At least twice in the past few days, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Phil Angelides has made intriguingly softened statements about his centerpiece plan to raise taxes. “As governor, if I need to do it,” the challenger to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said to a Chico TV station, “I’ll close corporate tax loopholes, I’ll ask people who make a half a million dollars or more a year to give back some of the tax breaks they’ve gotten.”
He said the same thing to another TV station. “If I need to, I’m going to close corporate tax loopholes and I’m going to ask people making over half a million dollars or more a year to pay their fair share again so we can have the best schools, more affordable college, balanced budget.” The Angelides campaign had no comment on this equivocal-sounding stance.
If he “needs to do it?” That is a different tone from the Democratic primary just past. There was no equivocation there. The treasurer made a very resolute statement on April 5th, when he declared his tax hike program the centerpiece of his agenda.
“I’ll fully fund our schools, roll back the Schwarzenegger tuition hikes, expand financial aid, and open the doors to college wider than ever — and I’ll balance the state’s budget. I’ve said exactly how I’ll pay for this — by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking multi-millionaires to pay their fair share again.”
A Democratic advisor following the governor’s race closely notes that it is time for Angelides to try to get back toward the center. “He had to go hard left to beat Steve Westly, to appeal to the hardcore, tax-and-spend voters that could win it for him in a low turnout primary. It was the best, easiest way to make him the real Democrat in the primary and survive that eBay fortune.”
Meanwhile, Angelides has found an industry he thinks should get new tax breaks. The entertainment industry. Usually, it is a big source of funding for Democratic candidates for high office. It hasn’t been so helpful to the opponents of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Angelides told the Associated Press yesterday that he wants new tax breaks to stop the phenomenon of “runaway production” to other states and countries. How would he pay for these new tax breaks? By eliminating other tax breaks, i.e., closing corporate tax loopholes.
But nearly three months after he unveiled his tax plan, it remains remarkably vague. Even before Angelides proposed to call on it for another set of state expenditures.
When I asked Angelides following his April 5th speech laying out the program to specify which corporate tax loopholes he would close, he replied that he had a “$2.5 billion” program of corporate tax loophole closures, saying his campaign would send me the list. Which it did not.
Later that day, following his debate with Westly at the taping of Univision’s Voz y Voto, we did return to the question of exactly what the treasurer is calling for. I had asked him earlier to be specific about his corporate tax loophole closure program, and he had said his staff would send me a list. What was actually sent was not a list of those loopholes Angelides proposed to close, but a very general discussion of the state’s fiscal situation.
Noting this, I asked the treasurer to name some of the loophole closures in his program. He mentioned three, then referred me to the web site to look up the rest. I didn’t see the program on his web site.
Later, the Angelides campaign, via sometime communications director Nick Papas, sent me a list of corporate tax loopholes to be closed. Only eight, and with no revenue figures attached to any of the loophole closures.
“Close the “yacht loophole.” Eliminate special resource depletion deductions for gas and oil companies. Keep small business Subchapter S tax break for small businesses alone. Repeal sales tax exemption for farm and timber machinery. Repeal sales tax exemption for diesel used in agriculture. Repeal sales tax exemption for liquid petroleum gas used in agriculture. Close the expatriate corporation loophole. Close the “nowhere income” corporate loophole.
“Additionally, the Treasurer has proposed legislation requiring a detailed annual review of tax loopholes currently in the tax code as part of the budget.”
That was it from the Angelides campaign.
In the absence of an Angelides analysis of his program, the California Taxpayers Association, which opposes tax increases, did its own analysis of how much revenue the proposed Angelides corporate loophole closures would provide the state. They came up with a total of less than $1 billion per year.
Those sums are all well under the $2.5 billion per year Angelides cited after his rally speech.
Later in the spring, after many questions about the continued vagueness of the program, Angelides press secretary Brian Brokaw said that what the treasurer is providing in terms of detail are “examples” of what he would do, if he were to win the election.
The full program would be unveiled later.
With this week’s rhetorical hedging — and a new proposal not for “loophole” closure but loophole creation — it is time to see what “exactly” the program is.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
22 Comments
Dan Nguyen:Angelides is honest when being vague about taxes.
Angelides likes TAXES but he has to be vague because he can not even come up with a clear plan to tax Californians. The best weapon Angelides has is attack and more attack while not able to offer any real solution.
Angelides can articulate his California tax plan better with a borrowed statement like: “My view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
You see Angelides is like a baby: “An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”
Excuse me, I must stop now to change diaper and feed my baby.
Thank you President Reagan for the wisdom…..
Jun 30, 2006 - 6:51 am Juan Cortina:i wonder if the angelides campaign is an “example” of what an angelides administration would look like. :-S
Jun 30, 2006 - 6:53 am Ann:Phil Weasilides strikes again.
Jun 30, 2006 - 6:59 am Juan Cortina:nguyen wins the first spin of the day.
i don’t recall a candidate ever giving a detailed plan of their policy plans.
i believe schwarzenegger famously said that voters don’t care about the details of his plans.
i don’t think even nguyen’s personal hero, ronald reagan, ever gave details on how he would to raise revenues by lowering taxes.
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:11 am ModerateDem:Since we’re on taxes, I’ve heard that some Republican legislators actually think, after winning reelection, that GAS WILL raise taxes.
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:19 am Barbara:Mr. Bradley:Meanwhile, Angelides has found an industry he thinks should get new tax breaks. The entertainment industry.
I wonder if someone shoved AB 777 (Nunez) under Phil’s nose…if yes ..then at finally, Phil will be able to get specific about at least SOMETHING!
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:34 am Bill Bradley:The bill provides for fairly generous tax credits to qualified productions of features, movies of the week, miniseries, television series, and commercials if 75 percent of the principal photography shooting occurs in California.
General Cortina, it’s really not too much to ask the policy wonk candidate to say which corporate loopholes he would close. He says they add up to $2.5 billion a year. But the ones his staff provided add up to less than half that.
He says that his plan would increase the tax burden by only $5 billion a year.
But when he won’t answer the question for three months about what he wants to do, there is no way to look at that $5 billion figure as anything but an unsupported assertion.
To date, Phil Angelides has provided less detail than, say, a party platform. He is about on par with an op-ed piece.
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:42 am Bill Bradley:Barbara, I linked to that AP story yesterday.
The Angelides campaign dismisses out of hand Schwarzenegger’s work with Nunez on that bill.
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:48 am Barbara:“get new tax breaks. The entertainment industry”
In regard to AB 777, I have not looked at this bill for awhile (occasionally tax related bills hit my desk) but “qualified commercials” excludes fundraising or political commercials or a program organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.
I think the biggest concern with whatever Phil is proposing or this bill … if enacted it then sets precedent…certainly other industries will want the same treatment…someone should ask Phil about that…
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:58 am Jonathan Hemlock:Mr. Bradley is fortunate Mr. Angelides won the primary.
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:59 am Paul:The papers this morning report “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed more pro-gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights bills than any governor in California’s history.”
He’s Pro Gay, Pro Choice, Pro Immigration. He might be the best Democratic Governor this state has ever seen.
Jun 30, 2006 - 8:05 am Barbara:““This is an area where you would think that this governor, in his two and a half years, would have sat down with leaders of the industry, with legislative leaders … to find a way to continue to make us competitive in the global economy with respect to entertainment,” Angelides said. ”
“Barbara, I linked to that AP story yesterday.” The Angelides campaign dismisses out of hand Schwarzenegger’s work with Nunez on that bill
Sorry I did not catch that link…just read it now…but then Phil is offering up disinformation in his above statement!…so what his is problem with the Nunez Bill ? The premise/details of the bill or the fact that the GUV had a part in it?
Speaking of the Speaker I watched on and off (via Cal Channel) a committee vetting of his Tel/Cable bill yesterday and he stood for over 3 hours during the hearing!
Even the Chair asked at one point ..”would you like to sit now?” The Speaker just smiled and said “no I am fine!!!” The Speaker should find out exactly why Phil is dissing his bill…Phil is so petty…
Jun 30, 2006 - 8:29 am carole w:PA has a big problem, he isn’t relating to anyone but himself. AS is campaigning to please everyone which will probably win the election. A couple of days ago, I remember an article written about a meeting between PA and SW. Has anything come from this meeting? Does anyone have an update?
Jun 30, 2006 - 8:42 am boifromtroy:The “yacht loophole” was actually closed two years ago by a Lloyd Levine bill. It was set to expire July 1 of this year, but all indications were that it would be renewed.
Jun 30, 2006 - 9:33 am Hap Hazard:Looks like an emerging policy position for the campaign: Create corporate tax loopholes for corporations who might contribute to PA, and close corporate tax loopholes for those who contribute to AS. Are we to expect a new loophole on “runaway development” soon?
Jun 30, 2006 - 10:18 am carole w:Hap,
Jun 30, 2006 - 10:24 am Dana:…good point…:)
Angelides is getting hammered by that ad on taxes that quotes Westly. It appears to be one of the more effective ads of this season–I wonder if either campaign has done polling on how the tax issue plays out? One gets the impression this one is doing damage. That is my assumption because of the squirming Angelides is doing. The root of the problem IMHO is he over promised and will be hard pressed to provide clarity on how to fund everything he has promised without a tax that hits more than just millionaires. I bet Team Arnold 3.0 is already at work crafting their quips for the debates to follow-up this line of attack.
Jun 30, 2006 - 11:28 am Vladimir Bierko:Phil should use a line like “I just want to tax rich guys like Arnold.” If you think about it, Arnold has taxed movie-goers at $7 (or $10 if you live in a major city) a pop over the decades to see his movies.
Phil also could offer tax relief to people who saw “Red Sonja,” “Eraser” and “The 6th Day” in the theatre.
Jun 30, 2006 - 11:36 am ModerateDem:That’s pretty funny Vlad–at least the part about tax relief for seeing GAS’s movies–I for one would ask for relief. Perhaps a line about tax loopholes large enough for GAS to drive all his Hummers through will be next!?
Jun 30, 2006 - 12:18 pm Santiago De La Cruz:Here’s our choice in November:
Status quo or quid pro quo.
Jun 30, 2006 - 3:02 pm AthlonGuy:Does Angelides still plan to repeal the sales-tax exemption on farm equipment and farm-used diesel fuel? This was reported here back during that whole thing I think, but I haven’t heard much on this topic since. (Does this affect the house building biz at all?)
It’s funny that with the billion times Arnold was asked during the recall about running for President and the Constitutional amendment, you don’t hear much of that these days.
Can sidecars drive in the carpool lane when there is only one person - the sidecar is vacant?
Jun 30, 2006 - 7:43 pm Dana:The Angelides TV ads still trot out closing loopholes and raising taxes on the wealthy as the key plansk of his vague “plan” to pay for all the stuff he is promising.
Jul 3, 2006 - 3:40 pm