Excerpts Spotlight Differences

Dan Borenstein, political editor for the Contra Costa Times: Senator, you are more conservative than most Californians. During your Assembly career, you took on your own party’s candidate (former Gov. Pete) Wilson for backing taxes. You voted against banning assault weapons, against banning coastlines from offshore drilling and against employment discrimination protection for people stricken with AIDS, and you opposed abortion rights. Because of the quirky nature of the recall process, you could be elected with a small plurality. Is it appropriate and should a recall be a mechanism for replacing a governor with a hard-core Republican?

McClintock: I think that you forget I was the top Republican vote-getter last year. I received more total votes than any Republican on the ballot last year, and the closest election in California history, despite the fact that I ran against a multimillionaire outspending me by 5 to 1. The district electing me by a double-digit landslide in the year 2000 to the state Senate was voting for Al Gore for president, so I think that the -- my focus has always been on the fiscal policy of the state of California. I think that that focus is now resonating across a broad cross-section of California voters. I am the one candidate who has taken the no-tax pledge. I will not raise taxes under any circumstances. This state is already spending a larger portion of people’s earnings than at any time in history. I pointed out on many occasions within moments of taking the oath of office, I will rescind the governor’s illegal tripling of the car tax and then act to void the $42 billion of overpriced electricity contracts.

Randy Shandobil of KTVU-TV: For our first rebuttal, we go to Arianna Huffington. You have 30 seconds.

Huffington: Tom, that would be very convincing talking about fiscal property. If you had taken on the Bush administration where -- the orgy of fiscal responsibility going on in Washington. It does not make much sense for the Republicans to talk about the fiscal irresponsibility of Gov. Gray Davis ignoring the budget in Washington by your own party.

Bustamante: The only thing that I would like to say is that I think that the question illustrated the differences exactly between the candidacies and the people here. I believe that I bring a certain set of values to this position. Whether you are going to be against offshore oil, whether you are going to make sure that we protect and defend a woman’s right to choose, and make sure that we provide good public education. I think that is what the people in the state of California are looking for in a governor.

Ueberroth: The recall process started out as a different kind of process for me. I did not know if it was a good thing. I think it has become a mandate. I think that the mandate from the voters says that it has to be changed and we’re out of money. I do not disagree with much of what Tom said. We’re out of money. We’re getting worse out of money. We’re going to be in a lot worse trouble in the next year if we do not balance the budget, if we do not start to get jobs back into California, and if we get jobs back into California, the Californians can go to work.

Camejo: We have the highest income that California has had over the last five years, way above what normally comes in, we should be sitting on reserves or surplus today to end up with a massive deficit, unacceptable. Today we have the greatest gross domestic product in the United States and the Republicans create the most massive deficit.

These two parties are dysfunctional. We need alternatives and fiscal responsibility. The question was is it good to have someone elected with a small percentage? It is wrong.

Pilar Morreno, La Opinion: Mr. Ueberroth, your philosophy seems to expect business to do the right thing, pay fair wages and benefits. You say that the way to better the situation for working people is to make it easier for businesses to make profits. Many doubt the ability of business to do the rIght thing and say that government intervention is often necessary. What is the proper role of government?

Ueberroth: Basically, businesses pay salaries. Salaries of workers pay Sacramento. It is real simple. A job Is how Sacramento is run. And we are in this crisis time now, we’re driving jobs out of the state. Businesses are sitting here, saying, well, we’ll take some jobs out of the state, or they’ll take their whole companies out of the state. And I appeal to the people who have lost their jobs, who have nothing, and say to it, let’s criticize corporations. No corporation is perfect. But the real solutions to California are -- take this budget, we’ve overspent. I agree with Peter. We’ve overspent and been on a spending binge. Tighten the belt. It will be tough. Get jobs back in the state. Quit being the second-least friendly state for jobs.

Morreno: But even during the good times, some businesses -- I’m sorry, some people, some workers were making less than minimum wage or around minimum wage, were without health benefits. Is the governor able to do anything for these people?

Ueberroth: Cannot do anything without the money. We’re out of money. We’ve proven it. We have a budget that does not make sense. The voters know it does not make sense. It is patched up. It is worrying about the future. They’re not really taking care of the budget. If we do not fix it, there will be less money for workers, less money for health care and education. And the only way that you pay the bills, is you pay the bills with jobs.

Bustamante: You know, in the state of California, if you walk outside of this building, if you are held up and the person takes your wallet, that person goes to jail. If you are able to hold up 34 million people, somehow that is good business. I don’t think so. I think that the energy crisis, I was there at the time, I voted for it. It was a mistake. The deregulation of energy has been a mistake at every single state. We need to ensure we have the kind of legislation to protect utilities and basic services for California and for the people of California. And if they do not do it, then we have to make sure to impose that on those employers.

Camejo: Corporations are having a massive criminal problem. We have the Enrons and the Worldcoms. There is something breaking down. The rule of law is breaking down. In California we have lowered the taxes on corporations on a straight line down. They are paying half of what they were paying just 16 years ago. The richest people in California, taxes are lowered while your taxes are going higher, the average person. Where is the money to solve this problem? (unintelligible).... In the corporations and among the richest people paying the lowest tax rates (unintelligible) ... you are willing to go there, you cannot balance the budget.

Huffington: I find it surprising that Peter Ueberroth would not mention the fact that there are so many corporate loopholes right now that basically about $5 billion of revenue could come to the state of California if only as governor one of us would close those loopholes. And also it does not surprise me that this is his position, given that Peter has maxed out to the Bush-Cheney reelection committee. I mean, how dumb is that on a scale of 1 to 10?

Shandobil: Unfortunately, you will not get a chance to answer that question.

McClintock: This discussion amazes me. We’ve lost nearly a third of a million jobs in this state, when some insurance companies announced they were moving to Jacksonville wIth 400 jobs, their CEO was interviewed on television, saying this is not a complicated decision. The sales tax is 6%, and it costs $40 to register your car. If we want to bring jobs back, we have to reduce taxes. I disagree with the governor who said that he felt that taxes were moderately low in this state. That is horse manure.

John Myers, Sacramento bureau chief of KQED-FM : You proposed that the state tax go from (unintelligible) for the wealthy. That is a big jump to make in one year, from 9% to 14.3%. How do you justify that increase? If it is wealthy today, could it be the middle class tomorrow?

Camejo: The raise I’m proposing for them would make them even with what the poorest people pay. What absolutely amazes me is that people are willing to see the poorest people in California, making $15,000 a year, pay 11.3% of their income in taxes but say that the rich should have to pay it. The fact is I’m for a fair tax, which is that the wealthiest people in California should be paying the same that you are, the average person. That would balance the budget. That is where we have to go. We also have to get rid of waste and the loopholes that Arianna Huffington referred to. But there is no will. The Democrats and Republicans are at the service of the people who fund them. That is the difficult problem that we now face. That is, they are allowing these crises to happen and they are cutting education, health care and all of the services that we need. People have to choose. What do you want? Lower the taxes for the rich? Give them everything? Or allow these services to continue and protect education in California?

Myers: But Mr. Camejo, how do you get Republicans like Mr. McClintock to vote for that?

Camejo: I will stand with Cruz Bustamante on this, he had the courage to say if we cannot get the right kind of tax structure, let’s go to the people. I will tell you who will vote for a fair tax in California, the people in California. It is about time. We have one third of 1% of the people of California get 20% of the income, $200 billion and they pay lower taxes than you do. That is not right. And the Democrats and Republicans have allowed that to happen. That is why we have to have the Green Party here and a voice heard to challenge the corporate domination and the money domination of our political system.

Ueberroth: Well, I, you know, taxing the rich, I’ve been fortunate in California that I made more money than I thought that I would. I will not argue much about that. We talked about corporations. Every recovery ever in this country, ever, ever, ever in this state or any other state, comes on small and medium-sized businesses. And you want to know that those are called corporations. And that is what they’re doing. And we’re -- with workers’ comp, all of the things at that we’re doing, the burdens that you want to put on the people, they are taking their jobs and leaving the state.

McClintock: This state is not suffering a revenue problem. This state spends a larger portion of your earnings than any time in its history and delivers less with that than any time in the history. In the four years of administration, while inflation and population have grown 21%, the revenues have grown 25%. It is not a revenue problem. The expenditures are growing 40%. In the same period we have not seen the increase in school performance, electricity, water storage, all of the things that we pay through the nose for this government to provide.

Bustamante: One of the problems that we have, we have companies like Wal-Mart who, at the same time they hire people, they give them a piece of paper and say here is the way that you can apply for food stamps and public health-care benefits. People have already paid because we have a social contract here in the United States. That social contract is that by the time you get to the end of the week, you ought to have enough to be able to take care of your family and not worry about a sick child, either. I think it is putting the responsibility on employers like that. Whether you take money out of the taxpayers front or back pocket, it is still out of their pocket.

HuffIngton: One of the problems we have in California is we rely on income taxes and sales taxes so much and not enough on property taxes. As governor, I will tax the electrified way of Prop. 13 and while protecting citizen, homeowners, fixed income and seniors, I would make sure that wealthy homeowners pay their fair share. Warren Buffett suggested it, I’ll take his advice.

Borenstein: Ms. Huffington, you have said “we ought to stop the way that Prop. 13 is being used to artificially lower the tax burden on corporations and wealthy homeowners.” Specifically, how would you change Prop. 13 to raise property taxes for those two groups?

Huffington: Well, first of all, Dan, when it comes to commercial property taxes, it would not be raising them. It would be fairly assessing commercial properties, closing the loopholes that all of those interests have actually bought by buying politicians. And as a result, make sure that at the time of purchase they are fairly assessed. And also, when it comes to homeowners, as I’ve said earlier, while protecting the intent of Prop. 13, we need to root out the abuses, the abuses making it possible for someone like Warren Buffett to have a $4-million home and pay $2,000 in property taxes. I believe that is what the California people want. And they want an independent leader who will actually speak to that, instead of simply pandering and watching the opinion polls and refusing to tell the people the truth.

Borenstein: I’m not sure I heard in your answer how you would do it, especially with regard to the wealthy homeowners, I did not hear a specific --

Huffington: I will do it by appointing a commission to look at what the cut-off level would be, at what level of the purchase price of the house, and the income of the homeowner. Because we need to take both into account so that we never again get into the situation where people on fixed incomes, or seniors have to sell their homes in order to pay their property taxes.

Borenstein: Are you saying tie property taxes to income?

Huffington: I’m saying that it will be a combination of the price of the house, the income of the homeowner and making sure that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes.

McClintock: I do. I’ll let you in on a secret about business taxes. Businesses do not pay taxes, they pay taxes through you as a consumer in higher prices, through you as an employee, through lower wages or through you as an investor in lower earnings, most investors are not fat cats. That is mom and dad’s retirement fund we’re talking about. If you want to know what Prop. 13 has done, to save your home, multiply the value of the home by 2.6%; that is the property tax bill if they allow Prop. 13.

Ueberroth: I agree with Tom on the fact that we have a spending binge. The people in California know it. We will not solve it by letting taxes eat -- the tax -- the tax people eat at Prop. 13. Those people in California want to have a movement. Fifty seven percent have. But that is where they build their value for their family. Some of them, with low interest rates, are starting to borrow on that. I’ll protect that with every ounce I’ve got. California homes cannot be taxed like everything else that we do. Everything else is taxed.

Camejo: Property taxes are not the -- the present law is not working. We have some people paying a very high percentage of their income for the property taxes. A young couple goes out, buys a new home and they will pay 20 times the rate of taxes that Warren Buffett pays as a billionaire, and I think that he did us a service for pointing it out and Arnold Schwarzenegger told him to shut up. I say give the man a microphone. Let’s hear more from him. This is unjust. We have to protect, and lower property taxes to make it fair.

Bustamante: I oppose an increase in property taxes. I believe there is an equity developing over the last many years with the Prop. 13, and that is that the largest amount of property taxes now being paid are by residents. And that the commercial properties, because of the -- not changing ownership -- it’s been done through some kind of a share exchange or other kinds of mechanisms where the ownership did not change, as a result many of those properties never got reassessed and there is a -- less money being paid on the commercial side than on the residential side now.

Shandobil: Just yesterday a Southern California Indian tribe announced that it was going to give your campaign and committee supporting your campaign $2 million, in addition to $1.5 million that other tribes have given you over the years. And the timing is interesting, because just last week after meeting with tribes, you told some reporters that you compared tribal casinos to Hewlett-Packard. I’ll read a quote. You said, “We do not put a limitation on Hewlett-Packard, we do not say that you can only sell so many computers.” My question is are you saying that you would allow tribes to open new casinos and expand slots?

Bustamante: I’m very, very proud, first of all of the support that I’ve received from tribal governments. tribal governments, I’ve been involved with them for over 20 years. I visited reservations when they lived in shacks, in abandoned cars, there was 95% poverty, gaming has been an opportunity for them to expand options, put people to work, put their kids through school. So I was with them many, many years before they are in their present condition. Secondary, more importantly I think, I will be a head, the head, if I get a chance to be, the head of this government. And I will give them the respect that they deserve in working out arrangements. The rules are set. Only federally recognized tribes and federally recognized land is eligible to have gaming, and both the voters of this state have twice agreed to do that.

Shandobil: Well, the governor does have some discretion over some decisions involving tribes. And surely you have to recognize that if you were governor, the first time a decision involving the tribes came up, you would remember they gave you $2 million.

Bustamante: You know, the tribes are, I believe, they are showing the same respect that I showed them during the time when they had nothing. When they had nothing, and I remember going to those reservations, that I mentioned earlier, when they had nothing. And now that I’m running, I think that they are showing their friendship by helping me in trying to basically level the playing field by those candidates who are multimillionaires. I do not have that kind of wealth. And I have the opportunity now to be able to level the playing field by having a tremendous number of people, both from the California Indian tribes, as well as labor to help me.

Camejo: You know, casinos, I would never accept money from casinos, tobacco companies or energy companies, whatever. Once you accept money from them, there is a compromise there. The truth is, casinos are not a good thing. They are a regressive tax. Of course, deep inside me, I have to feel some sympathy for the Native Americans who have finally found a way, but it is the wrong way, spreading casinos over America, every community. It is damaging to our society, not helpful.

Huffington: It is nothing but legalized bribery, you have made a mockery of campaign finance laws by using a ludicrous loophole to get that money into your campaign and bypass the limits and it is really absolutely absurd as governor of California you would continue to deprive our general funds of taxes.

Bustamante: Tell me how you really feel.

Huffington: I will.

McClintock: On the policy, I believe that we made a promise to the California Indians a century ago that they would have sovereignty on their reservation lands, and it means that local and state jurisdictions end at the reservation boundary but I agree with Arianna receiving millions of dollars through a suspect hole in the law circumvents the will of the people in establishing campaign finance law in the last election. That is what I on to. Technically I have the same kind of committee. Our people believe it is illegal. If it is legal, it is on the shady side of the law.

Shandobil: time Is up. finally, we go to peter Ueberroth

Ueberroth: If he wants to accept money from any special Interest group, I’m not going to criticize him. he will do what he will do. basically, we’re avoiding Issues and not talking about the real stuff. jobs are what are real stuff. that Is how we pay the bills in Sacramento. It takes sales tax and the pay check to pay the bills here. we’re driving jobs out with all of the special interests, and we do not -- we will not succeed if we do not stop it and balance the budget. Simple as that

Morreno: This is to all of you. In 1994, did you vote for or against Proposition 187, which restricted health and education benefits for undocumented immigrants and would you do the same today?

Shandobil: Peter Ueberroth, you get the first crack, 15 seconds or less.

Ueberroth: The federal government decides what we do on our borders, they decided to bring illegal immigrant noose our country, into our state. And they have to pay for it. So I’m not for taking education away or any health care away. But we have the borders. We have to get the federal government to pay for it.

Huffington: I voted against it. But I did not speak out against it. Because at the time I was a candidate’s wife rather than a candidate. I much prefer being a candidate.

Bustamante: I voted against Proposition 187. And since that, time has proven that the premise was wrong. Today immigrants pay $1,400 more a year than they receive in benefits.

Camejo: I’m opposed to 187. I voted against it, considering it unconstitutional, violation to U.N. charter, a denial to children to go to school, punish them for the economic problems their parents suffered.

McClintock: I voted for Proposition 187, I campaigned for it. It never had a fair day in court because this governor refused to defend it. I intend to see that it gets that fair day in court.

*

Video excerpts from the first recall debate are available at www.latimes.com/recall.