[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
November 2009
(view month)
S M T W R F S
01 02 03 04 05 06 07
08 09 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

Tom Campbell: Same Old Hooverism, Same Old Flaws

by: Robert Cruickshank

Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT


California's media likes to play up Tom Campbell as some sort of "moderate" or "sensible" Republican. As compared to Attila the Hun this might be plausible. But even a cursory glance at his alternative budget solutions shows that he is a typically conservative politician. Sure, his conservatism seems to be of the Ronald Reagan sort as opposed to the Grover Norquist sort. But there never was much difference between the two, except in tone, which is apparently all that matters to the media.

Campbell's proposed budget claims to want to solve a "systemic" crisis in a way that doesn't hurt our ability to recover from the economic crisis. Yet his budget merely offers a different method to achieve the same downward spiral that has afflicted the state - particularly Campbell's total ignorance of the revenue drop and the negative impact of spending cuts on consumer spending.

Tom Campbell believes the budget can be balanced by hammering social services, even though there is unprecedented need for these services. An example of his proposals:

•15% salary reduction for state workers OR 15% layoffs of state workforce

• $156.7 million savings in Cal Works by implementing Federal work participation requirements.

• $248.5 million savings by reverting to federal minimums on Supplemental Security Income and the State Supplementary Payment.

• $114.1 million savings by reducing compensation to in-home supportive service workers to the state minimum wage.

• $882 million savings in Medi-Cal, provided California receives a federal waiver from terms of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

In other words, he's offering a mixture of attacks on the poor and attacks on Obama's stimulus. His rationale:

1. California must, in large part, return to national standards on welfare and health care; we cannot afford to provide more than the national average in areas where we have long exceeded those levels;

2. California must ask those capable of taking care of themselves to do so;

3. California must not undercut its ability to bounce back when the national recession ends. This means being careful about cutting education, especially Community Colleges where much workforce retraining takes place.

This is complete bullshit. First, the national standards on welfare and health care are woefully insufficient. Campbell acts as if there is no national health care problem, as if there is no issue with the working-class finding and holding jobs. Campbell is a typical Republican - wealthy and totally ignorant of how everyone else experiences life in California.

Second, how the fuck are people supposed to "take care of themselves" in a recession like this?! Campbell is the sort of guy who drives through a poor community in his Jaguar and shakes his head saying "why don't they just get a job?" That statement alone is proof that Campbell is intellectually unfit for office by virtue of his unwillingness to understand the challenges facing most Californians.

Campbell also proves he has no clue about modern economics - otherwise he wouldn't so blithely ignore the work of Nobel Laureates who point out that if you cut social service spending, folks have to replace that lost money by curtailing consumer spending, hammering jobs and tax revenues.

Third, Campbell's whole budget blueprint is designed specifically to prevent California from enjoying economic recovery. How are people who have no health care benefits supposed to find work? How are people supposed to find work period if you're scaling back Cal-WORKS? How are small businesses supposed to open when the state is laying off workers or cutting their salaries?

Campbell's also internally inconsistent. He states he wants to be "careful about cutting education" and then proposes:

$150 million unallocated cut to UC and CSU (I realize this would require further increases in student fees, or improved fund-raising).

Tom Campbell isn't some kind of new Republican. He's no moderate. Instead, he is the same exact kind of Republican that the party has offered dating back to Herbert Hoover. He is a man of the upper class, determined to protect the wealth and privileges of the upper class at the expense of everyone else.

Campbell's economic policies are no different than Reagan's, or Bush's (either one, 41 or 43). Campbell offers the vast majority of this state only reduced services and less money in their wallets. His Hooverite policies would merely make the recession worse, and ensure that when economic recovery does come, only Campbell's rich friends see any of its benefits, while everyone else is left behind. Which will apparently be just fine with Campbell, since everyone else should just take care of themselves anyway.

We've all seen this movie before. We know how it ends - we're living through it right now. Californians will reject Campbell's Hooverism. But will the media report on exactly what Campbell offers? Or will they continue to lie to their readers and claim he's some kind of "moderate"? I'm not exactly holding my breath.  

Robert Cruickshank :: Tom Campbell: Same Old Hooverism, Same Old Flaws
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
even reagan raised taxes when the budget needed it (0.00 / 0)
so i'm not sure campbell even compares well even to that abysmally low standard. tom's a classic variety of california republican, the socially libertarian but economically antediluvian bay area republican.

i will admit that i came close to voting for campbell for senator back in 2000, given that campbell was significantly to her left on civil liberties and the drug war, and more or less the same on gay rights and abortion, but ultimately couldn't abide his economics (or the vote he'd cast for majority leader), and held my nose and voted for feinstein.  

that being said, as a governor, given the close connection that office has to the budget, he'd be a disaster. an utter disaster.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat


Campbell wealthy? (2.00 / 1)
Can you point to any evidence that Tom Campbell is wealthy?  He has been an academic all his life.  Do you know that he drives a Jaguar?  I doubt it.

Your attack on Campbell is quite personal, and you got the personal side of it wrong.

Campbell is viewed as a moderate because he is pro-choice, and (within the strange world of the GOP) is very supportive of gays. He has supported tax increases which is why the GOP faithful hates him so much.

I am not supporting him for Governor, but I think you have not given him credit for the moderate positions he has taken and the scorn that he has faced from the GOP.  


Didn't you know? (0.00 / 0)
Apparently, at least according to the writer, that if you are a Republican you must be wealthy. There is no other reason you would be a Republican. And the millions of Republicans in this state are not wealthy? They evidently do not matter.

[ Parent ]
That's my point (0.00 / 0)
Just because Campbell is not aggressively anti-choice doesn't mean he is a new or different type of Republican. On the issues that matter, he is of the exact same economic philosophy as President Reagan or the two President Bushes - screw the poor in order to enrich the wealthy.

Campbell's attitude towards those who are suffering during this recession is one of a man who has means and privilege looking down on everyone else for choosing to be poor. Whether or not he actually drives a Jaguar, he drove a metaphorical one in this budget blueprint.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Ummm...what? (1.00 / 1)
Where did you get your history lesson on Hoover? Reading this article, people might get the idea that Hoover cut spending, resisted legislation, and drove the country into the Depression. In actuality, Hoover presided over the largest increase in government spending in peacetime (a 50% increase from 1929 to 1932), and FDR actually campaigned on cutting that spending! Furthermore, the New Deal was not some magic panacea that fixed the Depression. World War II fixed the Depression.

And after reading the referenced article regarding spending cuts versus tax increases, Stiglitz says that increasing taxes is better IF it is on those with high incomes (and this is still debatable). This is NOT true if the tax increases are on middle and low income workers, which is what the legislature apparently wants to do. This takes money away from the economy immediately.

What makes many people in private industry angry is when public sector workers feel that they are entitled to their jobs, and that it is unconsionable that a fraction of those jobs might be lost. That makes a lot of people angry, and it should. We all need to make sacrifices.

And then the most illogical statement in the article: "How are people who have no health care benefits supposed to find work?" How do health care benefits have anything to do with finding a job? Answer: Nothing.



Your wingnut economics fails you (5.00 / 2)
The point is that Hoover's initial response was budget austerity, which drove the country into Depression. His reversal, which was modest by FDR's standards, came only in 1931-32 when it was too late and when it was clear he had no other chance to win reelection.

More importantly, Hoover spent the rest of the decade railing against FDR's New Deal policies, as one of the most prominent national critics of the New Deal.

Further, you show a complete lack of historical knowledge as well as a lack of ability to comprehend what you read when you blithely and without evidence assume I meant that the New Deal ended the Depression. What it did was produce real and measurable economic gains - rising GDP, declining unemployment - between 1933 and 1937. When FDR decided to pull back on spending in 1937, the economy went into another tailspin. And what pulled it out? Yep, massive government spending (this time on World War II).

If you read any of my work you'd know that I am primarily advocating taxing the wealthy and large corporations.

I do believe everyone is entitled to have a job and that it is right that full employment is a statutory goal of the US federal government. But you're moving the goalposts here by talking about entitlement. The point is instead that by every demonstrable economic measure, firing state workers or cutting their pay is exactly the wrong thing to do in this economy. Their jobs and their pay help keep business large and small afloat. They help keep families in homes, mortgages and rent paid, food and gas and other services purchased. Government needs to go on a hiring spree, not a firing spree.

Your aversion to tested and proven Keynesian economics, your fealty to a neoliberal economic model whose failure we are currently witnessing, is just the second most absurd part of your comment.

The most absurd part is at the end. If someone lacks health coverage, then it is likely they will experience significant illness that makes it difficult for them to find work - OR will ensure that they take the first job offered to them, even if it's at a low wage and without benefits.

Further, you have consistently and deliberately ignored the point that spending cuts force those who depended on the services being eliminated to make up the shortfall out of their own pocket. That means further pullbacks in consumer spending, in turn meaning further private sector layoffs, and further losses of tax revenue.

Your stance is the same as Tom Campbell's - putting ideology above common sense. You both so desperately want to destroy government services and get back at those big bad state workers that you're willing to push the state into Depression to do it. It's like you proudly wear your economic ignorance on your sleeve. Happily, you're not running for governor.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Okay... (0.00 / 0)
I will admit that my ideology does make me biased, as long as you agree to the same. What is "common sense" to one person is often seen as ideological rhetoric to another. Also, I share your sentiment that it is a good thing I am not running for governor, and I am glad that you are not running as well. The current governor (not that he has done anything to help himself) and the next governor, have a very slim chance at real success, for a variety of reasons.

What we have is a fundamental disagreement over the driving force of the economy. You apparently believe that the government should be the primary driver of the economy, while I believe that this can only come from the private sector. The Keynesian model of government control of demand is not "proven" as you say. What are these examples of how it has been "tested and proven"? I would further argue that real Keynesian control of the market is incompatible with democracy, because it also favors control over good economic times, dampening the boom as well as the bust. Democracy increases both, because it fosters a hands off approach to regulation that inhibits growth, and creates an overreaction that extends the downturn.

"I do believe everyone is entitled to have a job and that it is right that full employment is a statutory goal of the US federal government." Okay, now I am really glad you are not running for office. Everyone in this country should be afforded the opportunity for work, but no one is entitled to have a job given to them.

"Further, you have consistently and deliberately ignored the point that spending cuts force those who depended on the services being eliminated to make up the shortfall out of their own pocket." What services are you talking about here? I never advocated reducing spending on welfare, unemployment, or any other financial assistance. The only mention of spending cuts that I made was to state workers, which would result in a very small change in the overall demand in the state.

As for health care, how is it "likely they will experience significant illness that makes it difficult for them to find work"? I can understand "possible" but not "likely". And if they do get a "significant illness" then how does the lack of state health insurance change their behaviour? They go to a hospital regardless, where care is provided whether or not they have insurance. (A point to make here is that this shifts the burden to hospitals rather than the government, which is another problem, but care is still provided).

You may not have directly said that the New Deal ended the Depression, but you implied that it helped. The problem is that goverment spending did not solve the structural issues that caused the Depression. It merely propped up a portion of the economy temporarily. What eventually solved the problems of the Depression was not massive government spending but a massive change in worldwide demand, which increased prices, and a huge increase in the money supply. This was consolidated at the end of the war, when the rest of the industrialized world was left in shambles.

Except in rare instances, government is not the answer. And this is not one of those.

Oh, I meant to thank you for your quick response. And your personal attacks. Those were especially refreshing.  


[ Parent ]
taxes and entitlement (0.00 / 0)
MattB states:

Stiglitz says that increasing taxes is better IF it is on those with high incomes (and this is still debatable). This is NOT true if the tax increases are on middle and low income workers, which is what the legislature apparently wants to do.

 Well, the legislature only goes for regressive tax increases because the Republicans (and the 2/3rds vote) will only consider that type of tax increase.  If the majority could rule, rather than a minority, they would vote for taxes on wealth.

MattB also states:

What makes many people in private industry angry is when public sector workers feel that they are entitled to their jobs, and that it is unconsionable that a fraction of those jobs might be lost. That makes a lot of people angry, and it should. We all need to make sacrifices.

 You know, in the 2005 special, Schwartz was going around telling private workers that since their pensions weren't guaranteed, neither should government workers pensions.  That seemed to me to be a typical Republican argument--take things away from people (who typically can't afford it).  On the other hand, when Democrats talk about taxing the rich (who can afford it), it's "class warfare."

 Anyway, it'd be nice to interact with a Republican who wanted to restore pensions to the middle-class.  I think we can all agree that the 401K experiment for that group of people is an abysmal failure.

 And as for all making sacrifices, why should public or private workers have to sacrifice because of the machinations and manipulations of the rich and connected?  Shouldn't they be the ones to sacrifice so the middle class isn't screwed?  And the only way to see that they sacrifice (I'd call it reparations) is to tax them and change tax policy.  Remember, in 1980 the top 1% got 8% of the national income--in 2007 it was 22%.  Some difference, eh?
And most of it traceable back to tax policy changes (not globablization, like the Reps would want us to believe).  


[ Parent ]
The downward spiral. (0.00 / 0)
We are going to face a public pension crisis in the near future. Keith Richman told us earlier back in 2006 how this issue is going to make our budget crisis worse.

Cities and school districts will be eating so much money because of all these costs.

We need to fund these obligations, but not to cripple the taxpayers at the same time.

http://www.fulldisclosure.net/... a show from a right leaning public access show.

We are going to have another crisis where people will be saying NO.  


[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads

Support Calitics:

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Blog Network:
Powered by: SoapBlox