to restore the distinction between local government. The state worked a lot better when local governments could use local revenues and apply those to local purposes. They've got to have a dedicated stream of revenues restored to them and then they've got to have the full authority restored to them to use those revenues as they best see fit. Mandated state costs on local governments have got to stop. If the state government wants to mandate programs for local government, the state government can bloody well pay for it. That is one of the most important governmental reforms that we've got to embark upon, because right now we end up with the state budget being a political literally robbing (unintelligible) to pay tax.
MODERATOR: All right, time constriction. Give us one more comment lieutenant governor for about a minute and a half.
BUSTAMANTE: Actually, we agree on this particular issue. But I think it's more than just not providing state mandates without funding. I think you're right about that. We should create better partnership. For example, right now there's an overdependence by local governments on sales taxes. And as a result, there's no emphasis on building homes in our communities. They're building strip malls and auto malls, but they're not building homes. If we would be able to swap out some of the sales tax, with some of the property taxes that we have as a state, it would be more of an emphasis by local governments on building the kinds of homes and communities that we want. We all know we have a tremendous amount of need out there in the communities. We have a half million homes that need to be built in California. That's why homes are so high in terms of their price.
MODERATOR: Thirty seconds please, 30 seconds.
BUSTAMANTE: Creating that special relationship to fix problems between the state and counties I think it's the best way to go.
CITIZEN QUESTION: Under governors Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan, California spent up to 20 percent of its general fund on infrastructures such as roads, bridges, colleges, hospitals and water systems. Now we spend closer to 1 percent. Prop. 53 on the ballot raises that figure to 3 percent. What are your positions on Prop. 53 and what will you do to invest more in California's aging infrastructure?
McCLINTOCK: Well, it seems to me that the importance of our infrastructure has been completely overlooked since 1974. If you go back to the last year of the Pat Brown administration, a period when we were building highways faster than Detroit was building cars, we were bringing down the state water project to provide for that generation's water needs. We had the finest university system in the country. We were providing a free university education to every Californian who wanted one. We had one of the finest public school systems in the country. Our hydroelectric dams were producing power.
MODERATOR: Senator, may I interrupt? We have slightly less than 3 minutes to wrap this entire subject up. So please.
McCLINTOCK: Proposition 53 is a very important start, but we've got to go a lot further. My vision involves a new era of highway construction, dedicating our highway taxes once again for our highways. Water construction, electrical plants, hydroelectric dams that were being produced during the Pat Brown administration are producing electricity at half a cent a kilowatt hour. That's $30 a year for an average family. We have got to restore that dedication to our public works.
BUSTAMANTE: Let's not romanticize about those days of Pat Brown and even Ronald Reagan. I mean, that costs money. We haven't built a new university in California in 35 years. That's not keeping up with growth in terms of our higher education. We're not keeping pace with our transportation. We're not keeping pace with so many other things that we need in California. But all that costs money, Tom. And back then, let's romanticize it, because back then they raised taxes to get those things. They knew that they had to make an investment in our future, that Californians...
McCLINTOCK: Half per capita (unintelligible).
BUSTAMANTE: Well, we agree that we need to build more infrastructure. At least we agree on that. But we also need to make sure that we build it and we don't do it in a way that says we're...
MODERATOR: Arianna on Prop. 53
HUFFINGTON: I oppose Prop. 53 because unless there's a dedicated funding stream, that money will have to be taken from somewhere and it will be taken out of our schools or our health care provision, and we can't afford to do that. Absolutely we need to improve our infrastructure. But I want to be the kind of governor who would also bring a larger vision to this issue. It's not enough to just talk about fixing what we have. We need to look at the fact that if we actually become the leader in renewable energy and if we become the leader in having high-speed rail, and looking ahead at the future, than we'll be able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs and be able to fix our infrastructure.
MODERATOR: Excellent. Green Party candidate Peter Camejo.
CAMEJO: I'm opposed to Prop. 53. It's micromanaging. We do have crisis of infrastructure. It's super important. But the way you finance infrastructure is very different from the year to year budget. It's really a capital expenditure. And should be able to self finance. But we are creating a disaster in the future for the next generation if we don't start straightening out and have a 20-year plan. I really think one of the things we're doing wrong in California is we're not getting together and coming out with a long-term plan in how to keep our infrastructure and make it positive for our economy. And we need to have funding that's not affected directly with the budget -- like when you build a bridge, you pay a fee to go across that bridge. That's what pays for it. And you borrow money to build a bridge. So we can build the infrastructure even without hurting our budget.
SCHWARZENEGGER: I am for Prop. 53. I think it's a good beginning. But the fact of the matter is that we need a lot of infrastructures in California. Infrastructure with highways and with the transportation, railroads. Infrastructure with our water supply, infrastructure with our ports. We need that. We should model ourselves after Texas. In Texas, they have committed $140 billion for infrastructure (unintelligible) with building 4,000 miles of transportation -- railways, freeways, highways and all those kind of things. They have already taken the position where we were first in export -- now it's Texas, the first in export. Because they are really aggressive. That's what California ought to do.
MODERATOR: And the timing on our 90-minute debate has gone from important to absolutely critical. And our first closing statement will come from Arnold Schwarzenegger.
SCHWARZENEGGER: Thank you very much. You know, a lot of friends of mine have asked me if I'm crazy to run for governor. They say to me that I have the best life in the world, that I have a great career ahead of me. I have a lot of money, a wonderful family. And I know that when I get into politics, they will try to tear me down. But my answer to them is very simple. I wouldn't have all of those things if it wouldn't be for California. California has given me endless opportunities to create this great career, the money, the wonderful family and the businesses that I have. Now I want to give something back. When I came over here to California, I had absolutely nothing. I had just one thing, which was a dream, a big dream, to come to the greatest state of the greatest country in the world, to the golden state of California. But now our politicians have let us down. Our budget is in a crisis, and we have to do something about it. The politicians are now punishing the people for the mistakes that they have made in Sacramento. They're asking to increase the taxes. They're driving businesses out of the state and jobs out of the state. We have to change that. We need new leadership. This is what this is all about. I want to go to Sacramento and I want to work for you because I'm not beholden to anyone. I don't owe anyone anything. I set always big goals for myself and most of them I accomplish. But this one is a little bit bigger than I am. And that's why I need your help. I need a lot of help. I want you to vote for me on Oct. 7. I know that together we can do a lot of great things. Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. Schwarzenegger. And now your two-minute closing statement, Sen. McClintock.
McCLINTOCK: The election in 13 days can be the historic turning point when California rolled back the taxes and the regulations that are choking our economy, when we reined in our out-of-control bureaucracies, when we restored our crumbling public works. To do so, we have got to have a governor that knows every inch of this government and is able to confront and challenge and defeat the spending lobby that now controls it. I am the only candidate at this table who has signed a no-tax pledge. I am the only candidate at this table who supports Proposition 54 to stop the government from racially classifying every one of us. I'm the only candidate at this table that supports the California Republican Assembly's referendum to stop the bill that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. I'm the only candidate at this table who's pro life. I'm the only candidate who supports the entire Bill of Rights, including our Second Amendment. And I'm the only candidate who for 20 years in the public arena has proposed and fought for precisely those fiscal forms that are desperately needed to straighten out this state's finances. Now, we over the years have always been disappointed by politicians who make a promise and don't carry through on it. We've seen a lot of campaign promises made and broken just in the span of this very brief campaign. There's one thing friend and foe alike agrees about Tom McClintock, and that is when I make a promise, I keep it. I steer a straight course and I stay that course no matter what the pressure. And here's my commitment to the people of California: I will cut spending and balance this budget without a tax increase, and that is a promise. You can help, and I'd sure appreciate you help, and make a difference at helptom.com. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, senator. We are precisely on time. A two-minute closing statement from Green Party candidate Peter Camejo.
CAMEJO: We have a fiscal crisis in California, and we're not going to solve it unless we have a fair tax system. The wealthiest 1 percent pay a 30 percent lower tax rate than the average person is paying. And they talk about not raising taxes, but they have already raised it on you. But they're not, the wealthy people are not paying they're fair taxes, nor the corporations. And we're not going to solve the crisis of education ... unless we establish a fair tax. The amazing thing is that we would have a very substantial surplus and we could actually attack these issues. Now is there waste in our budget? Of course there is, and we should try to find it and stop it and curtail it. On that, I agree with some of the comments Tom has made. But we are 27th in education. I want to improve that. I want to start an affordable housing program. I want to make renewable energy, I want to make California the leader in renewable energy. We also have to raise our minimum wage. I want a living wage. You know that our minimum wage is 24 percent lower today, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1968, and our economy has improved so much? We need universal health care. And one of the problems that's deeply bothering me, and we need a governor who will speak out on this, is the issue of civil liberties in America and of our people in California. I am very concerned about what is happening internationally because California is a key to this world. We're the fifth largest economy and we must speak out. Here we were for 10 years supporting Saddam Hussein and arming him, and now we're illegally occupying that country and destroying the federal budget. No, we need someone who will speak out in support of the Kyoto agreement, and the U.N. charter and the rule of law in the world and the world court. What I want to do is fight for the change of our electoral systems so that you don't just hear two people in the debate. And it's sad to say that in the next two debates, they're trying to exclude me. The League of Women Voters now doesn't want the Green person heard anymore, who's calling for a fair tax. If you believe in democracy, in sustainable economics, and if you believe in peace and pre-elections, vote Green, vote Camejo governor.
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Camejo. Our next closing statement comes from Arianna Huffington.
HUFFINGTON: In this election, we're seeing the rise of the fund-raising machines, with Arnold Schwarzenegger raising over $8 million from big business, and we have Cruz Bustamante raising almost $4 million from the Indian gaming tribes. If you want this to continue, please do not vote for me. Vote for either Cruz or Arnold. If you want to end business as usual, if you want a truly independent leader in Sacramento, then vote for me. And go to votearianna.com and get involved because we have 13 days left. And only a truly independent leader can change our broken system. Does anyone here believe that the reason we have two million children in substandard schools, four million people below the poverty line and six million people without health insurance because we don't have enough money? Of course not. It's because we have the wrong leader driven by the wrong values and the wrong priorities in Sacramento. And these priorities are set by big contributors who are treating Sacramento like an ATM machine. They put in their contributions, and they pull out one favor after another. And I'm the only one who can change this because I'm not beholden to anyone, because I have the most individual small contributors of any other campaign and because I'm running a truly grassroots campaign. So I want to bring to Sacramento the priorities of a mother: a good school, health care, a clean and safe world to live in. And I want to bring passion and commitment back to Sacramento so that we no longer continue to ignore the pain in our communities. So vote for me, and together we can make history on Oct. 7.
MODERATOR: Thank you, thank you ... Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, a closing statement.
BUSTAMANTE: I grew up in a very big family in a very small town in the Central Valley in California. We picked, packed and shipped just about everything there was there in the valley to pick. I remember growing up with six kids in the family, growing up in government housing. And my dad was able to create a barber shop and be able to take care of his family. But he also had to have three jobs during the school-clothes time. We learned the value of hard work. And this recall is a serious business. And I believe that the voters believe it's a very serious thing, regardless of what other people say on national TV shows. I think it's so serious that they're going to analyze everything we've got to say. They're not going to give anyone a pass. They're going to be looking at us trying to figure out what our ideas are, complete ideas, how to really fix things in California. Well, I'm running in order to be able to maintain the kinds of values that's always going to think about those families who are struggling and trying to make sure that every time you sign a bill, every time you veto a bill, it's going to be about making sure that those values for those working families are being covered. We have to make sure that we also defend a woman's right to chose, make sure that our environment doesn't fall into some abyss. We need to make sure we protect the working families and make sure that everyone has equal opportunity in this state. That's the kind of California that our parents gave us, and that's the kind of California that our children deserve. I'd appreciate your consideration when you vote for governor.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
