Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 10/03/2003 10:42:34 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
With the tumultuous California election just a few days away, several unassailable facts have emerged about this race that should help guide the decision-making of Golden State conservatives.
First, it should be self-evident to Californians of all political persuasions that for the good of the state, it is time for Gray Davis to go. The state simply cannot afford three more years of his high-tax, high-spend (the budget went up 38 percent in his first term), anti-business policies. The budget deficit he has created is now larger than that of the other 49 states combined.
The state is plunging $25 million further into debt each and every day Davis remains governor. His recent signature on legislation forcing businesses with 50 or more employers to purchase health insurance for their workers is further evidence that Davis is completely divorced from the reality of this economic crisis. For five years running, the Davis administration in Sacramento has treated businesses as unlimited ATM machines to pay for social-policy legislation.
As a consequence, businesses are leaving the state in droves — taking their tax payments with them. According to an analysis reported in USA Today, a medium-sized manufacturing business can now save more than $1 million a year in costs by moving from California to Nevada. Since 2000, more than 150,000 Californians have left the state and since 1996, 250,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared from the Golden State.
If California were a business, and Gray Davis were the CEO, the board would surely have a fiduciary duty to evict him from office. Hopefully, voters will come to the same unavoidable conclusion.
Second, I have met at length with both Republican candidates and there is no doubt that the man with the best set of policy ideas is Tom McClintock. McClintock knows precisely what to do to turn California's $1.4 trillion economy around; and he has the steely convictions to implement them. Top among these reforms is a substantial revamping of the California tax system to reward wealth and job creation and to coax businesses back into the state. California now has the third-highest income-tax rates (on corporations and small-business owners) of all 50 states and it has the second-most tax-unfriendly environment for businesses. Steeply progressive tax rates, in which the highest personal-income-tax rate of 9.3 percent hits families with incomes as low as $50,000, has driven away the state's most precious resource: Its most productive people. McClintock would work to enact a flat tax for California, which would go a long way toward restoring growth and budget surpluses to the state.
McClintock is the only candidate to take a pledge not to raise taxes — which is to me, an extremely important detail. McClintock has outlined a comprehensive worker's-compensation-reform package (in a state where commonsense improvements in the system have been single-handedly stymied by trial lawyers). He will fight to renegotiate Gray Davis's long-term electricity contracts that will cost the state government in Sacramento and homeowners $24 billion in excessive rates. McClintock will abolish the car tax. And last, but crucially important, he will work to enact a state-spending cap that prevents this kind of ruinous debt spending buildup from ever occurring again. If the budget under the Gray Davis years had been constrained to population and inflation growth, there would be no budget deficit in Sacramento today. McClintock would quickly restore budget balance by making the cuts that Davis is incapable of.
But, alas, Tom's chances of winning the race, notwithstanding his winning message, are slim. McClintock will not be advancing the cause for fiscal- and economic-policy sanity in California, if he peels enough votes away from Arnold Schwarzenegger, to deliver a victory for Cruz Bustamante.
Third, the worst-possible outcome would be for the state to place Bustamante in the governor's office. Bustamante's economic ideas are even more dangerous than Davis's are — if that's possible. He has only one overarching economic idea, and it is a catastrophically bad one. His plan for the budget crisis is to "raise taxes on the rich and businesses." If he were to have his way, pretty soon there won't be anymore rich people or companies left in California to pay the taxes that he wants to impose. Bustamante does not get the most-important reality of the crisis in California: that taxes are way too high on businesses and wealth producers — not too low. A Bustamante regime would give California more of the same class-envy politics that has eroded growth so severely in recent years.
Which brings us fourth and finally, to Arnold Schwarzenegger. What are California conservatives to do about Arnold? Can free-market conservatives trust the Terminator to do the right things to fix the California economy?
Even though there are certainly reasons to be skeptical, I believe they can. I write this with some trepidation, because Arnold has refused to take a pledge not to raise taxes, and in my experience when candidates don't take the no-tax pledge, they are leaving the tax-hike option open. He has advisers like Warren Buffet, whose infuriating views on economic-policy issues are as wrongheaded as his investment advice is sound.
But notwithstanding all of these reservations, I'm optimistic about the policy changes that would be enacted under a Governor Schwarzenegger. His economic heroes are Milton Friedman and Adam Smith. I've been impressed with his intellect on economics and his instinctive understanding of the steps that need to be taken to rescue this state from debt and despair.
Schwarzenegger has said repeatedly that he "means to cut taxes in California, not raise them." I believe that he is sincere in this regard, though it wouldn't be the first time a politician has disappointed me. There is a decent chance that he will actually revamp the California tax system in a productive flat-tax direction. He, too, has pledged to take on the trial lawyers on business issues like worker's compensation.
Schwarzenegger thinks like a supply-sider: He understands that growth really is the key to restoring a balanced budget and bringing back the glory days of the California economy of the 1980s and '90s. Since California's economy is the sixth largest in the world, getting California back on track is of more than just a little importance to improving the prospects for growth of the national economy.
Finally, one of the benefits of a Schwarzenegger governorship is that McClintock may very well be directly or indirectly running the economic-policymaking shop. McClintock has better ideas on the budget and the economy than Arnold does, but Arnold understands that. With Arnold in the governor's office, we could get two for one.
In sum, California can't afford another 20 minutes, let alone three more years, of the bankrupting policies of the Davis-Bustamante tenure. They must be terminated.
As such, I'm convinced that trading a Davis-Bustamante for Schwarzenegger and McClintock is a giant trade-up.
Hey Californians: The ship of state is out of control. For goodness sakes, let Arnold drive.
Given his leftist green platform, no.
His victory actually would harm the conservative cause a lot.
What Arnold campaigns on is irrelevant. What he does is all that matters. And, if he gets in an listens to the Kennedys and Warren Buffett, he'll be a disaster.
Another Tom can't win, Arnold sycophant.
I respect Stephen Moore for his economic beliefs. On this political issue, he's deadwrong!
I take exception to Stephen Moore's political positioning on this overall issue and his reluctant support for Arnie the liberal. Conservative Republican Tom McClintock is the best man and the best candidate for the job. Not withstanding Arnie's pop cult icon and Hollywood superstar status. When Arnie received 23% in that first poll released after he announced, it was obvious people didn't care about the issues of the recall campaign. Many Californian Republicans reluctantly jumped on the Arnie bandwagon. They also said, "but Tom can't win". From the beginning, that's been a red herring, based on very weak political reasoning.
As the last Gallup poll clearly indicated, without Arnie in the race, McClintock would beat Bustamonte and by a significant margin of something like, 54% to 38%.
Point that part out.
And, I've given him credit where credit is due.
In reality, Arnie is in the race.
I'm not trying to hector you here, but I am a Californian who has been on the Arnie-McClintock fence, and I have just about decided to vote for Arnie because with the current field, I have concluded that McClintock can't win.
I do like McClintock's policies, but after voting for Republican standard-bearer losers like Dan Lundgren, Matt Fong, and Bill Simon, I am ready to change strategy.
If you can paint me a realistic scenario where Arnie drops out by next Tuesday, or where McClintock can defeat Arnie, please lay it out...right now Arnie gets my vote.
You're not paying attention.
I will repeat, for your edification.
I clearly stated:
"I've never said once, that McClintock was going to win."
There was a time, a scenario did exist, under which McClintock could have won the recall race and I touched on it in my response to you. But again, you're not paying attention. If you want me to better connect the dots for you, fine. I will, one last time.
"... Arnie's pop cult icon and Hollywood superstar status. When Arnie received 23% in that first poll released after he announced, it was obvious people didn't care about the issues of the recall campaign. Many Californian Republicans reluctantly jumped on the Arnie bandwagon. They also said, "but Tom can't win". From the beginning, that's been a red herring, based on very weak political reasoning."
In other words, voters first needed to be logical and rational in their thinking. It didn't look like a serious effort to me, that so many people were willing to jump on the Arnold bandwagon, without first analyzing and evaluating the issues. If people had taken that time and were serious about the politics of Arnie, they would be standing behind Tom McClintock today and not supporting the liberal candidate in this case, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I hope that helps to clear up your confusion.
Thank GOODNESS all those pro-abortion Republicans are "fiscal conservatives"
1998: RINO candidate George H. Ryan said Sunday "Underlying my entire campaign is this promise to taxpayers: 'I will NOT raise taxes'. To do so during times of distress is bad enough, to do so during times of prospirity is unconciseable." Later, he admitted he would not absolutely rule out taxes for any reason, but said he saw no reason why taxes would need to be raised.
1999: RINO Governor George H. Ryan breaks 'no new taxes' pledege by proposing a $12 billion public works program that would be funded by doubling the state's vehicle registration taxes to $96 and increasing taxes on alcohol. Ryan's entire program, called Illinois FIRST, a Fund for Infrastructure, Roads, Schools & Transit, includes a state commitment of $6.3 billion. He bristled at the suggestion that he was reneging on his campaign. "I obviously changed my mind" said Ryan
But, alas, Tom's chances of winning the race, notwithstanding his winning message, are slim.
Then you went on to say, On this political issue, he's deadwrong! You also used the present tense.
I found the Moore citation completely reasonable and correct, and I was interested in whether you really thought it was 'deadwrong', and why.
Then you unexpectedly changed the subject to the condition of the race many weeks ago, and to a hypothetical race with Arnie not included. None of this has any relevance to the Moore statement, your refutation, nor to any portion of the article itself.
There's no reason to get accusatory and insulting with a Freeper for responding to your posted words and not your unstated and unrelated thoughts.
The fact that you, as an apparently avid McClintock supporter, repeatedly and boldly disavow any optimism for his chances only reinforces my initial perception that Moore is correct, and that your refutation is wrong. On that I have very little 'confusion'.
Hasta la vista.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.