Elected Officials from Ventura County Warn 4th CD Voters about McClintock
Posted by: Jeff Flint | 05/15/2008 2:54 PM
In a letter hitting voters recently, former elected officials from Tom McClintock's "home district" in Ventura County are warning 4th Congressional District voters about what kind of representative Tom McClintock is.
I suspect that this letter will have some impact with some segments of the voters considering this race. The most solid portion of Tom's base voters are probably not impacted by this letter much, but a good chunk of voters will find this troubling:
Here's the text of the letter:
I suspect that this letter will have some impact with some segments of the voters considering this race. The most solid portion of Tom's base voters are probably not impacted by this letter much, but a good chunk of voters will find this troubling:
Here's the text of the letter:
Dear Fellow Republicans,
As lifelong Republicans and former local elected officials in Tom McClintock's Southern California district, we've watched Tom evolve over the years.
When he was first elected, he was an earnest and enthusiastic young man anxious to serve his constituents. But now, after 22 years in political office, he has become bitter and hostile, obsessed with preserving his political career and disinterested in representing the people who elected him.
His fellow Republicans legislators describe him as "arrogant" and "abrasive.' He often quotes Abraham Lincoln, but he does not emulate Lincoln's ability to solve problems by bringing people together. Instead, Tom pushes them apart. He has blocked legislation that would have benefited our area simply because it was authored by the "other" party, clinging to partisan divisiveness at the expense of his constituency.
When we would visit Tom's office asking for assistance with local problems, he was unwilling to help, unless there was something in it for him. He said "no" to a private-public partnership for a home for abused children, but readily sponsored legislation giving huge tax breaks to the owners of milliondollar Arabian horses. Among these two, it's easy to see which group of people donate to political campaigns and which don't.
Tom hasn't lived in the District for years, but still continues to collect hundreds of thousands of tax-free dollars in living expenses as though he were still paying for a home down here. Meanwhile, he claims to be the guardian of our tax dollars.
Maybe Tom McClintock has changed because he has never held a job outside politics, has never run a business or had to worry about health insurance. After 22 years in office, he's lost touch with real people.
Now his time is up in the State Senate and he's desperate for another political office. He couldn't get re-elected down here, so he's chosen your congressional district.
Be warned, Tom McClintock has no interest in representing your area. He doesn't know your issues or care about your problems. This is all about him and his obsession to stay on the government payroll.
From our personal experience, we believe he will disappoint you. We've got history to prove it.
s/ Madge Schaefer, Former Mayor, Thousand Oaks, Former Supervisor, Ventura County
s/ Greg Stratton, Former Mayor, Simi Valley, Former Simi Valley School Board Member
s/ Judy Mikels, Former Councilmember, Simi Valley, Former Supervisor, Ventura County
CATEGORY:
4th Congressional District Race
From what I am hearing much of this Ose mail is hitting a little late: The absentee votes are being cast at record levels. This election may be over before Mr. Ose can get his entire message out!
John
PS: Of course Bob is thrilled to see this kind of stuff because it can only help Charlie in the fall.
I don't think this will help. I don't have access to polls but I suspect Ose is going to win the primary. I actually think Charlie would do much better against Tom than Doug but I don't think he'll get the chance to find out.
One thing for sure: If McClintock loses either the primary or the general election his career in California politics will be pretty much over.
Jeff - your headline is deceiving. None of the Liberals that this post lists are elected - they are all out of office.
Please strive to be more accurate in your headlines.
You may want to find out why they, like your friend Tony Quinn have such an animus against Tom McClintock.
But, for Ose - this is too little too late. Have a good fundriaser at Frank's house tonight.
Aaron: How did you determine they were liberals...oh wait, everyone who opposed McClintock is a liberal.
If the statements were not made to me in confidence, I could list to you the names of the majority of Tom collegaues in the State Senate GOP caucus today, including many strong conservatives, who took the time to thank me for opposing Tom and saying about him what they all wished they could say in public.
Maybe the problem is not with me, these elected officials, or Tony Quinn. Maybe the problem is with Tom?
Only 19 more days of former Sacramento Congressman Doug Ose's assault of the character and good name of Tom McClintock. It will be a blessed silence, and we will be back to normal where we NEVER see neither hide nor hair of Ose again.
This is why we can not get good people to run for office because we have sleezy politicians sliming good men rather than debating the issues. Why would anyone want to take their family through this?
This is shameful and discusting... JUST DEBATE THE ISSURE!!!! Enouth is enough!
For me, there is no jubilation to read this letter. Yet the information in this letter is no surprise. Tom has come across to me as aloof and detached. I need someone who cares about his constituents.
Aaron knows that I was no fan of Doolittle. Yet he was set up locally to be responsive to constituent needs. His office literally saved the day when it looked like my wife and I were not going to take our dream cruise together. Aaron knows that story and I will not retell that here.
I think Tom is better suited to do policy wonking as a Senior fellow at Heritage Foundation or AEI. There are greener pastures for him...
Tom...aloof and detached?
Never seen that.
It's Tom who stays an hour or so after every debate answering questions, signing autographs, etc. Ose is seen out in the parking lot, going over the (long) list of what went wrong THAT night with his million-dollar consulting team.
These FORMER officials dare to bring up Lincoln and his ability to "solve problems by bringing people together." Jeepers they make Lincoln sound like a frontier version of Bill Clinton! Here's what Lincoln said about compromise: "By no act or complicity of mine shall the Republican party become a mere sucked egg, all shell and no principle in it." Lord knows Doug Ose sucked every pork barrel, rice subsidy and whatever the hell else he could get his lips around during his stint in Congress.
I'm sorry to inform the sun-baked Ventura county crowd but they need to read up a bit on our Grand OLD Party and get the facts straight before they engage in revisionist psycho babble. We are the party of principle not deal making.
The above quote is from "Lincoln" David Herbert Donald's wonderful one-volume account, page 270. This book would be an excellent place for Ose, the Ventura County crowd an all other RHINOS to start to read about the Republican Party and that for which it stands.
Bill,
You must be new to this list: Folks here have a real tough time with facts and issues...
NOW you expect them to understand history??
Great quote though.
John
Mr. Flint - I was referring to the three ex-supes quoted in this piece. Please discontinue the use of a broad brush.
If those Senators can't go public with their criticisms - what weight does it bear? How does that help Ose?
As a Ventura County resident and Republican, I think the voters in CD 4 should pay close attention to the warning from Schaefer, Stratton and Mikels.
Tom has not delivered one thing to constituents in his district. His “black – white” view of the world has marginalized him in Sacramento. Politics is the art of principle plus compromise. In fact, he gets very little respect from any of the dealmakers in the State. Yes, he knows his budget battle, but, so what if he always loses the budget war. He is always the fool.
Just ask Tom do state one thing he has done to make Ventura County a better place to live? Freeways.... no; health care..... no; public safety....no; our new University.....no!
His long record of always running for the next office (and losing) should tell you something.
Plus, he is just not a nice person. Meeting with him in his Sacramento office is a difficult experience! Rather than listen to your concerns, he lectures you! At one meeting, he turned his back on the attendees to look at his email. What a guy!
Please do not vote for Tom.... send him a strong message to go get a real job for once in his life!
Wayne
Wayne,
A simple question: How much will you pay the DMV in vehicle registrations this year?
John
John,
I assume you're referring to the car tax. Don't forget to let everyone know that while Tom supported it, he voted against the bill to implement it. Oh how very Kerryest!
Since you asked, and wanted something to read this morning I have copied below the history of the battle for car tax reductions. You be the judge of Senator McClintock's efforts and effectiveness.
JOHN
Time line for the Car tax reduction
February 5, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock introduces AB 1776 which would, over a 5-year period, abolish the vehicle license fee on California vehicles. Democratic leaders announce shortly thereafter that this bill was “dead on arrival.”
February 18, 1998—LAO publishes report on the Vehicle License Fee examining its impact on state and local budgets. http://www.lao.ca.gov/p_and_i_1998/part_5c_vlf_pandi98.html
April 2, 1998—AB 1776 is referred to the Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation. No hearing was given for this bill despite numerous amendments over the course of two months.
April 28, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock introduces ACA 45 which would, over a 5-year period, abolish the vehicle license fee on California vehicles, prevent the imposition of future fees with a two-thirds vote and provide Constitutional protections for local Government funding.
May 7, 1998—ACA 45 is doubled-referred to the Assembly Committees on Revenue and Taxation and Transportation. Neither committee gave a hearing for this bill.
May 8, 1998--Assembly Speaker Villaraigosa was asked if he was ready to give back the car tax to California’s taxpayers. He responded: "We do give it back when we spend it for them."
May 28, 1998—Governor Wilson proposes a substantial reduction of the car tax with a series of complex triggers and restrictions on other tax cuts.
May 28, 1998—Assemblyman McClintock proposes amendments to AB 1656 (Ducheny) which would secure the money necessary to hold local governments harmless for the loss of VLF revenue that comes with the abolition the hated Car Tax. The amendments were tabled on a vote of 37-33.
July 7, 1998—A motion to withdraw ACA 45 from committee fails on the Assembly floor by a vote of 33-21 (41 votes needed for withdrawal).
August 10, 1998—Assemblyman Cardoza amends a shell budget bill (AB 2797) to incorporate language regarding the Vehicle License Fee. As part of the 1998-99 budget agreement, the VLF was permanently reduced by 25 percent beginning in 1999, with the potential of greater reductions beginning in 2001 if General Fund revenues grew faster than projected. The maximum reduction was 67.5 percent, possibly beginning in 2003. Future reductions were to be offset by any alternative tax relief subsequently enacted. The vote on this bill was 75-1 in favor of passage (Assemblyman McClintock voted No).
May 14, 1999—Governor Davis releases May revise setting aside $248 million to help backfill money to local governments to further reduce the car tax. No provision is made for the VLF’s total abolition.
June 16, 1999—AB 1121 by Assemblymember Nakano passed off the Assembly floor by a vote of 70-6 (Assemblymembers Aroner, Bock, Calderon, Floyd, Longville and Migden voted No). As part of the FY 1999-00 budget agreement, the VLF was reduced by a cumulative 35 percent for calendar year 2000 on a one-time basis.
November 2, 1999—Washington state voters pass Initiative 695 calling for the virtual abolition of Washington’s car registration tax and require all future tax increases to be submitted for approval by the voters.
June 22, 2000—The Assembly passes AB 858 (Kuehl) by a vote of 77-1 (Assemblyman Floyd voted No). As part of the 2000-01 budget agreement, the VLF was reduced by a cumulative 67.5 percent beginning in 2001. It required that the additional reduction be sent to vehicle owners as a rebate check for 2001 and 2002. It also eliminated the VLF interaction with alternative tax relief.
June 29, 2000—The Assembly passes AB 511 (Alquist) on a vote of 71-3 (Assemblymen Ackerman, Strickland and McClintock voted No). It appropriated $2.052 billion to implement the rate reduction provided in the 2000-01 budget agreement, however, motorists were required to send in twice what they owed and wait for a rebate check from the DMV.
August 7, 2000—Assemblyman McClintock amends AB 2165 to include VLF offset language. The bill calls for an upfront reduction of the California Vehicle License Fee (VLF) rather than sending out rebate checks for VLF rebates. This bill was originally a bill dealing with textbook sales taxes. The vote in Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee was 6-0 in favor of passage. However, the bill was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee and no further action was taken.
December 4, 2000—Senator McClintock introduces SCA 1. This measure would have, on and after January 1, 2003, precluded the imposition upon a vehicle of any vehicle license fee or any other tax in lieu of a valorem property tax.
December 4, 2000—Senator McClintock introduces Senate Bill 22 with Senator Dunn as the joint author. The bill would amend the way the VLF was rebated to motorists by reducing their tax outright instead of paying the full tax and getting a rebate check later on. The bill saved $45 million in processing costs in issuing rebate checks.
January 4, 2001—SCA 1 was referred to the Senate Committees on Revenue and Taxation and Constitutional Amendments. Despite being amended two times, no action was taken by the committees.
February 26, 2001—SB 22 by Senators McClintock and Dunn passes off the Senate floor 28-0.
April 2, 2001—SB 22 passes Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee on a vote of 8-0.
April 16, 2001—Senator Chesbro replaces Senator Dunn as the joint author of SB 22.
April 19, 2001—The Senate concurs with Assembly Amendments on SB 22 with no opposition.
April 19, 2001—Governor Davis signs SB 22 the same day as it passed of the Senate floor.
May 14, 2002--Governor Davis in his May Revise proposed a doubling of the car tax by reducing the VLF offset from 67.5 percent to 25 percent for the 2003 calendar year. This proposal would have cost motorists $1.276 billion in FY 2002-03.
August 28, 2002—Assemblymember Oropeza amends AB 1105. This measure authorizes the Director of Finance to increase the effective Vehicle Licensing Fee that motorists pay. The Director would first have to determine that “insufficient moneys are available to be transferred from the General Fund to fully fund the offsets”. This measure would in effect triple the Vehicle License Fee. The bill passed off the Senate floor 24-13, but it was not taken up in the Assembly. If it had passed, it would had the effect of tripling the Vehicle License Fee.
January 13, 2003—Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson announces plans to triple the Vehicle License Fee as a means to balance the state budget.
February 4, 2003—Wesson’s VLF restoration vehicle AB 4 1X passes the Senate and is enrolled. As of May 28, the bill was being held at the Assembly desk.
February 18, 2003—Governor Davis’ Deputy Press Secretary, Byron Tucker, stated in the February 18 edition of the Sacramento Bee that “Raising the Vehicle License Fee without bipartisan support jeopardizes future actions that will be necessary to reach a budget compromise this summer.”
March 10, 2003—The Department of Finance and Controller Steve Westly issued a joint legal opinion that concluded that a shortage of state cash can trigger an automatic increase in the fees. The link to the Sacramento Bee story can be accessed at the following link: http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6254454p-7208632c.html
March 25, 2003—Dan Walters reported in his column that “Davis threaten[ed] to veto a bill boosting the vehicle license fees but finally agreeing, in essence, to raise the unpopular levies by decree of lower-level state bureaucrats. Critics quickly dubbed it "immaculate taxation." The entire article can be reached at http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/6338229p-7291451c.html
May 15, 2003—Governor Davis releases his May Revise of the budget which assumes the tripling of the Vehicle License Fee. The May budget revision counts the $4.2 billion raised by this action as a “reduction” in state spending.
June 19, 2003— Assemblyman Campbell releases a Legislative Counsel opinion confirming that current law would not allow an increase in the car tax unless the State Controller failed to do his job or the State of California was shut out of the credit markets for cash.
June 20, 2003— Governor Gray Davis takes the illegal action of tripling the car tax.
July 2003 – Senator McClintock runs in the historic recall election and includes restoring these illegal cuts in the first hours of his new administration.
November 17, 2003 newly elected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the Davis action and restored the 2/3rds reduction the car tax . You can find the press release here: http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/3332/
John,
Thank you for the detailed information. But, alas, I find it a typical McClintock like response - verbose and defensive.
With all due respect, McClintock was running for gov and went after a state wide issue with popular appeal – reducing the VLF.
Again, please focus and stay on point! Provide me with a single example where Tom supported his constituents in Ventura County. Yes, Tom thinks he was elected to represent ALL of California, but he was also elected to represent his constituents.
And I drive a nine year old ranger!
Wayne
My Ranger is also nine years old--a 1997 model with abut 100K miles on it.
Thanks, John, for posting this history.
Look at the budget mess California is in today. How much would the car tax have helped to reduce the state deficit were it still in force? I don't know but we sure have a mess now. Not sure what Tom accomplished, really. We know what cutting taxes without cutting spending does. George Bush has made a science of it.
What Tom has accomplished is saving the average family over $440 per year at a time, AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, that their incomes have NOT increased and they now have to pay $4 per gallon for gas.
The state revenues are up over 37% over five years WITHOUT the car tax money, so if they had it they would just want to spend more.
John
PS for Wayne: That $440 saving applies to EVERY family in Ventura County!
PPS: For Both Bob & Wayne: It is also the largest business tax reduction in state history that came at a time where our economy really needed it!
I'll ask again: How does cutting taxes without cutting spending improve the budget situation?
All I see is that this put us deeper into the hole. Not that I don't personally welcome the reduction in taxes. I do. It's hugely popular, which is Wayne's point. It probably gave Tom a million or more additional votes in the recall election he still lost.
But at a macro state budget level I don't think it's been a good thing.
Bob,
Are you saying that a 37% increase in revenues over five years is not enough of an increase??
John
John,
Please excuse me for my impatience, but I am still waiting to hear from you the one thing that Tom ever did for his constituents in Ventura County?
Public safety (such as expanding our overcrowded county jail)?
Education (our brand new four year state university which is now struggling to stay alive)?
Transportation (such as improving our crowded 101 freeway)?
Health (expanding our local training program for county nurses)?
Sure, these things take money AND leadership. But while other representatives around the state and the country WORK for their constituents and compete for the scarce $s, Tom would rather just say NO THANKS because of his principles.
Still waiting? So will you if you elect Tom.
Wayne
Wayne,
You might have missed the "PS" so I will put it right up front: The annual savings of more than $440 in vehicle registrations applies to ALL the families in Ventura County!
On the highway front, we now have ALL of the sales tax on gasoline going to roads which has brought tens of millions to Ventura County just for local roads, no less the extra state funding.
If you want the federal government running education or if you like Hillary-care then Charlie Brown may be your man!
John
John, oh John,
You are spending way too much of your time on this blog site.
What does Hillary care have to do with supporting Nursing education programs? Ventura county has the worst ratio of Nurses to population in the state and has not gotten the kind of support provided to other districts.
And, how do you link my comment re. Tom's lack of support for the local CSU with having the fed govt running the school systems? This is quite a reach. The UC and CSU systems have provided us with much of the competitive advantage and wealth of our great state.
Also, you should be aware that Tom has opposed most highway improvement projects in Ventura County. The recent improvements which occurred on lewis road and the 23 happened in spite of Tom, not because of any efforts on his part.
Still waiting? And so will you if you elect Tom.
Wayne
Wayne,
I am sorry, I was assuming that you knew that the US Congress was a federal office. I see now why you are so confused about what has happened in Ventura County!
John
Wayne, you say:
What does Hillary care have to do with supporting Nursing education programs?
And, how do you link my comment re. Tom's lack of support for the local CSU with having the fed govt running the school systems? This is quite a reach.
Wayne, there is a great deal of logic to John’s comments on RC. It is a meta-logic that has been successful for the past 25 years or so. It comes right out of Black, Manafort, Stone, & Atwater’s Bible of Winning Political Contests. The cardinal strategy is “to drive up the negatives” of the opponent.
Most people willing to stand for public office have some baggage but not enough to fatally damage them. So there has to be some add-on baggage ginned up to “drive up the negatives”. The ginning of this add-on baggage does not conform to classic logically based discourse. This takes the form of smears based on very loose associations. To the indoctrinated ear, they make perfect sense. To those who are not indoctrinated in that form of discourse, they sound a bit...ummm...unusual...
"Driving up the negatives" has worked for longer than some would care for. It did not work in the recent Miss. special election and it did not work in Indiana. This may be the true bellweather of things to come.