Jon Fleischman

Jon is the elected Vice Chairman, South of the California Republican Party.

FR BlogScan

What is the latest on CA's political blog sites?

Go to FR BlogScan

Authors


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doug LaMalfa
North California
(bio) (email)
 

Jill Buck
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Jennifer Nelson
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Bill Whalen
San Francisco Bay Area
(bio) (email)
 

Tab Berg
Northern California
(bio) (email)
 

Cassandra Pye
Sacramento County
(bio) (email)
 

Tom Ross
Northern California
(bio) (email)
 

 

 

Brandon Powers
Los Angeles County
(bio) (email)
 

Mike Spence
Los Angeles County
(bio) (email)
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry Jantz
San Diego County
(bio) (email)
 

Syndicate this site

Blog/commentary:  

Search by Date

December

FR BlogScan

What is the latest on CA's political blog sites?

Go to FR BlogScan

Tips and Leads

Send our authors tips and leads via e-mail, or send an anonymous tip if you prefer.

The Bear Flag League


Proud Member of
the Bear Flag League
Today is actually: 201412180915Today is: 201412180915

FlashReport Weblog on California Politics

 
 

Which GOPers Supported The Largest Tax Increase In California's History? The list is a lot longer than six, I'm afraid...

 

by Jon Fleischman - Publisher (bio) (email)(print)

 
2-19-2009 4:22 pm
Politics is more like a chess game than a checkers game -- it's complex, and people who want to seriously understand why things happen, and what some of the real motivations are, should take the time to step back, and take things in context.

First and foremost, it's obvious on the face of it to be able to say that the six Republican legislators (Senators Ashburn, Cogdill and Maldonado and Assemblymen Adams, Niello and Villines) who actually voted for the bill that imposed over $14 billion in new taxes were critical to its passage.  Shame on them.  Truly, they have done a tremendous disservice to their state and to their party.

But in taking some time to contemplate the politics of the final hours of this Big 5/Big Taxes deal passing out of the legislature, you have to say, how did it happen?  After all, the votes to pass the plan simply were not there in the State Senate.  You needed three Republicans to support the actual tax increase legislation, and they were one vote shy.  Eleven GOP Senators basically said there was no way there were going up on the tax bill (Aanestad, Benoit, Denham, Dutton, Hollingsworth, Harman, Huff, Runner, Strickland, Walters, Wyland).  Two GOP Senators folded like cheap suits -- Cogdill and Ashburn.  This left two Senators who were "open" to voting for the taxes, and who presented private lists of demands -- Cox and Maldonado.   Frankly, I don't know what was in Cox's bill of particulars, but Maldonado's was quite public -- and one of the major "demands" he wanted to get his vote (the final vote needed) for the taxes was the placement of an open primary on the ballot.  Cox ultimately decided to vote against the deal, but Maldonado's demands were within reach, and so, the question ended up coming down to whether or not the advocates of the Big 5/Big Taxes deal could get enough Dems and Reps to go up on the Maldonado Open Primary measure (it takes a 2/3 vote to put a measure on the ballot).

I should interject at this point, by the way, that an open primary would literally open the floodgates for tax increases in California, as the open primary system is designed to put more political moderates in the legislature -- the kind that would never hold the line on anything, let alone taxes.

Anyways, when you look at this scenario this way, smart people can easily deduce that when you look at the Republican legislators who voted to place the open primary on the ballot, and subtract those away who actually voted for the taxes, you are left with a group of Republican legislators who either supported an open primary because they actually think we should have then, but who also knew that supporting it early this morning was tantamount to supporting the tax increase, since Abel's vote to put that out was tied to the open primary -- or they oppose an open primary, but wanted to help get the Big 5/Big Taxes deal passed.

So, while I invite anyone else to comment with a different view on this, I think it is fair to say that the following Republican legislators supported passing the largest tax increase in any state in the history of our nation as a means to resolve our overspending crisis.  They will wiggle, and try to say, "But I voted against the taxes."

As a sophisticated follower of politics, you should call them on that, and make sure you let them know that "you get it", and that the ONLY reason to vote for the open primary this morning was to induce Maldonado's vote in favor the taxes.

Again, putting aside the six legislators who voted for the taxes directly (and who in this bizarre context may actually get strange brownie points for having the courage to be up front about it, instead of hiding behind mirrors), the legislators who supported the Big 5/Big Taxes plan are:  Senators Dave Cox and Jeff Denham, and Assemblymembers Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Sam Blakeslee, Muke Duvall, Paul Cook, Connie Conway, Bill  Emmerson, Nathan Fletcher, Jean Fuller, Danny Gilmore, Brian Nestande, Jim Nielson, and Cameron Smyth.

You know, a lot of time and stress on the part of a lot of people could have been avoided if this group just said, "look, I know I took a no-new-taxes pledge, but I still think we need this plan" and voted for it.  The way this went down, it amounted to the same think, but with everyone having to lose a lot of sleep.

The pledge actually says that a legislator will oppose tax increases, and efforts to increase taxes.  Clearly supporting Maldonado's non-budget-related "wish list" item, in the context of the budget debate, was supporting, not opposing the effort to raise taxes.

Let's have an honest debate, folks.  It shouldn't take your friendly neighborhood blogger writing up an analysis like this to connect the dots, should it?

If you are a Republican activist and you see one of these legislators at the convention (many may "duck" it), ask them about this, and see if they are straight forward.  Perhaps they will pull you into a corner and tell you their secret "Shhh. Really didn't see any other way out of this mess, and so I really did feel that massive tax increases were a necessary part of a solution..."  They certainly won't put that in a press release.

In closing, let me again thank all of our Republican legislators who voted not only against the actual tax increase bill, but who actually thought the taxes should not be passed, and who opposed efforts to get it passed, including opposing this open primary scheme.

(Oh yes.  Publishing this kind of analysis isn't easy.  Most of these legislators, to varying degrees, are personal friends of mine.  But they all know me -- and that this is my job, just like they have theirs.  Ain't politics a wonderful thing?)
Bookmark and Share

Comments

It is really worse, because these people have basically thrown the Republican Party under the bus, by voting for taxes, what can we say is the difference between us and the Democrats now. We need to unite as a party and cut off the money and support to these Legislators, and actively run challengers against them in the primaries, let them face real Publicans and defend their records on tax hikes for everybody.

The only way the party can survive is through recalling the six socialist sellouts.

Christian and Daniel,

I am dubious that recalls will happen or will succeed, and have no doubt that all or some of the rat-b@$t@rds who voted for the tax increase will never get elected to anything again, but unfortunately the horse has left the barn.

Witness the Massachussets-ification of California.

The Dems will join the GOP in defeating an Open Primary system.

Nancy Pelosi will throw her entire political weight against the ballot measure. Nothing to fear that it might pass.

Connect the dots, and then follow the money trail. That will usually tell what the true story is. It's outrageous to support candidates/electeds who do this. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Believe me, lots of us have been woken up... expect change in the future. Keep up the good work John, it's important to know the true picture.

Somehow I think the Open Primary will fail. Californians rarely reverse themselves on Ballot Measures they have previously voted down. Lets not forget Propostion 62 on the 2004 ballot. It basically did the same thing and it was the only time in recent memory where both major parties joined forces to campaign hard against a measure on the ballot.

I see that Jeff Denham's Lt. Governor campaign lists Ashburn, Cogdil and Maldonado as Senate endorsers. You know when people have to choose between two Democrats, they pretty much go for the Democrat every time. Jeff, there is now no reason to vote for you over your Democrat opponent - even in an open primary!

Aside from Neillo who did not sign the no new taxes pledge, the other clowns did sign the no new taxes pledge, and this speaks volumes as to their character. You have to wonder about other aspects of their lives. What about their marriage... do they promise to be married until a better deal comes along. If they have any business partners do they sign a contract for the business relationship as long as someone doesn't offer them a better deal? These five are a mess... and lost. At best untrustworthy and at worst incompetent. Their word means nothing.

And Jon, if I see one of these clowns at the convention I will remind them that they are our employees and when we say jump, they need to say, "how high?" We do not work for them or their government, they work for us, and the power of the government is derived from the people not as these clowns believe that the government is to lord over us.

Is there rules in the bylaws that revoke membership in the CRP for supporting crap budgets? Just like how you can be booted from the CRP for supporting Democratic gerrymanders during reapportionment.

Inspired by 2.1.6 (B) in the bylaws.


I doubt you will find such a bylaw. I believe the only grounds for "banishment" is supporting the election of a democrat to partisan office, although even that was probably loosely enforced given how many republicans continually supported Gary Condit over the years.

The political party system in this country is not set up to enforce party discipline very well, that only happens in countries with a parlamentary system. I suspect the only time the CRP could banish one of its own(especially an elected official)is if a situation like the one Joe Lieberman found himself in 2006 arose.

Post a Comment





Not Registered Yet? Click Here

Forgot your Password? Click Here

Want to update your settings? Click Here

You must have a MyFlashReport Account to Comment.