From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Pete "Twinkie-Tax" Wilson vs. The Cavemen: Act II, Scene 1
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 03:12:48 GMT



  Letters to the Editor

Mr. Henderson replies:

  Mr. West's letter [defending Pete Wilson's record breaking tax increases]
  reminds me of the spanking scene in Animal House, in which the fraternity
  pledges drop their pants, grab their ankles, and each time the paddle
  strikes say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?" The serenity with which
  the state's business establishment has accepted, if not embraced, higher
  taxes and more stifling regulations from the Wilson administration amazes
  me. The California Chamber should pay more attention to its supply-side-
  oriented colleagues at the U.S. Chamber in Washington.

  Mr. West's letter also follows a recurring pattern among Wilson's
  defenders: Make believe no one presented an alternative to tax increases.
  Assemblyman McClintock and his fellow "cavemen" had ideas on the table;
  the big spenders in the administration didn't want to consider them.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom McClintock writes:

  Last June, as the legislature balked at his record-breaking tax increase,
  Pete Wilson warned, "Every day without a budget will cost Californians
  $11 million in lost revenues." Actually, those "lost revenues" were the
  additional sales taxes Wilson wanted to raise, but it has become an
  ironic figure for a different reason. Ninety days into the budget year,
  every day with Wilson's budget has cost taxpayers $11 million in
  additional red ink.

  Measured against the administration's most optimistic revenue forcasts,
  California's budget was more than $1 billion in the red three months into
  the 1992 fiscal year; measured against the original budget, the deficit
  is closer to $2.6 billion. At the same point in last year's budget
  fiasco, red ink amounted to "only" $287 million.

  During the budget debate, several legislators warned Wilson that his
  budget was on a collision course with economic disaster. Last June 28, on
  the floor of the Assembly, I said: "As sales decline, as layoffs
  increase, as small businesses which are barely holding on now are forced
  to close their doors -- the revenue projections under this and other tax
  increases are bound to decline substantially, and we'll be back here,
  possibly by early spring, to deal with growing budget shortfalls."

  We argued that instead of cutting the average family budget with more
  than $1,000 in new taxes, state government should do what millions of
  Californians were already doing: tighten its belt and live within its
  means. In April, I proposed some $27 billion of spending cuts -- only
  half of which would have been necessary to avoid any new taxes.
  Unfortunately, the reforms were largely ignored, and those of us who had
  issued these repeated warnings were dismissed as "alarmists,"
  "obstructionists," and "cavemen."

  The worst is yet to come. Despite $8 billion of new taxes, from July
  to September actual receipts declined 0.6 percent. To keep up with
  revenue projections, in the final quarter of the current fiscal year
  revenue must grow by 26 *percent*.

    Tom McClintock
    Assemblyman, 36th District
    Sacramento, CA



Reprinted without permission from:
  Reason
  3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
  Los Angeles, CA  90034
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss