Page 3 -- A Conversation With Tom McClintock
Posted Aug 28, 2003
On August 25, the editors of HUMAN EVENTS interviewed California State Sen. Tom McClintock via telephone. McClintock, a Republican whose district includes Ventura and Santa Barbara counties and part of Los Angeles County, is a candidate to replace Gov. Gray Davis in California’s special October 7 recall election.
HUMAN EVENTS has additional interview requests pending with Republican actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who also is running to replace Davis, and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.), a conservative who has endorsed Schwarzenegger’s candidacy.
McClintock, who graduated with honors from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1978, has long been active in GOP politics in the Golden State. He was first elected to the State Assembly in 1982, at age 26. He served continuously in that body until 1992, when he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives, losing narrowly to Democratic Rep. Tony Beilenson.
In 1994, he lost by another narrow margin in an initial race for state controller.
From 1992-94, McClintock served as director of the Center for the California Taxpayer, a project of the National Tax Limitation Foundation. In 1995, he was named director of Economic and Regulatory Affairs for the Claremont Institute’s Golden State Center for Policy Studies,
In 1996, he returned to the State Assembly. Four years later, he won a seat in the State Senate. Last November, he ran again for state controller, this time losing one of the closest races in California history, falling just 0.3% the vote short of defeating Democratic candidate Steve Westly. In the process, McClintock attracted more votes than any other Republican on the California ballot.
The following is an edited transcript of McClintock’s conversation with the editors of HUMAN EVENTS.
HUMAN EVENTS: In his press conference last Wednesday, Arnold Schwarzenegger declined to rule out raising taxes. Have you ruled out raising taxes if you are elected governor, and have you signed pledges to that effect?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes and yes.
Are you challenging Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign either Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform Pledge, or Lew Uhler’s National Tax Limitation Committee pledge to promise not to raise taxes?
MCCLINTOCK: I’m challenging him to sign both.
If he does not, do you think that Californians can trust him not to raise taxes?
MCCLINTOCK: No, I do not. He has surrounded himself with the team that imposed the biggest tax increase by any state in American history in 1991 here in California—a tax increase that broke the back of the state’s economy, that turned a recession into a near-depression, and needlessly prolonged our budget problem years into the future, until the state ended in de facto receivership in 1994. He has Warren Buffett, who is perhaps the most outspoken advocate of higher taxes in the country. His aides have been waxing eloquent over the number of circumstances that would justify a tax increase--and even though later retracted, it reflects what clearly is a discussion ongoing within Schwarzenegger’s circle. The positions he’s taken have been identical to those taken by Pete Wilson in 1990, when he said he wouldn’t raise taxes, that Dianne Feinstein was the big taxer. But every time he was asked to take a no-tax pledge, he pointedly refused to do so. And of course, his first act as governor was that massive tax increase in 1991 that broke all records for state tax increases.
Senator, considering the state faces a much-publicized $38 billion budget deficit, if you don’t raise taxes, how are you going to bring that budget into balance?
MCCLINTOCK: Bear in mind that California is spending a larger portion of people’s earnings than at any time in its history and delivering less. We are spending, in inflation-adjusted dollars, three times what [Democratic Gov.] Pat Brown spent in the mid-1960s, at a time when the state was delivering a first-rate level of service, including the finest highway system in the world, the finest university system and public school system in the country. We were bringing down the state water projects and building hydro-electric dams that today are producing electricity for half-a-cent a killowat-hour. All of these works of government were costing about $1,000 per capita in year 2000 inflation-adjusted dollars. The state of California today is spending over $3,000 and delivering nothing.
So what do you do? If you simply restored to California government the same freedom that every family and business has to shop around for the best service at the lowest cost, there’s about $9 billion in savings across all departments, according to the Reason Foundation’s recent survey of the state’s finances. Streamlining the state’s bureaucracies—that means abolishing agencies that duplicate local or federal jurisdictions, that overlap each others’ responsibilities, or that are performing services the private sector could and should do by itself—involves about another $6 billion in savings.
What specific—
MCCLINTOCK: Let me go down the list here real quick. Conforming the state’s prevailing wage laws to the federal Davis-Bacon act would save about $1 billion in construction. Conforming our workers’ compensation laws to Arizona’s would save about $2.5 billion to state and local governments. It is not hard to find waste in a government’s budget that spends as much as California and produces as little.
What specific programs would you abolish then?
MCCLINTOCK: There are a lot that can be simply abolished. For example, the state of California is alone in the nation in maintaining two separate tax agencies for the purpose of collecting taxes. They maintain duplicate offices in some 16 major cities in California. I have long advocated consolidation. The State Architect’s Office duplicates—at enormous expense—what local planning departments would do anyway. The State Fire Marshall’s Office duplicates what local Fire Departments would be doing anyway. We have a range of state agencies that simply duplicate federal functions. Those are the agencies that I would first abolish, including the entire structure of corporate welfare in this state.
In his press conference last week, Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would never cut state education spending, which makes up more than 40% of the state’s budget. Would you cut state education spending?
MCCLINTOCK: California spends $270,000 for every classroom with 30 students in this state. I have two children in the public schools, and I can guarantee you only a fraction of that money is actually reaching the classroom to educate our children. I have proposed classroom-based budgeting, where that $270,000 per classroom is injected directly into the classroom toward the education of our children. I believe that most of the State Department of Education can be abolished, and those savings passed into the classroom. So the bottom line is this: Yes, I believe that there are tremendous economies that can be worked in the California public school system that will produce more money in the classroom at lower cost than California currently bears.
Senator, could you say how much the budget was in deficit?
MCCLINTOCK: The budget deficit from the year just ended was $38 billion. It is very clear to me that the next year’s budget deficit will exceed that amount. I base that projection on the fact that there is $18 billion of deficit that is in the current budget that the governor has just signed. We know that next year’s budget deficit will begin at $10 billion, and that assumes that a dramatic economic recovery takes place this year. Failing that, of course, the budget deficit numbers will be much greater. And also, the governor’s unwillingness to restrain the state’s bureaucracy even in a time of severe budget deficit, leaves me with every expectation that next year’s budget deficit will exceed this past year’s.
Given his promise not to touch education spending, it seems that just to come out even for next year, Mr. Schwarzenegger would have to cut 25% of the remaining budget. Is that realistic? Or given his refusal to sign a tax pledge—wouldn’t he almost have to raise taxes?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes, I believe you would. And what disturbs me the most is, this is not a revenue problem. As I said, $9,000 per student is what we put in at the top of the education system--$270,000 per classroom.
We face a combination of problems. No. 1, bureaucracy is absorbing so much of that before it reaches the classroom level. No.2, a complete lack of accountability over the management of our public schools. No one is in charge of California public schools today. Everyone points a finger toward somebody else. In 1965, when my family moved to California, I can tell you exactly who was in charge of the California public schools. It was a fellow by the name of Ron Randolph. Ron Randolph was the principal at Glenwood Elementary School, and there was nobody closer to God on Earth than Ron Randolph at Glenwood Elementary School. He had the authority and the responsibility to tell a non-performing teacher to shape up or ship out. Any complaints from parents were instantly handled because he had the authority to do so, and he also had a local school board breathing down his neck to be sure that he did. The usurpation of local management by the state’s bureaucracies has destroyed the process of accountability that made our public schools the first in the country, despite the fact that in those days we were spending about one-third, in inflation-adjusted dollars, what we’re spending today per pupil. In the mid-1960’s when we had the finest public school system in the country, we were spending about $3,000 in year-2000 inflation adjusted dollars per pupil. We’re spending over $9,000 now and delivering a vastly lower quality of education. That’s the problem.
As long as we have politicians who are unwilling to take on the public school lobby and insist on these basic reforms—there’s an old saying, you can’t fill a broken bucket by pouring more water in it. You’ve got to fix the bucket.
In a 1995 position paper you recommended 217 specific budget cuts—including abolishing the Board for Guide Dogs, the Board of Landscape Architects, the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. Would you still favor abolishing such commissions, which are small in themselves in terms of the budget, but add up?
MCCLINTOCK: Absolutely. There is no line item in the budget that says "waste." It would be much easier if there was. The waste occurs in every line of the state budget, and in the accumulation of a lot of programs like those that duplicate local or federal jurisdictions, or things the private sector could do anyway.
One of the additional burdens on California public schools since the 1960s is illegal immigration and the children of illegal aliens living in the state. Prop. 187, of course, said that illegal aliens would not be entitled to public education in California. Are you willing to enforce at least that element of Prop 187 and make sure that illegal aliens aren’t going to public schools in California?
MCCLINTOCK: I intend to enforce all provisions of Proposition 187. I supported that initiative. I actually ran radio ads for it in 1994. Proposition 187 never had a fair day in court. When it was challenged it was the governor’s responsibility to defend it. He refused to discharge that responsibility. I intend to see that Proposition 187 does have its full, fair hearing in court, and the best way to do that is to begin to enforce it.
You will actually order state agencies under your control as governor to act as if Prop 187 is the law of California?
MCCLINTOCK: I will use every power available to the governor to see that our immigration laws are enforced.
And then you will move forward with an appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court?
MCCLINTOCK: Exactly.
I understand that Gov. Gray Davis made a deal under the auspices of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to drop Prop 187, can you at this point simply pick it up and resume that appeal?
MCCLINTOCK: I believe that I can. I certainly will do everything in my power to do so.
Outside of enforcing the provisions of Prop 187 are there any other things that you have planned to deal with the problems caused by illegal immigration in California?
MCCLINTOCK: I intend to bring maximum pressure to bear on the federal government to discharge its fundamental responsibility to protect our borders. I intend to direct all state agencies to do whatever they possibly can to see that our immigration laws are enforced. And I intend to veto legislation such as S.B. 60 that would provide valid state identification documents in the form of California driver’s license to illegal immigrants, the only purpose of which is to undermine our immigration laws. And let me point out, in addition to $4 billion in direct costs of illegal immigration to the state government alone—and that’s a conservative estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office—the most damaging thing about illegal immigration is that it undermines the process of legal immigration accompanied by assimilation that is a strength of our nation, and in fact its foundation.
If the Feds refuse to act, will you as governor consider using the state national guard to police California’s border with Mexico?
MCCLINTOCK: As I said, I intend to use every authority available to the governors to enforce our immigration law.
So, you would consider using the National Guard?
MCCLINTOCK: If it is within the authority of the governor.
Gray Davis approved or signed a bill allowing in-state tuition to be given to illegal aliens in Cal-State University campuses, and the UC Board of Regents mirrored that at University of California campuses. Would you seek to reverse that also?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I opposed it in the legislature and I would absolutely seek to reverse it.
The argument is often made by people on the other side of this issue that Republicans that support Prop 187 and would cut off funding for various benefits for illegal aliens are in fact anti-Latino. How would you deal with that argument?
MCCLINTOCK: There are millions of Latino families who have obeyed our immigration laws and come to our nation legally with the express purpose of becoming Americans and seeing their children succeed and prosper as Americans. Illegal immigration is a process of cutting in line in front of the people who are obeying our immigration law. And that is not anti-Latino, it is not anti-immigrant. It is unfair to all of those from around the world who have stood in line to obey our laws to grant preference to those who have cut in line in front of them.
It is common belief here in Washington that the Bush White House, particularly Karl Rove, has a strategy to reach out to the Latino vote. Part of this has involved floating the idea of an amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico, also an unwillingness to engage in any policy, particularly the kinds your talking about now, that might be used to alienate Latino votes, and they would think cost them the state of California in a presidential election in 2004. How would you address those arguments?
MCCLINTOCK: Latino voters are Americans, and I heartily disagree with the notion that Latino voters are somehow different from any other voters. Latino voters care very much about exactly the same issues as every other American, and that includes a great concern over illegal immigration.
Michelle Malkin, the nationally syndicated columnist, reported last week, and so did the Investors Business Daily, that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante was a member of a group called MEChA when he was a student at Fresno State University, and quoted documents from that group that arguably have a racialist point of view, and a separatist point of view. Are you familiar with this group MEChA, and do you believe that Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante should disavow this group and its views?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes, I am familiar with it, and yes I do believe he should disavow his association with that group.
Why do you believe there has been almost no attention in the liberal press to Bustamante’s association with MEChA?
MCCLINTOCK: (Chuckles.) I can’t imagine why. (Laughter.)
Would you challenge the liberal press to take a look at this story in the course of your campaign, the story of Cruz Bustamante’s association with MEChA?
MCCLINTOCK: All I know is the published reports that indicate his association with that group. If those published reports are correct, I believe that Cruz Bustamante has a great deal of explaining to do, if he still supports the aims of that organization.
Ward Connerly’s Prop. 54 [the Racial Privacy Initiative, which would forbid the state government from categorizing people by race] is going to be on the ballot. Do you endorse that, and will you support it?
MCCLINTOCK: I strongly endorse and support it. I do not believe that a person’s skin color should determine how they are treated by their government.
Much has been made of anti-business regulations that the Democratic legislature has passed. You mentioned the workers’ comp laws—they expanded the benefits—and you’ve also mentioned that you can get workers’ comp benefits without any real scientific proof that you have an injury. But another big regulation that’s coming up, and takes effect next July, is the family leave law. Mr. Schwarzenegger has ducked this question twice on national television. Will you work to repeal the family leave law?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I firmly opposed the family leave law when it was brought before the legislature. I believe that it will devastate what’s left of California’s employment base, and its repeal must be of highest priority if this state’s business climate is to be improved.
This is something the Democrats are still defending, unlike the workers’ comp system. Do you see any way of doing this other than going to the people with a ballot initiative?
MCCLINTOCK: Given the special interest dominance of the current state legislature, I believe the next governor is going to have to go to appeal to the people on a broad range of reforms, and that is one of them.
Can you name some of the other reforms you’re talking about that should be executed by ballot initiative?
MCCLINTOCK: A complete overhaul of our out-of-control tort system. The re-enactment of the Gann Spending Limit, which was in place in the state from 1979 to 1990. It provided that government spending could grow only as fast as inflation and population growth combined. This was hardly a Draconian limit—through the 1980s, the state budget more than doubled while within the Gann Spending Limit. In 1990, the Gann limit was gutted by Proposition 111. If the Gann spending limit had simply been restored at the outset of the Gray Davis administration, the state budget would still be 21% larger than it was four years ago, but instead of a $38-billion deficit, we would have had a $5-billion surplus.
Will you rule out, without qualification, abandoning the race? And have you had anyone from the administration or within the state party talk to you about getting out of the race?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes, without equivocation, this horse is in the race to the finish line. I realize War Admiral doesn’t want a race—Seabiscuit does.
With Bill Simon dropping out, the pressures on you must be intense to clear the path for Schwarzenegger?
MCCLINTOCK: Well, if Bill Simon’s support rallies to my campaign, according to the recent Los Angeles Times poll, I am then in a statistical dead heat with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But have there been pressures?
MCCLINTOCK: No. I have received no phone calls from the White House or from any other party leaders, state or national, suggesting that I get out of the race. I have been reading veiled and not-so-veiled threats in the newspapers, but that’s the only place I see it.
Nobody’s called you?
MCCLINTOCK: No. And just to save them the fuss and bother of a phone call, the answer is, "Forget it."
What is the essential argument you’re going to make to California Republicans to choose you over Schwarzenegger?
MCCLINTOCK: I have spent 20 years in the public arena proposing and fighting for precisely those fiscal reforms that the public now realizes are absolutely essential to restore our state’s finances, and its public works and its economy. The positions that I have taken over those 20 years have been firm and unchanging. They are positions that the people of California can count on. There’s a great deal that Arnold Schwarzenegger can teach me about making movies. There’s a great deal I could teach him about the fiscal reform of the state government. The problem is, Number 1, he’s got advisors around him who are of a completely different mind, and, Number 2, there’s no time for training anyway: the new governor will take office the moment the last ballot is counted.
Will Gray Davis be recalled?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes. I think the people of California have—
The latest LA Times poll shows it tightening up—50% to 45%, just a bare majority. Do you think that Democrats will actually vote to recall him?
MCCLINTOCK: The sentiment for fundamental change in the direction of this state is far stronger than any sentiment to maintain the status quo. What the polls, of course, don’t measure, is the intensity of people’s feelings on these subjects—those who support the recall do so passionately. Those who oppose the recall are not nearly as passionate, except for those who are directly feeding at the public trough. And for that reason, I believe that you need to take the raw numbers with a large dose of salt.
Won’t you actually have to attack Schwarzenegger in various ways in order to possibly win a plurality of the vote here over Bustamante?
MCCLINTOCK: I believe the people of California want to know specifically and exactly the direction that each of the candidates would take our state. I think they will insist upon very specific answers from Arnold Schwarzenegger on all of these issues. And if he fails to do so, I believe that the public will be very unimpressed. I might add that you’ve seen all-Arnold, all-the-time, on all channels all this month, an unprecedented amount of media coverage and attention. And yet throughout this period, he has not moved a bit in the polls. He has maintained a very consistent position in the mid-to-low 20s throughout this race.
Some conservatives have been leery of supporting Schwarzenegger because of his highly publicized liberal views on social issues. Where do you stand on abortion?
MCCLINTOCK: I am pro-life.
Does that mean you would seek to prohibit abortion in California if you could?
MCCLINTOCK: I will seek to prohibit partial-birth abortion, the process of killing an infant as it’s being delivered. I think most Californians agree that that practice is barbaric. I believe and will push for legislation to ensure that parents have restored to them the right to consent before an abortion is performed on their minor children. And I will also support legislation, certainly, to prohibit the practice once a brain wave is present in the infant. At that point, I think that a broad consensus can exist in California, will exist in California, that once the brain wave is detectable, the infant unquestionably acquires a right to life that is unalienable.
Would you sign or veto appropriations that provide funding for abortion by the state of California?
MCCLINTOCK: I oppose funding for abortion. I always have.
You would veto appropriations that include funding for abortion?
MCCLINTOCK: Correct.
Arnold Schwarzenegger reportedly approves of gay adoption. As governor, would you seek to stop and prohibit, or to allow gay adoption?
MCCLINTOCK: We have a wealth of sociological data that shows that children do much better in a traditional family environment. And I do not believe that homosexual adoptions meet that criterion.
If the United States Congress approves a Federal Marriage Amendment—which has already been proposed in the U.S. House of Representatives—would you support its ratification by the legislature in California?
MCCLINTOCK: Yes.
And how would the Supreme Court justices you would nominate in California differ from those you believe Arnold Schwarzenegger would nominate?
MCCLINTOCK: The judges I would appoint must, above all else, believe in the fundamental principles of the American founding, that the purpose of government is to secure those rights, those inalienable rights, derived from the people—what the founders called the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
You mentioned before that Mr. Schwarzenegger is stuck in the mid-to-low 20s, and has been there ever since he entered the race. Given that a lot of Republicans who have chosen to support you or Mr. Simon may have already rejected the option of voting for him, do you consider his vote-pull to be a dead weight, and would you call for him to get out of the race?
MCCLINTOCK: I don’t think anyone should get out of the race. I think the voters will sort this out very nicely as the campaign proceeds.
Back to the $38-billion deficit that you think California is going to have next year. Are there other people who are supporting you on this, who support that number?
MCCLINTOCK: Again, what I said was, I think it will exceed $38 billion.
Right. Exceed $38 billion. Are there other people who support that figure?
MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone agrees that the budget deficit next year will be massive.
Davis has said, ‘Well, it’s down to $8 billion.’
MCCLINTOCK: No, no. Understand what he’s talking about. He’s talking about the structural deficit to begin the next fiscal year is $8 billion. That’s predicated on a dramatic economic recovery this year that I don’t foresee. I think that figure will be closer to $10 billion or beyond. But on top of that you must also bear in mind that the current state budget requires the borrowing of $11 billion simply to meet last year’s shortfall, another $2 billion to make its pension payments, $4.2 billion in the illegal tripling of the car tax—that will be ordered returned to the taxpayers plus interest when the courts are finally able to act. When you untangle all the bookkeeping gimmicks, and all of the illegal taxes and illegal borrowing upon which this budget is based, you easily exceed $18 billion of deficit in the current year. Add that to at least $10 billion in deficit that you will begin the next fiscal year with, and you’re already up to $28 billion and we’re only a month into that budget. Based upon past experience, I believe that this year’s budget deficit will exceed last year’s, which was, as you know, $38 billion.
Gov. Davis and the legislature have dramatically expanded the state’s pension liabilities during the last four years. Do you see any chance of rolling those back?
MCCLINTOCK: Pension obligations, once they are incurred, cannot be rescinded, but the state’s exposure can be reduced in two manners. Number one, a dramatic reduction in the state’s workforce, which I am pledged to do. Number two, the establishment of a second pension plan for new hires, which will be in line with private sector pensions, rather than the lavish benefits now accorded to public sector employees.
You can’t change it through initiative?
MCCLINTOCK: Once you’ve incurred that pension obligation, you have to live with it. That is why it is so damaging. I opposed every one of the measures that increased the state’s pension obligation, and I am heartsick at what the legislature did on this. What I can do is to make a dramatic reduction in the state’s workforce and I can also assure that any future pension obligations will be based on what is available to private sector employees.
Many well-known conservatives are endorsing Mr. Schwarzenegger—Rep. Chris Cox [R.-Calif.] last week, for example. Do you have any evidence that with the exit of Bill Simon, you’re going to pick up some people who endorsed him and were working for him among conservatives?
MCCLINTOCK: I do know this, that we had a large surge in contributions immediately following Bill Simon’s withdrawal from the race. There is a tendency among established politicians to migrate to celebrity, and I don’t expect that to change, it is human nature. I do, however, have great hopes that the vast majority of Bill Simon’s voters will rally to my campaign, and if they do so, it will place us within a statistical dead heat.
[Continued below]
