Make that latest lying anti-Whitman ad from the desperate Brown forces.

Remember, remember, on the 2nd of November:

IT IT’S BROWN, FLUSH IT!

Hear that gurgling sound?

It’s Jerry circling the drain.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=72374

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

I’m inclined to disagree with that statement because Brown, as governor, was responsible for the management of the state. If the state’s tax structure at the time made its people vulnerable to inflation in the housing market and he did nothing to stop the subsequent spike in taxes then he is responsible for implementing a policy of inaction. His outspoken opposition to the ensuing tax revolt (prop 13) gives further evidence that he was fine with taxes going up. The fact that Wilson opposed it as well is irrelevant, he isn’t running for office and if he were I’m sure everyone would judge him for it at well.

“Despite that, Brown’s spending as governor – adjusted for inflation and population, as economists do when comparing dollars in and out over time – were actually lower than his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. The Associated Press has a story detailing that fact.”

This last point you make is the point I believe Brook tries to refute in his analysis. The lower state spending is a result of 13 and the revolt in three ways: directly (instant tax relief), indirectly (raising vote thresholds), and through politicians realizing lower taxes were in style with the voters. Brown saw this and went with the political wind by implementing prop 13 and cutting spending. Though one should note that he worked to raise taxes by the end of his second term.

In short, Brown went from pro to anti and back to pro tax through his terms and to declare him one or the other ignores the larger picture.

(Whitman is) clinging to Jackson’s argument that his report was essentially “valid.”

“As I said then, rising taxes in Brown’s early years helped bring about a tax revolt. It came in the form of Proposition 13” Jackson wrote.

But in this context, that’s misleading. Those “rising taxes” were the result of inflation in the housing market – not Brown’s tax policies. By trying now to make it look like his original report had merit, Jackson has given Whitman an excuse to perpetuate her lie.

Yes, Brown vehemently opposed Proposition 13 – as did eMeg campaign chairman Pete Wilson and most other people in public office. And once it was passed, he implemented it with relish and allowed state spending to increase, spending down a big surplus, to make up for billions in funding lost by cities, counties and schools.

Despite that, Brown’s spending as governor – adjusted for inflation and population, as economists do when comparing dollars in and out over time – were actually lower than his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. The Associated Press has a story detailing that fact.

I find this line to be rather disingenuous as Brook concluded in his review of his CNN report that “The point I was trying to make in 1992 remains valid”.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/jerry-brown-and-california-taxes/

Also Clinton’s repudiation of his own words is about as genuine as Brown saying that he thinks Clinton was an excellent president.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=17101
It is quite obvious that the two are being all supportive of each other now that it is politically expedient to do so