Posts Tagged ‘Rebuttal’

Poizner Rant: A Pox on Calbuzz ‘Change’ Analysis

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

poiznerSince our recent analysis concluding there’s no true “change” candidate in the 2010 field of wannabe governors, administrators of the Calbuzz Shuttle Diplomacy and Professional Umpiring School have enjoyed several full and frank exchanges of views with candidates in the race. On Nov. 7, Tom Campbell had his say; today we provide free rant space to GOP rival and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

By Steve Poizner
Special to Calbuzz

As a dutiful reader of Calbuzz, I was perplexed by your recent assertion that there is no “change” candidate  left in the race for governor after the exit of Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Throughout my career, I’ve been a leader in helping to bring change for the better, like working to transform the cell phone industry, helping pioneer the charter school movement, right sizing a statewide agency, and stopping a massive power grab by career politicians looking for longer control of Sacramento. Now I’m proposing bold, across-the-board tax cuts and a complete overhaul of our state’s welfare and Medi-Cal programs.

I’m not a celebrity or a career politician. And I’m no rookie. The current field for governor has all of those. I’m something different. I’m an engineer and an entrepreneur. I build things and I fix things. I’m a problem solver.

Calbuzz is right to challenge us candidates and they are right to cast doubt on our “change” rhetoric. Voters are cynical and they have heard this tune before, but let’s look at the facts.

Only one candidate is proposing to change our basic tax structure with bold, across the board tax cuts. That’s change and change for the better.

Only one candidate is proposing to change the spending culture of Sacramento with a top down review of every agency. I did it at the Department of Insurance and permanently reduced my operating expenses by nearly 15%. That’s change for the better.

Only one candidate will bring our welfare spending into line with the national average or better. We have 30% of welfare recipients and only 12% of population. That’s change for the better.

Only one candidate has stood in a public high school classroom and struggled to teach in a system that frustrates everyone, from students to parents to teachers. That’s change for the better.

Only one candidate understands what it’s like to start a business in one room witdarwinh one employee and grow it into a billion dollar company. I’ve seen how the government helps and how it hurts. I know what it takes to grow jobs in this state and I’ll be a governor on the side of my fellow job creators like no governor in our history. That’s change for the better.

Change, you bet. My brand of change is probably more conservative than some Calbuzz readers would like, but I’ve spoken out clearly on my positions and will continue to do so through the General Election.

Tom Campbell: Whaddya Mean I’m No Change?

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

campbellprofessorAfter publication of our piece, “Gov’s Race Lacks a Change Candidate,” here and in the L.A. Times, we heard from several of the candidates for governor who, um, mildly disagreed with our trenchant analysis. The Calbuzz Department of Fair and Balanced Journalism & Customer Service Outsourcing passed their comments on to the newsroom, which today presents a response from Republican wannabe governor Tom Campbell.

Dear Calbuzz,

While I unquestionably agree (of course) with the nice things you say about my specificity in trying to deal with the state’s problems, I think most of your readers would disagree with you that my approach “boil[s] down to more efficient management of the status quo.”

In 2005, as California’s Finance Director, I authored the most sweeping ballot reform of California’s broken budget system in at least the last quarter century. The idea – which I am still proposing in this campaign – is modeled after Gramm Rudman at the federal level.

My proposal is that when state revenues grow faster than what it necessary to cover the previous year’s spending, adjusted for inflation and population, the extra goes into a reserve, which can only be used when revenues fall as they are now. During an impasse, the previous budget continues automatically. If revenues aren’t sufficient, then all items would be cut, in equal percentages, across-the-board.

Unfortunately, in 2005, this revolutionary idea (Prop 76) was defeated.  If it had been adopted, California would have avoided the budget crisis of the last two years – we’d actually be in balance, because our spending would never have shot up like a rocket when the years were good; and when the years turned bad, we would have had a reserve on which to draw.

More recently, in order to save the state billions, I also proposed a sweeping, innovative overhaul of our state’s health insurance system based on free market principles, which can be read in detail at www.campbell.org.

darwinThese are the types of solutions I am offering – innovative, market-oriented overhauls of the way our state does business.  When you look at the mess we’re in, it’s hard to imagine proposing anything else.

Best Wishes,

Editors note: There were no injuries.