Tom Campbell for Governor of California

Adam Weinberg

Goldwater Republican
http://www.campbell.org

I had the chance to see this gentleman speak to one of the student groups I'm advising. While at first I thought his views were exceptionally valuable, I had also thought that due to the major dogfight between Poizner and Whitman, his candidacy was a virtual impossibility.

Boy, am I glad to be wrong.

Turns out, public opinion has been rewarding Mr. Campbell for just the right reasons. He has the experience, the knowledge, and has actually thought in detail about solutions for California's problems and is presenting them in a substantial way.

And though he is very comfortable associating with libertarians, he is prudent enough to realize that adopting ideologically-rigid libertarian political goals as his Day One agenda is a political non-starter. He will disappoint some purists, but I am not a purist with too much to say nor a moderate with nothing to say, and so Campbell's message works for me.

We can fortunately say that practical and libertarian-minded solutions on the budget, taxes, and social issues have much more broad appeal, and as a student of Milton Friedman, he would work to enact them.

It is also to his credit that he isn't trying to buy the race. Sure, he can't afford to. But the fact that this isn't preventing people from getting on board with his message is very reassuring.

Even the Democrats think Campbell can beat them. While I am certainly looking forward to the debates between the GOP candidates to see if Campbell can hold his own in that arena, I think in a head to head match-up with either Brown or Newsom, where the most pressing issues of the state are the core of the discussion, Campbell will have a chance to bring a lot more folks on board from all parties.

Finally, for social conservatives who will be pulling their hair out if this man wins the nomination: while it may be your opinion and preference that the GOP here be more socially conservative, what California needs right now is about economics and government reform. Period. This guy has my vote.
 
And as a personal observation, since I posted this thread, Mr. Campbell's ads have started appearing all over the board.

I suppose that's better than some of the other ads we usually get out of our conversations!
 
Hey. Yeah, I've been in the shadows mostly over the last year since I moved to L.A. save a couple posts here and there.

I'm California Dreaming now, and it is sure is an interesting time to live here. But I bet it's always been an interesting time to live in California.

The country seems to obsess in its love/hate relationship with this place, just like the United States and the world. Must mean there is something good here to admire.

There was a great article in TIME about this just the other day, and they were talking about how people criticize this state for its perceived leftism, but then it also happens to be the a national center of super-capitalism.
 
Hey. Yeah, I've been in the shadows mostly over the last year since I moved to L.A. save a couple posts here and there.

I'm California Dreaming now, and it is sure is an interesting time to live here. But I bet it's always been an interesting time to live in California.

The country seems to obsess in its love/hate relationship with this place, just like the United States and the world. Must mean there is something good here to admire.

There was a great article in TIME about this just the other day, and they were talking about how people criticize this state for its perceived leftism, but then it also happens to be the a national center of super-capitalism.

I can certainly see some of it, but after my transition towards better beer, Cali is now on my list of places I need to see.
 
One of the biggest points he made in the lecture I went to (since he's an economics professor, he can give a pretty good class on this stuff) is that California spending projections are often based on unrealistic assumptions about revenues that *may* come in.

Particularly since the state is receiving far less revenue than projected due to the recession, we're seeing the consequence of that with IOUs where liabilities greatly outnumbered the means to pay. He wants to move to a budget system where the revenues would be collected and held in a reserve fund until the following year. Then the budget would be written around those collected revenues in addition to any interest that would accrue, meaning that the state could not spend any more money than it took in.

He said that transitioning to that model would take 8-10 years.

http://www.campbell.org/budget-policy/
 
The reform would also obviously require you to budget about a tenth of the budget towards the change this year. Obviously it would be stupid to do in the middle of the recession.
 
Hey. Yeah, I've been in the shadows mostly over the last year since I moved to L.A. save a couple posts here and there.

I'm California Dreaming now, and it is sure is an interesting time to live here. But I bet it's always been an interesting time to live in California.

The country seems to obsess in its love/hate relationship with this place, just like the United States and the world. Must mean there is something good here to admire.

There was a great article in TIME about this just the other day, and they were talking about how people criticize this state for its perceived leftism, but then it also happens to be the a national center of super-capitalism.
I think the US is in a competition with California to see who goes bankrupt first...
 
I think the US is in a competition with California to see who goes bankrupt first...

Is the UN going to come down and start the proceedings on us? And in Calfornia the problem isn't the state's DEBT, but it's LITERAL INABILITY TO ACCRUE DEBT.

This is silly sensationalism Damo. You're once bright mind has been rotted inside-out by right-wing talk radio.
 
Last edited:
California has 50 billion in issued bonds (which could possibly be leftover debt from when it was allowed to issue debt). It has a GDP of 1.8 trillion. That's a GDP:debt ratio of 2%.

They're headed to bankruptcy any day now.

Again, the problem with California isn't the amount of debt it has, but it's political instability.
 
Last edited:
California has 50 billion in issued bonds (which could possibly be leftover debt from when it was allowed to issue debt). It has a GDP of 1.8 trillion. That's a GDP:debt ratio of 2%.

They're headed to bankruptcy any day now.

Again, the problem with California isn't the amount of debt it has, but it's political instability.

you can't be taken seriously....you just said it was because they literally, couldn't take debt.....now....it isn't due to the debt.....

:pke:
 
you can't be taken seriously....you just said it was because they literally, couldn't take debt.....now....it isn't due to the debt.....

:pke:

California has a balanced budget amendment. The state government can't take on debt. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it has debt.
 
California has a balanced budget amendment. The state government can't take on debt. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it has debt.

you're confused, first you say it is because they can't take on debt (literally), i show you a direct link from cali's gov site that show they do, then you say they actually do have debt, but it isn't the problem.....

the problem with California isn't the amount of debt it has, but it's political instability

what is it watermark? debt is the problem, debt isn't the problem.....you've posited both....pick
 
Is the UN going to come down and start the proceedings on us? And in Calfornia the problem isn't the state's DEBT, but it's LITERAL INABILITY TO ACCRUE DEBT.

This is silly sensationalism Damo. You're once bright mind has been rotted inside-out by right-wing talk radio.
So what you have pointed out here is that California is ahead in the race to bankruptcy. They can't get loans because they cannot pay them, they have a poor credit rating.

And quit being deliberately retarded, you know it is tongue in cheek.
 
So what you have pointed out here is that California is ahead in the race to bankruptcy. They can't get loans because they cannot pay them, they have a poor credit rating. And quit being deliberately retarded, you know it is tongue in cheek.

You are being willfully ignorant.
 
Back
Top