When California moved up its Presidential primary to February 5th, state leaders said it would be worth investing approximately $90 million to make California (and Californian issues) more relevant than ever. While it is true that this week voters in our state went to the polls before the presidential nominations by the two major parties were decided, the campaigns of the respective candidates only marginally touched on key federal issues that impact the Golden State. Contrast that to the endless discussions they had about corn-based ethanol in Iowa, hurricane insurance in Florida, the impact of trade on South Carolina’s textile industry, or the fate of Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
For taxpayers’ $90 million, it would have been nice to hear more from the candidates on their position on several key issues that impact Californians more than most states and which are critical to our state’s future.
First and foremost, California has been a significant net winner from trade. The Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation estimates that 290,000 jobs in LA County depend upon international trade, making that sector 20% larger than LA’s famed television and movie industry. Leading San Diego companies such as QUALCOMM and Solar Turbines sell a large percentage of their goods and services outside of the United States. The California Chamber of Commerce estimates that 12% of all US exports come from our state and that approximately ¼ of the state’s economy depends upon trade. Candidates of both parties need to talk about what the promotion of “fair trade” or challenging a trade system they depict as creating an “unlevel, unfair trading arena” would mean to a state which clearly has been winning in the global economy.
A second federal issue that matters tremendously to Californians is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). As a state with a high state income tax burden (and higher wages to offset, in part the cost of living in California), our state’s residents are disproportionately threatened by the AMT. The Public Policy Institute of California estimated that whereas 3.1% of all taxpayers in 2003-2004 were subject to the AMT, 5.8% of Californians were caught up in this pernicious parallel tax system.Most onerous are the provisions in the AMT that would prohibit most taxpayers from deducting their state income tax payments and which would require them to essentially calculate their taxes twice – adding immeasurably to the cost of compliance. When they return in the Fall to campaign in our state, candidates should be pressed as to what their plan is to deal with the expanding reach of the AMT on middle-class Californians.
Water policy is another area extremely important to the state’s future. California’s ability to move water around the state is dramatically impacted by the federal Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the federal Environmental Quality Act. California journalists and pundits would be wise to query candidates, for example, on whether they agree with interpretations of the Endangered Species Act that threaten to cut off 30% of Southern California’s drinking supply or whether they agree that the Clean Water Act was really intended to force municipalities in California to spend billions on cleaning up storm water runoff before it flows into the ocean.
Other issues that matter to California include traffic and schools. The Federal Highway Administration reports that one out of every 7.5 vehicles in the nation is registered in California. Commuters stuck in traffic have a tremendous interest in the priority Presidential candidates will place on transportation and how they think federal gas tax revenues should be distributed. Our state also is also home to more large school districts than any other state, including the 2nd (LA Unified) and the 19th (San Diego Unified) largest in the country. Federal efforts to encourage choice and charter schools have a tremendous impact in our state, far more than in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire where districts tend to be very small and where there is a much closer connection between parents, citizens, and education decision makers.
Finally, at the most macro of levels, federal candidates need to address the fact that because our state is younger (and because of the ever larger share of the federal budget consumed by Social Security and Medicare), California ends up being a net donor state. One estimate found that Californians get only 79 cents back in the form of spending or payments from the federal government for every dollar they send back to Washington. When they next visit the Golden State, pundits should ask the respective nominees of the two parties if they think that is “fair” and what they will do to end the giant sucking sound from Washington that can be heard in our state every April 15th .
What Californians, of whatever political persuasion, should hope for is that the state is “in play” in November. The 55 electoral votes at stake makes California the biggest prize of all and if the Golden State is competitive, candidates will have to return and, we hope, address issues that impact our citizens. So the next time a pollster calls you about the Presidential race, tell them you are “undecided”. Some courting in November would offer us a chance to once again put candidates on the spot about issues that matter to all of us.
Reader Feedback
Dale Busch Says:
Well stated.
February 21, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Post a Comment
Feedback Rules:
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
If you have not posted before, you will be required to verify your email address before your post is displayed.
Well stated.