Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell:

“When Senator Barbara Boxer and her Democratic colleagues were in the minority in the US Senate, they would routinely block bills they opposed by using the 60-vote requirement to invoke cloture.  Now they’re complaining that the Republicans are doing the same thing, so they’re proposing an end run around the 60-vote requirement using ‘reconciliation’ – a process that’s reserved for bills legitimately and intimately related to the budget process. It was never intended for major policy bills.

“Whether you like or dislike the Democrats’ health care bill, there’s no doubt it is a major policy proposal. If ‘reconciliation’ is used to jam this unpopular proposal through, it can be used for any purpose, essentially killing the 60-vote requirement.

“The 60-vote requirement is an important protection against major policy changes being adopted by the thinnest of majorities. While it’s not found in the Constitution itself, the bi-cameral nature of legislation indicates a desire to obtain broad consensus, not just a popular majority, before legislation is enacted.

“In the present context, that necessity is made even clearer by the resounding voice of the American people against what the Democrats attempted to push through as health care reform prior to the Massachusetts Senate election. The American people were particularly repulsed at the abuses of majority power by the special deals worked out for Nebraska and union members. They thought it truly unfair to tax those who have health care insurance packages more generous than what the Democrats’ bill considered ‘good enough,’ and then exempting union members from that tax.

“If Senator Barbara Boxer and her colleagues use ‘reconciliation’ to force their plan on the American people, they will have broken faith with the majority of those they represent, and further tarnished, if that were possible, the reputation of the Congress under Democratic rule.”

“Everyone prays for a peaceful resolution, but we must also be realistic. Another threatened round of sanctions is no more likely to deter Iran from its goal than all the previous sanctions. Waiting for the Iranian people to throw over their dictator is also nothing on which we can rely. The state of Israel has on two previous occasions destroyed nuclear capabilities of nations threatening Israel (Syria in 2008, Iraq in 1981). Should Israel act in its own defense now, with regard to this threat from Iran, the United States should support Israel in that decision. I first stated that position publicly a month ago; this recent IAEA report only confirms that it was grimly timely.”

Our campaign is on the verge of a breakthrough. We’ve collected an impressive list of endorsements, finance committee members and positive media coverage. Even more importantly, I’m the only candidate with a serious plan for cutting the federal deficit in half without new taxes – and the one candidate political analysts say can defeat Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Stu Rothenberg, one of the most respected political analysts today, in CQPolitics:

[Chuck] DeVore doesn’t have the breadth of appeal or money to defeat Boxer, while [Carly] Fiorina has plenty of baggage. … Boxer’s prospects would take a hit, of course, if California Republicans were to nominate former Rep. Tom Campbell, a moderate who would have considerable statewide appeal – if he could accumulate the resources for an expensive statewide race.

Nate Silver, the wunderkind who predicted the presidential primary results, at Fivethirtyeight.com:

…where I’m a little bit skeptical of Carly Fiorina or Chuck DeVore’s ability to defeat Barbara Boxer, but where Tom Campbell might have the goods.

When up against Barbara Boxer, who has announced no plan for curbing the deficit, and has a record of reckless spending and expanding the federal government, I have no doubt I will prevail in this race. However, we must get over the first hurdle: the primary. We need to reach every primary voter with our plan for controlling spending, creating jobs and getting our economy back on track. To do that, I need your help.

Many of you have extended your generosity already, and for that I will always be most grateful. If you haven’t had a chance to contribute, I would appreciate any amount of support you can offer today.

With sincere thanks,

Tom Campbell

P.S. The most recent neutral polls in this race, Field and PPIC, show that I’m ahead in the primary by 5 and 11 points, respectively, with the best chance against Sen. Boxer. Yet, with four months to go and the expectation of an onslaught of attacks from my opponents, we must reach every single primary voter. I can do that with your help today. Thank you.

“I urge the US Senate and House to support Sen. Feinstein’s Water Amendment to the proposed Jobs Bill, to restore some more reasonable proportion of the traditional allocations of water in the San Joaquin Valley. Agriculture is California’s largest industry. Unemployment levels are at historically high levels in the Central Valley because of the drought, both the natural drought and the drought caused by the federal government restricting the flow of water through the pumps at Tracy. San Joaquin county reports 16.0% unemployment, Stanislaus 16.3%, Tulare 15.3%, Fresno 15.0%, Kern at 14.4%, while the California state average is 12.4%, and the national average is 9.7%. For the next two years, we need to take pragmatic, specific responsive action. While I have been skeptical of the claims that the original “stimulus” bill actually created jobs that the private sector would not, had the same amount of money been allowed to stay in private hands, the beauty of the Feinstein Water Amendment to the Jobs Bill is that it does not require a dime of federal money. Hence, it doesn’t take a dime away from private sector job creation. Indeed, it’s overwhelmingly clear that it will get jobs growing in the neediest portions of our state.

The federal statutes, on which the decision to shut down the pumping relies, allow for exceptions in the case of severe harm to human uses, especially where mitigation is possible as it is here. However, we have waited too long for the Administration to make an accommodation; and it appears it is not going to do so. These laws were created by Congress, and it is appropriate for Congress to adjust them, from time to time, in the light of special circumstances. Whether or not the jobs bill is the best available vehicle, the substance of the Feinstein Water Amendment should be passed by Congress without delay.”

I particularly like the idea of moving the deduction from the employer to the employee. However, I still think my proposal is better. Wyden-Bennett collapses Medicaid and SCHIP into a plan similar to FEHBP. All employers have to pay a tax to cover their employees, and all individuals must participate.

Although FEHBP does offer some freedom to choose among alternatives, it’s not as broad a choice as we have under the present system. For instance, an individual can rationally choose a high-deductable, catastrophic only plan in today’s health care insurance market; after Wyden-Bennett, the freedom to make that choice would be taken away. My proposal focuses on just two problems: pre-existing conditions, and those too poor to afford health care insurance, but not so poor as to be eligible for Medicaid.

If we can address those areas adequately, we’ve done what we should. Note that I also advocate eliminating the antitrust exemption for health care insurers, I would provide for the interstate sale of health care insurance, and I would add serious tort reform to save what Price Waterhouse estimates is 10% of today’s cost of delivered medicine: unnecessary procedures and prescriptions ordered to avoid legal liability.

I saw a President still committed to a federal government far too big, and a debt that is unsustainable. He is enabled by big spenders in Congress, like Senator Boxer, who, over 28 years in the House and Senate, has run up a record of spending that is almost unequaled by any other politician. Until we replace her with a proven fiscal conservative, I fear we won’t have real budget reform.

As I have said since my announcement, the federal government has run up a debt that is a fiscal, foreign policy and moral failure. Last year, we increased it by almost 1.5 trillion, and it stands now at over 12 trillion dollars. We pay for the deficit by borrowing money from foreign governments (China is our largest creditor), and by printing money, and now, it will take almost 300 years to pay it back.

Tonight, the President proposed a “partial freeze” on some forms of spending, which might save 15 billion from the deficit projected to be 1.3 trillion. That’s to say, the “partial freeze” will affect roughly 1 percent of the budget deficit.  What we need is not a partial freeze, but a hard freeze.   My proposal takes on even the big spending categories. One of the biggest, Medicaid, is exempt from the President’s partial freeze.  But if we were to impose a one-year freeze in Medicaid — not cut, but simply freeze Medicaid costs where they are today — we’d save $66 billion, more than four times what the President has proposed.

Here are more ideas.  We should apply the hard freeze to to all non-defense discretionary spending. That category went up by 98 billion last year. The President proposes cutting 15 billion from that increased level. I propose taking it back to where it was; saving 98 billion.

These first two ideas start to add up to real cuts.  Medicaid freeze at 66 billion plus 98 billion equals 164 billion in savings. Let’s continue further.  The $700 billion TARP money is being returned as banks no longer need it. The President has proposed spending it for new “stimulus projects.” I say no. We borrowed the money, now pay it back. Lower the federal debt directly.  The stimulus money, $789 billion in total, has not proved successful. Let’s take what’s not yet been spent (about 500 billion), and use only half. That would save us a quarter of a trillion dollars, over the next two years: 125 billion this year. 125 billion plus 166 billion, totals 291 billion. Now we are starting to see real progress.

My proposal for the remainder of the stimulus money is to use it to eliminate the payroll tax on hiring new employees, who have been out of work for more than two months. That would be real stimulus, targeted to specific jobs for specific people–not favorite projects in the districts of powerful Members of Congress.

Let’s combine my proposal for real spending cuts and real stimulus with real reform.

We need to bring back Gramm Rudman Hollings. That law cut federal spending in all areas but Social Security and defense: across-the-board cuts if annual targets for budget reduction were not met. It provided the lever that brought Washington’s big spenders to the table, in the late 90’s.  Let’s reinstitute Gramm Rudman Hollings on a five-year time horizon. Starting with the 291 billion savings I’ve just identified for this year, let’s reduce the federal expenditure  each of the next five years, too–bringing us down to a deficit of less than half of its current amount. If Congress can’t agree to make the cuts, then, just like before, everything but Social Security and defense is on the table for across-the-board cuts. That will give the will to Congress to do what has to be done; or will substitute for their will if it’s lacking.

The American people are watching, and they see that the President proposed only about 15 billion dollars in cuts this year, whereas I’ve just identified almost 300 billion – a much more serious proposal.

Moreover, these cuts will allow us to avoid tax increases, putting more spending power in the pockets of the average American. These cuts will also reduce the federal government’s massive borrowing, which crowds out money that could be available for small businesses. These cuts give more economic power to individual Americans. They are the path to economic recovery.

More good news to share with you.  On the wave of Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, a new Field Poll indicates change could come to California soon if Tom Campbell wins the Republican primary to challenge Barbara Boxer.

Here are the results of the poll:

30% Campbell
6% Devore
25% Fiorina

Note: The Field Poll was conducted from January 5-17 and Tom only entered the race on January 14.

In the general election, Tom trails Sen. Boxer by 10 according to Field, but in last week’s Rasmussen poll, Campbell only trailed only 46%-42% versus Boxer. It’s close either way, and change in the right direction is within our reach.

You can read more here: http://campbell.org/news/field-poll-campbell-leads-gop-field-chasing-boxer

We appreciate so much your support and efforts to spread the word about Tom’s message: more freedom, less government, individual liberty.

Also, many of you responded to Tom’s call for contributions to help kick off his Senate campaign. Thank you. Please encourage your friends to send their support as well.

-Team Campbell

I write today first with a sincere word of thanks. Your encouragement for my candidacy for Governor in California has been personally, deeply rewarding.

I initially made the decision to run for Governor because I believe that my level of record of public service (especially on the state budget), and my willingness to present specific, pragmatic solutions to our most pressing problems would enable me to help chart a better course for our state.

Like you, I am motivated by a desire to serve our state and country. I’ve devoted my entire career to public service and to teaching, which I consider yet another form of public service.

Today, I remain firmly committed on that path with an announcement that I’ll be running for the U.S. Senate instead.

We face a fiscal crisis of epic proportions at the national as well as the state level.

Every day brings more evidence of the need for fiscal restraint in Washington, and the huge danger to our country from printing money. Truly, in my lifetime, I have never seen the growth of federal government spending more out of control. The consequences will be both inflation in the very near future, affecting us all, but retirees especially, and a tremendous burden on the next generation that will have to pay back what has been borrowed. The federal deficit has more than tripled in a single year. That’s suicidal for our country.

When I was in Congress, I was twice rated by the National Taxpayers’ Union Foundation as the SINGLE MOST FRUGAL Member of Congress, based on the bills I had introduced and co-sponsored to control spending. I have a Ph.D. in economics; Milton Friedman was my faculty advisor; I was the last budget director of California to serve while the budget balanced; my whole background, training, and career has pointed to the primacy of fiscal responsibility.

Many of you helped me in 1992, when I almost won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. I narrowly lost, and the Republican who won, went on to lose to now-Senator Barbara Boxer. She has been in the Senate for 18 years, after a race which many analysts say I would have won had I been her opponent. The economic times are now even more critical than then; and it is, thus, even more important now than it was then that Californians have a fiscally sound representative in the U.S. Senate.

Another consideration in my decision was that the dynamics of the race for Governor are such that I would have faced two billionaires. The path of public service and teaching is rewarding, but it does not afford one the ability to invest millions of dollars in a campaign for office.

Nonetheless, I am mindful of the help of so many friends for my campaign for Governor; deepest thanks for your own generosity. Contributions to my Governor’s campaign allowed me to create and maintain the most substantive, best reviewed political website in our state’s history and communicate with well over a million Californians directly. The experience gained in that effort is not lost.

In 1982, Pete Wilson was running for Governor. He switched to run for the US Senate instead, won that race (against Jerry Brown), was a superb US Senator, then, 8 years later, was elected our Governor. There is, indeed, precedent for being pragmatic in seeking public service. But the overwhelming factor should be one’s love of country and state, and deep commitment to making each better. Our country is at a very perilous point in economic terms, and in terms of the size and intrusiveness of government. I believe I can help to restore our nation’s economic health, and spirit of independence.

I wanted you – one of my earliest supporters — to know why I’ve chosen a different direction to do so.

I ask for your help in this new endeavor. With warmest thanks for all your help,

As always,

Tom

P.S. Tonight, I will host a telephone townhall meeting with supporters and voters to discuss the uncontrolled spending in Washington. Please join this meeting by registering here. I would love to speak with you and kick-off my campaign for Senate on the right foot.

“Last week, you responded to my Facebook message about my work to help more community college students stay in school and graduate. I have started FirstDegree to create tools students can use to motivate themselves.

Most programs simply try to make school easier, but I’m trying to make a better connection between education and employment by showing that school is worth it. Most value statements about community college education are general… X amount of dollars over a lifetime… X amount of jobs being created in X industry. While these messages entice entrance to community college, they are not motivational enough to help many students persist.

The current graduation rate in California is about 20%…

I want you to help by sending the message in your campaign that the current situation of “Black Hole” education at California community colleges is going to be fixed during a Tom Campbell administration.

As an economist, you can appreciate that there need to be more incentives for colleges to put more resources towards graduating more students. Propose something like this:

Colleges over X% (30% by my count) graduation rate over a three year period get a 200$ per FTES (.5% general fund) bonus. Colleges who show progress of X% (5% over prior year) get a .5% over enrollment cap bonus from prior year and .5% towards coming year. The idea is that if they are keeping more students engaged and on track due to success, they will go over cap, and therefore be compensated/rewarded for success.”

Thank you all, have a great holiday season and a happy New Year.

-Team Campbell