MSNBC fails to ID "former California state budget director" Campbell as former GOP congressman
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan interviewed former Rep. Tom Campbell about the California budget crisis, but at no point disclosed that Campbell is a Republican.
During a discussion about the California budget crisis on the July 8 edition of MSNBC's Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan interviewed former Rep. Tom Campbell (R-CA), but at no point disclosed that Campbell is a Republican. Ratigan introduced Campbell as "a former California state budget director" and "currently an economics and law professor at Chapman University," and also stated that Campbell has "the best budget familiarity." During the segment, on-screen text also stated that Campbell is "considering running for governor of California"; indeed, Campbell is currently seeking the Republican gubernatorial nomination.
According to his website, Campbell "served in the Reagan Administration as Director of the Bureau of Competition, at the Federal Trade Commission from 1981 to 1983." Campbell served as a Republican congressman from 1989 to 1993 and from 1995 to 2001. In 2000, he was the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, losing to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). He was also director of the California Department of Finance in the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) from 2004-2005.
Ratigan began the discussion by purporting to host "some folks who are very familiar with California's situation," but both subjects he interviewed were Republicans; Campbell appeared alongside Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), whom on-screen graphics identified as a Republican congressman "known as [a] tax-cut crusader."
From the July 8 edition of MSNBC's Morning Meeting:
RATIGAN: Welcome back. Big to-do yesterday with Michael Jackson. One of the aspects of that story was the spending on the state's part. Four million dollars, they claim, for security and other services around that particular funeral. Now $4 million in a state that is billions in the hole doesn't amount to much, but it is a flash point politically in that state for the bigger problem, which is, why is California sending IOUs, and why is it $26 billion in debt? Well, we asked some of the folks out west what was going on, and some of the best journalists out there work over at the San Jose Mercury News, and they actually did a little bit of work for us. I want to present it to some folks who are very familiar with California's situation. Tom Campbell going to join us, for one. He's a former budget director -- a former California state budget director, excuse me, currently an economics and law professor at Chapman University. Tom Campbell, nice to see you. We've got Tom and Tom for this conversation, by the way. Tom McClintock is the California congressman -- one of the California congressmen -- and I would argue, Tom, one of the most famous tax cut crusaders in the state.
I want to begin this conversation with the two of you on the spending side, and then I'll come back for the tax collection side, but I want to start with how Governor Schwarzenegger has spent California's money, and the San Jose Mercury News argument that there is an additional $10 billion that is being and has -- continues to be spent above and beyond the rate of inflation, above and beyond the rate of population growth in that state and that $4.1 billion of that, as you can see here again, is prisons tied to their -- to California's three-strikes law, that incarceration in that state is just an incredibly expensive undertaking. The second one, health care, which is a conversation we all know and love. Fun to give away, no one wants to talk about who's going to pay. And then political expediency with the vehicle license refund, $2 billion, $200 to everybody in California, but they have to replace that revenue, and that's breaking the state. Tom Campbell, again, you have the best budget familiarity. Is the San Jose Mercury News, of the excess spending California because of incarceration costs, because of health care costs, and because of politically expedient decisions like giving drivers refunds on their licensing fees -- is that a fair characterization as to why on the spending side California has the problems that it does?
Tommy, Arnold is a card carrying Reich-winger and is the executive branch of California. Don't let facts stand in the way of you blaming everything on Democrats though. It's the MO of you teabagging terrorists.
Its absurd to say...the fault is NOT the Democrats. Who else do you blame for California's demise?
This problem was set up in the 80s - and the chickens have come home to roost.
That's not proof. Thanks for failing...again.
No, he's acting just like a typical teabagging reich-wing GOPig. That's why he's a failure.
They labeled him about 6 different ways, but never in the most politically relevant way - that he's a former GOP Congressman.
The GOP'ers must learn just because you think it is so does not make it so.
When state revenue is down due to an economic downturn - the very times when the actual, living, breathing California citizens need a helping hand - there is no way for the state to increase (or even maintain) revenue.
In addition, with Prop 13 keeping the only revenue constant artificially low, there can never be any reserve fund to help allay the natural revenue cycles that come with a fluid economy.
You can try to blame the Democrats, but they have been saying this for years - and every time they have tried to fix the problem the Republicans vote as a block against them.
Nice try, though.
Nice try yourself. CA is about to wake up.
Prop 13 creates the most egregious inequities in taxation that occur anywhere in the nation.
Back when our founders set up this great system that conservatives claim to love, they set up the notion of representative democracy to enable the government to actually function. Then along came the folks who don't trust representative democracy - so-called conservatives - to strip the government of the ability to govern.
"Yes, we love our country and we love the founding fathers, but government is the problem." That is the most unpatriotic drivel I have ever heard - and I am hearing it more and more from people these days.
This nation - the interstate highways, the national park system, and the systems of hydo-electrics - was built by our grandparents. They actually paid taxes to build something for the future. In 1946, the top marginal tax rate was 94% against 200,000 in income. But we didn't have a bunch of snivelling babies crying about how high taxes were.
Even the conservative hero - Ronald Reagan - enjoyed a top marginal rate of 50% for 6 of his 8 years in office. the Republican answer is to throw a tax cut at every ripple in the economy. Yeah, thanks for that.
Keep raising taxes and see what happens.
You can keep trying to hang it on Democrats, but just about anyone with even a passing knowledge of Republican obstructionism knows where the blame belongs.
And I am guilty of voting in favor of some of the initiatives - hard to say no to providing education for preschoolers and/or mental health care for those who need it. Because we do need those things, but legislators won't provide anything unless the minority of the population who vote in CA approve something at the ballot box.
Very frustrating. But we Californians have brought this on ourselves and we continue to compound the problem through initiatives and recall elections over the last 30 years.
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html
And your property taxes are not really high at all.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspx
Looks like you have bought the package of lies...lol.
I expect he will return tomorrow with more snivelling, though.
Corporate taxes? Not likely - those are paid as a portion of PROFIT. So it's mathematically impossible for those to "cripple" a company. (They can't create a loss.) If you don't make a profit - you don't pay them.
Property Taxes? I suppose a business might pay those. But they can also lease, and not. But this goes back more to the high real estate costs that R&R mentioned.
Sales Taxes? CA IS the highest in the nation at 8.25 (and you can bet this might be lower if the state could ever adjust personal income tax rates!) but this is paid by the consumer, at point of sale. Arizona has a lower rate (~5.6%), but it's levied against a business's REVENUE (not profit) and thus can potentially cut into profit far more, and has the mathematically possibility to create a loss, which noether of CA's taxes do.
So yeah, I'm calling balderdash until you provide some details. Otherwise your just drinkin the kool-aid.
If taxes are going to be raised, they should be done during the good times to fund the tax cuts and strains on services that happen in the bad times.
I agree that Prop 13 is pretty stupid in that it hamstrings the governments ability to manage their income, but it may not be the problem right now.
California could also institute a bed-tax for hotels, since they are still a major destination for vacationers. (This, unfortunately, will still require a two-thirds vote of the assembly, so it will not happen.)
A big problem that they have is that those Republicans in the assmbly represent districts that are ultra-conservative and any vote to raise taxes will result in unemployment for the assemblymen from those districts.
Right ON wants to claim that there has been gerrymandering, but that really isn't true at all. The plain truth is that the Republican districts in California are enclaves of white and Asian conservatives that pretty much operate in an exclusionary economic environment. There really is no other way to chop up the districts that would change that. (The exceptions to that rule are around San Diego, where a good many ex-military families reside, but they are, as a result, geographically isolated from the very liberal areas throughout LA and Northern California.)
What do you think should be done? Oh, I know, maybe you guys could get a few more fraudulent voter registration drives together.
If they were a minority party drawing districts to get a disproporionate representation, your claim of gerrymandering would make sense, but that is clearly not the case.
Because, so far, all you have done is point a finger of blame.
i have news for you, buddy: the whole country is hurting and we aren't going to bail out California. You can cut programs all you want, but it ain't going to solve the problem - there aren't enough programs to cut, unless you want to eliminate public safety and fire protection.
That leaves tax increases, or bankruptcy. The problem with bankruptcy is that there is no mechanism for a government to recover from a bankruptcy except by - you guessed it - taxation.
You are screwed, dude. Better bend over and take it like a man.
It doesn't work anymore sport, your bluff has been called. Time to wise up.
Where is the plan? Do your Republican friends in Sacramento have a plan? No, they don't. Does your Republican governor have a plan? No - not since you geniuses voted down all the tax increases.
Where is the plan?
You can't even keep replying until you tell us all what the hell you think will get California out of the mess.
What will you cut? What? Want to cut social programs - already been shaved to the bone (and those cuts will probably result in a rising crime rate).
what will you cut?
Name something. Anything. Just one thing that will put more than a tiney dent in the debt.
You have nothing to contribute but blame. You want us to believe you are some sort of expert on the situation - well, if you are, then you prove my point. You've got nothing.
Stop blaming and stop snivelling and pony up, pal. Time to pay. Time to solve the problem.
What have you got?
Nothing.
Crickets.
I actually knew that I was blaming a few Dems, too, but you might be surprised to learn that, while Democrats do outnumber Republicans, they do not have 51% of the voters - when you add together Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and independant voters, you are looking at more than 60% of the electorate in California. so, it is entirely possible that the Democrats actually voted FOR the tax increases en masse.
What, exactly, makes you think that those top 5% worked any harder than paris Hilton to get their money, by the way. The hardest workers I have met in my life aren't wealthy at all.
My son-in-law's family worked hard for many years before they made the top 5%, still work hard and surprisingly still live in CA. I worked for a man for many years that worked hard and got fairly well rewarded for that work (after a period of time). Digging ditches (hard work) won't make you rich, but with the right idea (and hard work) there is the opportunity for riches at some point in one's life. The point is that there are probably as many in that top 5% that labored fairly hard at some point in their life to get where they are as those that inherited their wealth.
I would be willing to bet you that the average, hard-working American would happily pay more taxes for a guarantee that hard work will be fairly rewarded. Oh, and pay a decent wage to all workers and guess what? Everybody pays more taxes. The crime rate goes down. Teenage pregnancy is reduced as parents have more time to spend with their children (and the children see a just society, see that there really is hope, that there is more to the world than looking out for number one). that is what a political party that talks about family values ought to be talking about - not protecting the obscene profits of the very few earned (for the most part) on the backs of the struggling many.
I can't decide if your post is calling a socialist or communist dream state? I guess it doesn't matter. :-)
We already live under a system that is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism (but a lot of folks just don't recognise that fact).
I won't get into the whole Social Security/Medicare argument, since conservatives have always labelled that as socialism, anyway. but have you ever stopped to consider that public education is a form of socialism?
the question is not really one of either/or - it is a question of which socialist ideals are worth assimilating into our own system. Ihappen to believe that wage equity is worth it. I happen to believe that most of our social ills are a product of wage inequity.
I also believe that, by denying fair pay to America's working class, big business and the greedy people who represent it have shot themselves in the foot. The collapse and continued failure of the current economy can be directly laid on the doorsteps of big business. they rely upon the working class to spend money, but they have systematically deprived the working class of the money to spend.
Now, the working class, having been cowed into a state of perpetual nervousness over their future economic security, have stopped spending and started saving - all to the detriment of the capitalist economy that has poured money into a handful of bank accounts.
There is no pure economic model anywhere on the globe. You just need to decide how best to combine the models to create a just and moral society.
The answer is the MAGIC TAX that puts the lord back in his place. Criminals won't do drug deals anymore. Teens will wear raincoats before sex. Unwed mothers will marry the deadbeat dads! Utopia!
Humbolt county, right?
We only hear about it when the middle class begins to awaken to the fact that they are under seige and the wealthy start fretting that the middle class might actually fight back.
You tell me how a man can be held responsible for the declining moral values of his children when he can't be home to help rear them. How do we hold a woman accountable for the moral fibre of her children when she has to work just to maintain their standard of living.
It is very easy to drum up the tired images of welfare moms, deadbeat dads, and self-indulgent parents, but it is not the "real America" that conservatives keep praising. The vast majority of Americans are doing their best, working hard, and losing ground.
Finally, this whole issue of over-taxing the wealthy is a falsehood. The wealthy reap a disproportionate advantage from the services that are provided by government. Their businesses thrive using the interstate commerce system. they travel abroad, requiring the protection and services of the State Department, and the protections of the FAA, the NTSB, and countless other agencies of the federal government. The armed forces are paid to protect the financial interests of American businesses.
If you want to strengthen the American family, then pay a living wage - plain and simple. The American dream is not to be rich, it is to be comfortable. It is to be able to raise your family with just a slightly better lifestyle than the one you were raised in. It is to be able to work an honest day and be paid an honest wage, to be home at the end of the day to talk to your children about their day, to answer their questions, to give them adult guidance.
My grandfather was an industrialist through World War 2 and until he sold his company in the late sixties. At the end of WW2, he took home just 12,000 dollars out of every 200,000 he earned. He never complained about it, because he knew he was investing in the future of his country.
The wealthy today are just a bunch of snivelling cowards and the most unpatriotic and ignorantly self-destructive people in the world. I am not going to cry for them. Not ever.
Are you talking about the America where people can get goods and services they need or the America where most are exploited and their money taken by the rich? Are we talking about the America where our poor have some of the highest obesity rates in the world?
The left likes to revile the rich or paint with broad strokes about inheritance vs hard work. They are made out to be the enemy of working people, when that can't be further from the truth. Have you ever been hired and maintained by a poor person?
As for the wealthy having a disproportionate advantage because they use the interstate system and Federal airways is ridiculous! Every American enjoys those advantages. Don't believe me. Go fly in Africa, where there are many areas not under radar control.
I can sympathize with the plight of the American family, but the chasm between rich and poor one hundred, one hundred fifty years ago was wider yet quality of family life was greater. What has changed?
I notice you never bring up the social aspects of why the American family is in decline. Those sacred cows are never approached by left lest we turn over some rocks in their yards.
I do tend to agree with your last paragraph however. We could use more patriotism.
"Have you ever been hired and maintained by a poor person?" No, I have been hired by wealthy people who take pride in being able to employ so many people, but miss the fact that their employees have to work as much as 80 hours a week to support their families.
"As for the wealthy having a disproportionate advantage because they use the interstate system and Federal airways is ridiculous! Every American enjoys those advantages." the mere fact that every American enjoys those advantages does not mitigate the fact that wealthy people enjoy those advantages to a disproportionate degree. Do you think that maintenance of the highway system is necessitated more by the cars or the eighteen-wheelers? How much leisure travel do you really think middle class Americans can afford? Your vision is apparently clouded in this regard. Government services are most emphatically enjoyed more by the wealthy than the middle class - and they should pay for them. Maybe we should just bill based upon use and see who ends up paying the lion's share.
"I can sympathize with the plight of the American family, but the chasm between rich and poor one hundred, one hundred fifty years ago was wider yet quality of family life was greater." what has changed? Your question is laughable. Everything has changed. 150 years ago people were more self-sufficient. They grew their own food, made their own clothing, and bartered for those things they could not produce within their extended families.
"I notice you never bring up the social aspects of why the American family is in decline. Those sacred cows are never approached by left lest we turn over some rocks in their yards." I don't really need to bring up the social aspects in the context of a discussion of economics - I thought that might be an obvious thing. But if you want to go there, I would be more than happy to point out that the churches in this country are largely peopled with middle class and poor people, that the largest single ethnis group in Catholic churches in America is Hispanic. I would gladly engage in a discussion of the near-impossibility of passing along a value system that seems to be contradicted by the economics within the family. But, I fear you are ill-equipped to understand that dynamic.
Wealthy people, in general, do not create wealth. It is created by the people who produce the goods and provide the services. Wealthy people, in general, take too much in profit at their own peril, becuse they strip consumers of the ability to purchase those goods and services. When the purchasing declines, wealthy people, in general, do not take the hit - their employees do. Wealthy people, in general, have forgotten the lesson learned by people like my grandfather: a healthy and happy middle class is the engine of a capitalist system. Pay them an honest wage and the entire system benefits. Pay taxes happily to invest in the future of the nation that has allowed them to prosper. and, most importantly, learn from history rather than shaping it to fit your own beliefs.
Tell that to a starving child in any third world resort area. The point you miss is that food is readily available to our poor in the country.
Need I say more?
Agreed. Those families were comfortable. There are still families like this all over this country (maybe without the bartering). You probably refer to it as fly-over country, but the American dream still lives on.
Well why not? If you're going to blame ALL of America's ills on economics then why not include the decline of morals starting with pop culture and the general "roughing" of society. I see this trend over all socio-economic groups.
Quite a bit actually. I tried to find the AAA data, but came up with this. I'll give you it's down 3% this year, but I think we can attribute that to the economy. This is just for one state BTW.
Holiday travel in NC
Yeah, Yeah, nice bit of Marxist drivel there. I suggest you spend some time in a third world country and then get back to us and tell how the wealth is generated by the "people".
I worked for US airways for many years and travelled extensively, both in the US and abroad. I know and correspond regularly with people on every continent and I have been in 46 of the 48 contiguous states.
heck, I have even read Atlas Shrugged.
i am not at all sure that you have been anywhere or done anything of note. I am, however, certain that you haven't actually refuted anything I have said.
Going to see the Eiffel Tower can open your eyes I guess, but when you live in these places you come to understand the real differences in our freedoms. I have lived abroad for sixteen of the last twenty five years. Don't pretend that being pen pals with fellow travelers is the same.
You can rest assured I've done something of "note", and I can assure you that you really haven't made a point other than showing your dyed in the wool left wing stripes with your class warfare pap.
We are still talking about the same war - you are just less clear than I am about who started it.
"In California, a state worker can retire at age 50, do absolutely nothing all day, and collect 90 percent of their salary for the rest of their lives! 5,000 of these pensions amount to six figures incomes. Nor can the state afford the system it has. As the Matt Welch piece mentions, "the state's annual pension fund contribution vaulted from $321 million in 2000-01 to $7.3 billion last year." That is a rather alarming rate of growth, and an astonishing figure, don't you think? Given that the state is bankrupt and issuing IOUs to its creditors, it doesn't seem unreasonable to complain that public employee unions have extracted benefits that are both obviously unaffordable and far in excess of what is enjoyed by the taxpayers who finance them"
Gotta love MMFA. They would have lambasted MSNBC either way.
Did you look at and READ the posting by Media Matters above?
MSNBC said that he was considering a run for Governor! Exactly what you said they were trying to avoid mentioning when they failed to mention the very relevant fact that he was a Republican Congressman at one point in time.
How stupid can you be? I mean, really!
Good catch. For some reason, I did overlook the onscreen graphic and sentence. That being said I think the jury is out as to whether it is conservative or progressive misinformation to leave out his party affilliation.
Thanks for the terms of endearment. They means so much much to me. ;-)
You are wrong dude. When the rare situation does come up where I think I MMFA has actually done what it purports to do, I give them credit.
I did read the post but it is evident I misread it. So on that part you are correct.
Carl Cannon explains how liberal bias works
What a tool. Leaving out the most relevant personal data about this man, that he's a former Republican Congressman, makes him look more benign and non-partisan than he deserves to look!
The jury is not still out. You, however, are a tool. The jury is not still out on that fact.
(Full Disclosure: In another life, I once interned with Campbell when he was a Congressman)
There are many conservatives who hold a few liberal positions, but a zebra really can't change its stripes (nor can it dress them up with a few spots).
Howard Jarvis was a Democrat, it's true.
(Note to conservatives: see, it is that simple. You make a mistake and you admit it.)