Former GOP Congressman Tom Campbell is now a moderate Republican gubernatorial candidate. He has started a new blog as part of his campaign to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010.
Campbell believes that Governor Schwarzenegger had no choice but to raise our taxes. Here is how he explains this theory:
Back in December, public works stopped in our state, because of this budget crisis. In the midst of a recession, we stopped building freeways, water storage, schools, airport improvements, port facilities. That was suicidal to California’s recovery. These are good projects, that will make California more competitive for years to come; and in the short run, they will give Californians jobs. We needed them to continue, months ago. So, I wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, in December, and posted it on my web site, suggesting that an immediate budget deal be forged with 50% cuts in spending matched by 50% increase in gas taxes. A 50:50 deal was, to my lights, the only way to get a budget done, and start public works again. With gasoline falling from its high of above $4 a gallon last summer, I thought it was the least damaging tax to raise.
The final budget deal is, practically, a 50:50 compromise, as I had proposed. The taxes come from income and sales as well as gasoline; I think that’s not as good, but the fundamental point is the same. There was no realistic possibility of a budget deal coming entirely from cuts in spending within one year.
I disagree with Campbell to a certain extent as there is still a ton of waste in our state budget. However, he points out that when he “was Finance Director of California, we balanced the state budget, without increases in taxes, in borrowing, or any phony accounting. In Congress, I received National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Concord Coalition awards for holding the line of spending. Indeed, in terms of the cost of bills introduced, I was cited by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation as the single most frugal Member of the 102nd Congress.”
Ultimately, Campbell blames the recession and collapse of our stock market for the budget problems in our state, as follows:
The emergency in our state’s budget, however, is not due to over-spending. Rather, it is due to the collapse of the stock market. Our state relies on the personal income tax for more than half of the general fund. Through no fault of any California policy, the stock market tanked, and with it, the capital gains revenue on which the expansion of spending had taken place. We should never have expanded spending based on assumptions that the good revenue days would stay forever. That does not change the truth, however, that the present crisis in our state budget was because expected revenues unexpectedly plummeted.
I can buy part of this argument, but I still believe that our Governor and State Legislators could cut more waste. Consider the ridiculous six figure salaries they dole out to termed out legislators who sit on state boards. The voters booted crazed former State Senator Carole Migden out of Sacramento, only to see the Governor appoint her to a waste board complete with a huge six figure salary. That sort of B.S. needs to end now!
Do YOU think that our political leaders have cut enough waste in Sacramento? I don’t see how this message is going to help Campbell get elected. Perhaps he didn’t hear about the Tax Revolt?
This is unfortunate because Campbell was Arnold’s last budget director who kept a lid on spening. After Campbell left, Mr. Arnold’s wild spending ride began.
So Campbell knows, first hand, that the real problem is spending, not low taxing.
My perception is that Campbell lasted about a year, or less, as Arnold’s Director of Finance, and that he came into that job with a lot of swagger like Arnold, about how to balance the State budget by cutting or at least controlling spending. I remember one news clip of them both walking down the hall of the Capital in their wrinkleless suits en route to yet another budget meeting with Legislators. Looked to me like after but one budget cycle he realized his ideas for fixing the budget were not feasible and he left that job, really having failed in implemeting that conservative “control spending” agenda. I thought this reflected a face to face encounter with reality of politics and budeting in California and an apaprent realization that his (and Arnold’s at the time) simplistic rhetoric would not fly. He had his chance and did not succeed is my recollection. Guess he could go on like Tom McClintock talking about how awful everything is while Rome burns, but that is not leadership even if that kind of rhetoric is on target.