Team Poizner Communications Director Jarrod Agen issued the following statement today in response to Meg Whitman’s latest false attack ad.

“Meg Whitman’s campaign is imploding due to her support for Barbara Boxer, her support for Pete Wilson’s $112 billion in tax increases, and her outlawed deals with Goldman Sachs. Meg Whitman has no solutions for California and nothing new to say other than to rehash her same lies about Steve Poizner.”

In This Section:

• FACT: Poizner Is A Strong Supporter Of Proposition 13
• FACT: WHITMAN HYPOCRISY – Many Prominent Whitman Endorsers Strongly Backed Proposition 39 – Will She Attack Them, Force Them To Drop Their Endorsement, Or Return Their Contribution?
• FACT: MORE WHITMAN HYPOCRISY – Whitman Didn’t Even Vote In 2000
• FACT: Media Has Called Whitman’s Attack On Poizner’s Spending Record A Lie
• FACT: Poizner Has Made Significant Budget Cuts At The Department Of Insurance
• FACT: Whitman Supports Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s Tax Increases, Which Have Cost California Taxpayers At Least $112 Billion

FACT: Poizner Is A Strong Supporter Of Proposition 13:

Poizner Is A Strong Supporter Of Proposition 13. “Republican Gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner told KPBS he supports Prop 13 and would be an ardent protector of the proposition if elected.” (KPBS’s “The  Legacy Of Prop. 13,” www.kpbs.org, 3/28/10)

• NOTE: When Asked, Whitman Couldn’t Even Offer Support For Proposition. “And although his Republican rival Meg Whitman, ran these ads, she too refused to tell KPBS whether she would support Prop 13 today.” (KPBS’s “The  Legacy Of Prop. 13,” www.kpbs.org, 3/28/10)

FACT: WHITMAN HYPOCRISY – Many Prominent Whitman Endorsers Strongly Backed Proposition 39 – Will She Attack Them, Force Them To Drop Their Endorsement, Or Return Their Contribution?

Former Gov. Pete Wilson Was A Prominent Endorser Of Proposition 39. “PROPOSITION 39: Voters narrowly approved a constitutional amendment that would make it easier for school districts to win voter approval of bond measures by changing the needed vote from the current two-thirds to 55 percent. Backers include Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, school groups and Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Placed on ballot by petition signatures.” (“California Propositions At-A-Glance,” The Associated Press, 11/8/00)

• NOTE: Wilson Was An Honorary Chairman Of The Proposition 39 Campaign.

Former Mayor Richard Riordan Supported Proposition 39, Contributing $99,990.50. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

Robert Kagle Of Benchmark Capital, Who Has Contributed $25,900 To Whitman’s Campaign And Appeared In Whitman’s TV Ad, Contributed $109,222.50 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

Cisco Systems’ John Chambers Backed Proposition 39. “Technology’s strong presence on the pro-39 campaign is the latest sign of Silicon Valley’s increasing efforts to try to shape education policy in the state. Besides Hastings, its chairs also include venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and Cisco Systems President John Chambers. Doerr and his wife, Ann, have lent at least $6 million to the Proposition 39 campaign, according to campaign records. Chambers has donated $250,000, along with another $250,000 from Cisco.” (Lori Olszewski, “Some Prop. 39 Backers Have Deep Pockets,” San Francisco Chronicle, 10/23/00)

• Chambers Contributed $520,000 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 3/1/10)

Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, Who Has Contributed $25,900 To Whitman’s Campaign, Contributed $125,000 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

• McNealy’s Wife, Susan, Who Has Contributed $25,900 To Whitman’s Campaign, Also Contributed $125,000 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

First Virtual Group Chairman Thomas Siebel, Who Has Contributed $25,900 To Whitman’s Campaign, Contributed $500,000 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

James Breyer Of Accel Partners, Who Has Contributed $25,900 To Whitman’s Campaign, Contributed $115,613 To Proposition 39. (California Secretary Of State Website, cal-access.ss.ca.gov, Accessed 12/14/09)

FACT: MORE WHITMAN HYPOCRISY – Whitman Didn’t Even Vote In 2000:

Whitman Was Featured In A 2000 Business Week Article On The “Disturbing Number Of Top Executives” Who Do Not Vote. “A disturbing number of top executives, however, had worse-than-spotty records. No registration could be found for a small group of execs such as AT&T’s Mike Armstrong, eBay’s Meg Whitman, and Yahoo!’s Tim Koogle.” (Lorraine Woellert, “Do CEOs Vote? Not Always — And Not Often,” Business Week, 11/6/00)

Whitman’s Hypocrisy And Desperation Evident By Attacking Poizner On An Issue She Was “Totally Clueless And Couldn’t Be Bothered” To Even Engage Or Vote On The Issue At The Time. “It’s one thing to whack a foe when you have an honest disagreement with them on an issue; it’s quite another to totally cheap shot a rival for making a principled stand, when you were completely clueless and couldn’t be bothered, to get engaged on the policy issue at hand.” (Jerry Roberts And Phil Trounstine, “Friday Fishwrap: Crusty’s Secret Eyebrow Makeover,” CalBuzz, 3/5/10)

Whitman Was “Too Damn Busy And Oh-So-Important To Even Vote On It.” “And where was Whitman on the matter? Courageously staking out the position against that she now purports to defend? No, while her Silicon Valley colleagues were taking a stand on behalf of school kids and parents, eMeg was just too damn busy and oh-so-important to even vote on it -  no, more, to even register to be eligible to vote on it, that’s where.” (Jerry Roberts And Phil Trounstine, “Friday Fishwrap: Crusty’s Secret Eyebrow Makeover,” CalBuzz, 3/5/10)

FACT:  Whitman Has No Idea What She Is Talking About – Media Has Called Whitman’s Attack On Poizner’s Spending Record A Lie:

Sacramento Bee: “Whitman Misrepresents Poizner’s Department Spending Record.” “Whitman’s campaign uses statistics selectively to arrive at its 14 percent number and lie about Poizner’s record. … There are two problems with Whitman’s math. She uses the wrong years for a fair comparison, and she includes spending over which Poizner had no control. … She includes all department spending, including a large chunk of money Poizner is required by law to collect and send to local district attorneys to fight insurance fraud. … Excluding parts of his budget predetermined by state law, Poizner has made significant cuts in his budget from the year he took office to the current year.” (Amy Chance And Jack Chang, ” Ad Watch: Whitman Misrepresents Poizner’s Department Spending Record,” Sacramento Bee, 3/20/10)

FACT: Poizner Has Made Significant Budget Cuts At The Department Of Insurance. “Excluding parts of his budget predetermined by state law, Poizner has made significant cuts in his budget from the year he took office to the current year.” (Amy Chance And Jack Chang, ” Ad Watch: Whitman Misrepresents Poizner’s Department Spending Record,” Sacramento Bee, 3/20/10)

Poizner Reduced CDI’s State Operations Budget By $19.3 Million, From $135.9 Million To $116.6 Million. In January 2009, CDI’s state operations budget was $135.9 million. Since then, Commissioner Poizner has reduced the state operations budget by nearly 15 percent, or $19.3 million, to $116.6 million. (California Department Of Insurance, “Department Of Insurance Blog” Blog, www.insurance.ca.gov, 11/16/09)

• NOTE: The Commissioner Only Has Direct Control Over CDI’s State Operations Budget.

The $19.3 Million In Cuts Were Made After A Thorough Top Down Review, The First Ever Completed By An Insurance Commissioner. The $19.3 million in cuts made by Commissioner Poizner were made after a thorough top down review of the department initiated by the Commissioner after taking office and completed late last year. This was the first top down review ever completed by an Insurance Commissioner. (California Department Of Insurance, “Department Of Insurance Blog” Blog, www.insurance.ca.gov, 11/16/09)

• NOTE: In Previous Statements, The Whitman Campaign Cited The Governor’s Proposed Budget For CDI In January 2009, And Failed To Account For Only That Portion Of CDI’s Budget Over Which The Commissioner Has Direct Authority.

Poizner Reduced CDI’s State Operations Budget, Which He Has Direct Authority Over, By Nearly 15 Percent.

Poizner Has No Discretion Over Pass-Thru Funds, Which Go To Local Law Enforcement To Help Combat Insurance Fraud.

Poizner Has No Discretion Over Mandated Spending At CDI For Purposes Such As Rent, The State Data Center, Information Technology Support, The Conservation And Liquidation Office, Etc.

BOTTOM LINE: Poizner Reduced The Portion Of CDI’s Budget Over Which He Has Direct Authority By Nearly 15 Percent.

FACT: Whitman Supports Former Gov. Pete Wilson’s Tax Increases, Which Have Cost California Taxpayers At Least $112 Billion:

Whitman Has Described Wilson As The Greatest California Governor In Memory, Claiming That His Tax Increases Made Sense At The Time. “At the same time, Whitman praised former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson for his role in the 1990s budget crisis. She said the tax hikes imposed by Wilson — whom she described as the greatest California governor in memory — made sense at the time, even if they would be inappropriate now.” (Michael Finnegan, “Whitman Unveils Her Stands,” Los Angeles Times, 2/11/09)

Gov. Wilson’s Tax Hikes Included A 1.25% Increase In The Sales Tax. “Wilson later said the package, which included a 1.25 percent sales tax increase, was a mistake.” (Judy Lin, “GOP Toes Party Line  On Taxes,” Sacramento Bee, 12/30/07)

NOTE: Since 1991, Gov. Pete Wilson’s Sales Tax Hikes Have Cost Californians Over $112 Billion In 2009 Dollars.

Year	Statewide Taxable Sales (thousands)	Tax Due To Wilson 1.25% Hike (thousands)	Bring Forward To 2009 Dollars	Tax Due to Wilson 1.25% Hike (thousands of 2009 dollars)
1992	$272,368,291	$3,404,604	1.54	$5,243,089.60
1993	$272,123,743	$3,401,547	1.5	$5,102,320.18
1994	$285,974,711	$3,574,684	1.46	$5,219,038.48
1995	$300,956,449	$3,761,956	1.42	$5,341,976.97
1996	$321,076,250	$4,013,453	1.38	$5,538,565.31
1997	$341,091,634	$4,263,645	1.35	$5,755,921.32
1998	$358,858,378	$4,485,730	1.33	$5,966,020.53
1999	$394,736,245	$4,934,203	1.3	$6,414,463.98
2000	$441,854,412	$5,523,180	1.26	$6,959,206.99
2001*	$441,517,560	$4,415,176	1.22	$5,386,514.23
2002	$440,950,094	$5,511,876	1.2	$6,614,251.41
2003	$460,096,468	$5,751,206	1.18	$6,786,422.90
2004	$500,076,783	$6,250,960	1.15	$7,188,603.76
2005	$536,904,428	$6,711,305	1.11	$7,449,548.94
2006	$559,652,437	$6,995,655	1.07	$7,485,351.34
2007	$561,050,149	$7,013,127	1.04	$7,293,651.94
2008*	$539,732,229	$6,746,653	1	$6,746,652.86
2009*	$453,375,072	$5,667,188	1	$5,667,188.40
Total:	$7,029,020,261	$92,426,148		$112,158,789

*The .25% sales tax imposed under Cal. Rev. and Tax Code 6051.3 was not in effect for the 2001 tax year.

* Fourth quarter 2008 taxable sales estimated based on third quarter taxable sales.

* 2009 taxable sales estimated based on 2008 estimates and Legislative Analyst’s Office projections.

Sources:

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 12/15/09)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 12/15/09)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 12/15/09)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

(“California’s Fiscal Outlook,” Legislative Analyst’s Office, 11/09)

(Bureau Of Labor Statistics Website, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)

(Board Of Equalization Website, www.boe.ca.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)