Last Saturday, the members of the Executive Committee of the California Republican Party met at the Sacramento Convention Center and voted overwhelmingly to oppose all of the ballot propositions, 1A-1F, that are on the May Special Election ballot. These measures appear as a result of a budget deal that saw California taxpayers smacked with higher income and sales taxes, as well as higher car taxes and, for those with children, a significant reduction in the child tax credit that taxpaying parents now enjoy. The ballot package rejected by the State GOP includes extending those taxes even longer. In total, if advocates get their way, every family in California will be paying nearly $4,000 on average in higher taxes. And for what? Simply put, the package of measures on the ballot does not solve the structural problems of our state, according to the Legislative Analyst, there will be at least an $8 billion shortfall, even if they fail (and he presumes an increase in revenues from increasing tax rates).
First and foremost, I have read some “spin” that seeks to minimize the CRP’s Executive Committee as a insignificant – such as a statement from Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee “I’ve never met a tax hike I wouldn’t support” Baca who characterizes the ExComm as a “small group of party insiders” – which shows how out of touch the Sheriff is with his own party’s political structure. For the benefit of FR readers, I would like to emphasize that the CRP’s Executive Committee, which is nearly five times the size of our Board of Directors, is made up of representatives of all of the various constituency groups of the party – on it are the Governor and Insurance Commissioner, and all of our nominees for statewide office and U.S. Senate. It includes representatives of the State Senate, State Assembly and U.S. House Republican caucuses. Furthermore, it includes substantial representation from our state’s County Party Chairmen, the leaders of our Republican statewide volunteer organizations, and more. Every living past Chairman of the Party is an ex-officio voting member of ExComm, as well. So, in short, it is unfair to attempt to trivialize or minimize the importance or impact of this key party committee in that way that those who do not like decisions that it has just made have sought to do.
Which is a great transition back to the meeting itself.
After a morning session filled with presentations and information-sharing to and between ExComm Members, the part of the meeting that would be of interest to you would be the 2pm formal ExComm meeting where the only item of business on the agenda was the consideration of the Initiatives Committee report – which included an approval of an endorsement of Senator George Runner’s Anti-Voter Fraud measure which is at its early stages of planning and qualification, and also contained a recommendation for all of the ballot measures – 1A through 1F – to be opposed as a package. Runner’s measure was endorsed without objection – Senator Runner spoke to the group and was well received.
CRP Chairman Ron Nehring invited Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines to come forward to give an update on how things were going for Assembly Republicans. Villines, who brought his colleague, Roger Niello, with him to the meeting, spend over a half hour talking to the ExComm about the big budget/big taxes/open primary measure, and why, while it was far from what he felt was an ideal plan, he felt that it was the best deal that was going to be available given the challenges facing state government. At least five times Villines raised the specter of the Democrats passing a majority-vote budget with taxes if he and five of his colleagues had not signed off on the deal (which rather infamously includes over $30 billion in taxes, about half of which voters can reject with a NO vote on Proposition 1A). Many experts on the State Constitution, including Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, don’t think that a majority-vote tax increase would hold muster with the courts.
I have to admit – it was very strange and odd hearing Villines emphatically and in a heartfelt way pitch what I think is a terrible plan. I mean, I have read some things he has written, and heard him on the radio – but watching it happen in person was almost surreal. After all, Villines had been such a vocal and articulate critic of any tax increases, making the case (many times on this website even) that raising taxes was not only ideologically wrong, but also in a very practical sense non-workable because higher tax rates actually reduce government revenues. I actually found myself feeling like perhaps my friend Mike Villines had truly paid the ultimate price for taking on the position of leader – being thrust into the center of a dysfunctional budget negotiation process that so emphasizes making “deals” regardless of the merits of the actual deal. I found myself saying to myself, “It broke him – the system took a good man in and chewed him up.”
Villines certainly gets the “moxie” award for coming to speak, and not only did he acknowledge several times in his remarks that he know that trying to convince the ExComm to support the Propositions was not going to happen, but he also managed to weather a blistering assault from former CRP Chairman and current National Committeeman Shawn Steel. It was also a bit odd, in the midst of the debate, to watch CRP Vice Chairman Tom Del Becarro, like a college professor on steroids, lecture to Villines and Niello (and the rest of us) as to why increasing tax rates was such a bad idea. Del Becarro, of course, made a lot of sense.
The committee was very polite to Villines, but you could see a lot of body language indicating the level of disagreement with Villines’ analysis and explanation of the deal he supported and the resulting ballot measures. OK, enough on Villines….
Chairman Nehring invited the two candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor to speak to the ExComm (former Congressman Tom Campbell and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner – Meg Whitman had a conflict and could not attend). Campbell, in his always magnanimous and polite form, made the case to committee members for 1A for about seven minutes. He was followed by Poizner who for about the same amount of time making a fiery and passionate speech to his ExComm colleagues about why the budget deal was bad and why all six of the ballot measures should be rejected. His remarks were met repeatedly with rousing support from the committee and a lot of applause when he was finished. Given that Poizner was, in essence, rebutting over 40 minutes of Yes on 1A rhetoric, he did a very capable job.
In additional to Poizner and Del Becarro, CRA President and Initiatives Committee Chairman Mike Spence made a strong case to the ExComm about why the ballot measures were not only all bad public policy, but also the importance of the GOP opposing them as a package, making the case that they were all part of a bad budget deal. CRP Treasurer Keith Carlson followed Spence with his own pointed speech to the ExComm on the need to oppose all of the measures.
The only ExComm Member in the audience who rose to speak against opposing all of the measure was Charles Munger, who had done quite a bit of analysis on the measures, and who felt that a number of the individual measures merited support from the party. I recall him saying that simply saying that a measure was bad, that achieved overwhelming GOP support in the legislature, simply because it was part of an overall budget deal, and Republicans objected to other parts, was not a good posture for the party to take. Right in the middle of Munger’s remarks, he took and impromptu survey of the committee, asking for a show of hands for and against separating out some of the measures for individual consideration. The response was so overwhelmingly against separating out individual members that Munger quickly stopped talking and took his seat. He was followed by an advocate of Proposition 1F who also asked for show of hands to separate that one measure out for separate consideration – very few hands went up.
The committee was set and determined to oppose Propositions 1A – 1F – and they then did so. It was a voice vote, so there is no exact count available. But it was an overwhelming majority – and in so voting, they placed the California Republican Party officially on record opposing what is being called “The Burrito” – an analogy to a bunch of difference measures all being “rolling into one tortilla” by proponents, trying to pass them all.
After the meeting, Chairman Nehring told me,
Of course, the big question remaining is what kind of resources party leaders will be able to raise to help communicate the GOP’s message of opposition to special election voters. And perhaps the less-expensive postal rates that are available to the state party under federal law will be an enticement to either Poizner or Whitman, both of are considering whether to use some of their considerable resources to educate voters on the tax increase implications of the ballot proposition package. Whitman opposes Propositions 1A, 1B and 1C – and as I said above, Poizner opposes the entire package.
After the meeting, Poizner put out a release congratulating the Party on its adoption of opposition to the measures, saying ““The Republican Party’s opposition to these flawed ballot measures and the $16 billion in taxes hidden in Proposition 1A is a victory for the working families of California who would shoulder the financial burden these propositions would impose. I’m gratified that the Executive Committee agreed with me that all six measures deserved to be opposed.”
I caught up with Meg Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak, who after pointing out that Whitman was first (among she and Poizner) to come out against 1A, also said that Whitman was very proud of her party for opposing Propositions 1A – 1C, which she feels are very bad public policy for California.
Keith Carlson, the party’s popular Treasurer, summed things up well. “Sacramento politicians have thoroughly messed up our state’s budget. To help fix their overspending, they’re asking the voters to approve a series of ‘proposition budget band-aids’. Worse still, they’ve secretly tied a $16 billion increase to their bail-out plan. Today the California Republican Party said, “enough’s enough – vote NO on the politician bail out; vote NO on Propositions 1A-1F.”
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.