Steve Poizner has been running hard to the Right in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary, frantically trying to claim the anti-tax banner for himself.

I'm not one to complain about Republican candidates calling for pro-growth tax reform instead of tax hikes. But words come easily to politicians. What really matters is actions.

And it's Poizner's actions in recent years that make it hard to take his anti-tax stances very seriously.

In 2000, Poizner supported Prop. 39 (and gave almost $200,000 to the campaign), which lowered the threshold for passing local school bonds from two-thirds to just 55%. As a result, local school districts were able to pass  almost $40 billion in new bonds in the next election cycle. Everyone has their opinion on local school bonds, and better local bonds than statewide ones, I suppose.

But what isn't arguable is Prop. 39 was placed on the ballot because the two-thirds majority was getting in the way of passing school bonds. The rationale was it wasn't fair to hold bond-funded improvements hostage when virtually all local bonds initiatives were able to draw support in the 55%-and-above range.

This argument is almost indistinguishable from the argument made in support of abolishing the two-thirds requirement for the legislature to enact a budget and tax increases.

If Poizner supported Prop. 39, why should we believe he won't also come around to supporting a reduction of the two-thirds threshold for a budget for similar reasons?

Furthermore, has Poizner repudiated his support of Prop. 39? If not, why not? It was that support that led the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to take the extraordinary step of urging members to withhold their vote from Poizner during his 2004 Assembly run, when he also opposed the Bush tax cuts.

And it's not as if that is an isolated example. A few years later, in 2006, Poizner spearheaded a proposed ballot initiative to abolish Prop. 13's protections on local property taxes. If Poizner had had his way, local parcel taxes could be passed by 55%of the vote, instead of the two-thirds majority mandated by Prop. 13. 

Again, if Mr. Poizner has repudiated that idea, it's news to me. If he has, I think he owed voters an explanation.

Add that in with Poizner flip-flop on the open primary, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion he is merely tailoring his views to win favor with the more conservative GOP primary voting universe. Just like a certain Austrian immigrant did in 2003.

Poizner may win the nomination, and if he does, I really hope this rightward shift in his beliefs is genuine. But he and his campaign should expect a level of skepticism in light of his track record, and provide some honest answers to explain his move to the Right.