Bill Wells Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge

Bill Wells Bill Wells 16 Comments


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 6, 2010 CONTACT: Eddie Sprecco 619-889-1348

(El Cajon) El Cajon Mayor Pro Tem Bill Wells announced today that he has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge as written by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). Already considered the tax-fighter candidate for the 77th, having earned the endorsement of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Bill Wells signed the pledge to emphasize his continuing commitment to fighting taxes if elected to the State Assembly.

According to ATR, the pledge has the simple purpose of ensuring that those candidates who claim to oppose tax increases are willing to put their commitment in writing. ATR wants to inform taxpayers about where candidates stand on taxes before voters send them to Sacramento.

“It is important for constituents to know that I stand against tax increases,” Wells said. “The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association endorsement shows I have kept this promise during my time in office. Signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge shows my commitment to opposing taxes while in the State Assembly,” Wells continued.


The 77th Assembly district includes the communities of: Alpine, Borrego Springs, Bostonia, Casa de Oro – Mount Helix, Crest, El Cajon, Granite Hills, Harbison Canyon, Jamul, La Mesa, Lakeside, Ramona, Rancho San Diego, San Diego, San Diego Country Estates, Santee and Winter Gardens.



Comments 16

  1. Although signing this is purely symbolic it is a better indication than not. I only hope this politician will follow through. As the saying goes, talk is cheap.

  2. Wow, is the primary starting to get heated now? That sounded like a fairly snarky comment to me.

    Glad both of you have signed it, but the Howard Jarvis endorsement is bigger than a signature on a piece of paper.

    Like JoAnne said, to whichever of you is elected, just follow through.

  3. The Howard Jarvis endorsement USED to mean something….until they endorsed Meg Whitman, and now, Johnny-Come-Lately Bill Wells. WHY didn’t he sign it last Fall? WHY has he missed so many forums?

  4. Lynette,

    So now, apparently because the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association didn’t endorse Christine, their endorsement is meaningless? Is the CRA endorsement meaningless too?

    You sound pretty bitter over the endorsements rather than having a real point of contention and extremely childish for being so taken back Bill didn’t sign a nonbinding piece of paper until now.

    I don’t know which forums Bill has missed but the one I met him at, the CRA, he did very well and actually won their endorsement. Good for him.

    Since you apparently have been at all the forums, I’m going to guess you’re a Christine supporter and possibly, GASP, Christine herself! Wow, shocking!

    You seem to like questions so I have a few for you, Christine, uh I mean Lynette:

    WHY does Christine try to tear down the other Republican candidates?

    WHY does Christine have to loan her campaign $25,000?

    WHY the unabashed, snippy comments?

    We are all on the same team and I would encourage you to run a good race, stay out of the weeds, and let the voters find the candidate they want to represent them. Just because you didn’t get the endorsements you wanted doesn’t mean you have to start throwing stones, it only makes you look bad.


  5. I would encourage commenters to not assume that everyone on here uses fake names. I can assure you that Lynette Williams does indeed exist, is a real person, and is a real activist…for many years, probably longer than most any reader here; she has even provided a link to her website had you taken the time to check. Based on her comment, she could be either a Jones or Rubin supporter…that doesn’t really matter.

    So, it is one thing to question her on her opinions about Wells, HJTA, and CRA. It is quite another to malign her for being a fraud, and in so doing also malign Rubin by implying she posted using a fake name. Quite wrong on both points.

  6. Thor’s assistant,

    I have great respect for this forum and recognize my insinuation that Christine was behind the comment is childish of me. My apologies.

    Ms. Williams,

    I would like to apologize to you and Christine. The only encounter I had with Christine was not a vote winner for me and perhaps I should give her the benefit of the doubt. She was busy and had already had a long enough evening.


  7. For the Record I strongly support Christine Rubin and personally feel she is the most qualified candidate that is in this race. I know Brian Jones and I attend the same church as Bill Wells and worked with him when I was the President of the Grossmont Union High Board.

    My advice for those that are undecided is to do your own due diligence and make an informed decision. I support Christine because I believe she would represent the best interests of the voters in the district I live in and I trust her completely to make the correct decisions for the people of the 77th.

  8. Mike, thanks, that is truly appreciated and all that anyone can ask. And, I do note, not something most politicians would do…own up and move on. They should take a lesson from you. Thank you!

  9. If we are all on the same team and stand for the same things why wouldn’t all the candidates in the 77th get the endorsement from Howard Jarvis and the CRA?

    I will tell you why, both are in bed with a person that manipulates organizational endorsements for his own purposes and candidates. Thus, you won’t see the actual endorsement from that person but instead that person’s signature all over garnering the Jarvis & CRA endorsements. That is why Lynette said what she said. By the way, Lynette is not Christine or necessarily a Christine supporter. But I am.

    I know the insiders game, all too well, so take me on.

    So you went to the CRA endorsing meeting, did you know that it was probably cooked before any meeting took place?

    Were you at any of the other community candidate forums?

    Had you been you might have found your candidate MIA with no regard for meeting with his constituency.

    Lynette is a hard worker for our team. When is our team going to realize that being on the team is not a pass on accountability?

  10. If you have something to say, say it and back it up…none of this shadowy “a person” and “that person” stuff. If you are afraid to do other than imply conspiracies, better to not post at all.

  11. Larry and PJ,

    At the end of the day I think any of the three candidates will represent us nearly identically in terms of their voting and we’ll all be able to say he/she is doing us well.

    So since I feel that they would all represent our Conservative district as we would hope a Conservative would, my next criteria is being personable/ approachable. After speaking with all of the candidates I just had a great vibe from Bill and not so much from Christine. She seemed a bit abrasive and just not someone I would enjoy meeting with in the future. This is not meant to be a slight against Christine, its just the impression I got. Being able to relate to our elected leaders is important and I felt that both Brian and Bill were people I would like to have a beer with.

    If CRA and Howard Jarvis are so irrelevant now or manipulated as you say, then why would Christine and Brian both go for their endorsement? I’m sure that politics is an insider’s game, but all of the candidates are insiders are they not?

    PJ, who are you inferring is “unaccountable?”


  12. Mike,

    I never said CRA and Howard Jarvis are irrelevant and I did not make any negative comments about Brian or Bill. I stated my opinion as to why I feel Christine is the best candidate and why I support her.

    My number one criteria as a conservative is who do I feel will be the best leader and best represent the people of this district.

  13. Larry,

    The irrelevant comment was semi directed at Lynette since she said the HJTA was meaningless since Whitman and Bill received it.

    The only differences I see in the candidates are their demeanors and their personalities. On policies they all seem pretty right on the money….they talk the talk.

    I guess at the end of the day I just like Bill as a person more than Christine and you like Christine more than Bill or Brian.


  14. PJ, as an organizer, participant and endorsement committee voter for the East County CRA forum, I can tell you that our process is not “fixed” and it is dead wrong of you to imply such conduct in your comment.

    Our endorsements are done by a fair process, and much debate was had internally before the EC CRA decided to unanimously endorse Bill Wells.

    If you or others have participated in such “fixed” contests, that conduct is reflective of those participants. It is NOT how EC CRA conducts its business.

  15. I am a supporter of Christine Rubin. I have read the prior messages and am glad to see an effort to keep the comments positive. It seems like all three candidates have solid conservative credentials so there may not be huge differences in their positions on the issues. However, the reason I am supporting Christine rather than the other two candidates is one simple point—experience.

    I think we can all agree on several things—(1) Sacramento is horribly broken, (2) the ultra-liberal Democrats are in firm control of the Legislature (subject to the whims of their public-employee-union masters), (3) the Legislature’s spending habits are about to take California over a cliff and (4) it will demand lots of skill and experience for a new, conservative, Republican member to make an impact. I hope we also can all agree that the situation in Sacramento is critical and we need an immediate change of course, we can’t wait for later.

    Given this desperate situation, I believe we in the 77th District need someone who can hit the ground effectively in Sacramento from day one. It seems that only Christine Rubin has the experience to do so. Christine was appointed the Deputy Director of a major government agency in Sacramento and served there for most of two years. In that role, she got a first-hand education in the ways of Sacramento and how to get things done. She worked with the Executive branch, the agencies and the Legislature. She learned who to call and how things work. Christine also has great experience in state and national politics. She has seen the kinds of games that State-wide politicians play and knows how to combat them. Christine has been local District Director to State Senator Mark Wyland (who endorses Christine) so she has seen the state legislative process from the ground level too. This kind of experience is invaluable and seems to distinguish Christine from her opponents.

    On a radio debate last week, Brian Jones conceded that he has no real Sacramento experience. He went on to point out that this was a good thing because he would bring fresh ideas. Since most people hate Sacramento politicians, this sounds good but is it really? Mr. Jones’ statements actually acknowledge that he does not know how Sacramento works or who to talk to there to get things done. This is not a personal failing; it is simply a lack of necessary experience. In Sacramento, Mr. Jones will be an entirely unknown person without knowledge of how the system works. Even if he has fresh ideas, how will he accomplish any of them while he learns the ropes in the capitol? The answer is, despite excellent intentions and his best efforts, he won’t be able to. I believe the same statements apply to Bill Wells although he did not attend the debate so he did not comment on his experience.

    Normally, this would not be so big a deal. We could elect our favorite, local city council person and let them go to Sacramento and learn on the job for a couple of years. However, we cannot afford that luxury as the State heads towards financial ruin! We need an effective and knowledgeable representative now, not two years from now.

    One predictable response would be to try and paint Christine as a “Sacramento insider”—part of the problem. This would be both unfair and untrue. In fact, her main career has been running a company with her husband here in San Diego. (Her husband is now working in Afghanistan, helping to enhance the safety of our troops there) The company worked on many defense contracts and Christine has experienced first-hand the high taxes and fees necessary just to keep their company in California. Taking time out from that business to serve a stint with a major agency and act as District Director to a Senator does not make one a creature of corrupt Sacramento. Actually, Christine hits that “sweet spot” that we need—a person who knows how Sacramento works yet is completely and totally disgusted by what she saw and experienced. Christine can tell you specifically what is wrong in Sacramento and what needs fixing because she has seen it. She is the only candidate who can say that honestly.

    Finally, one of the comments mentions the writer’s distaste for Christine because of her perceived aggressiveness (a familiar and troubling knock on a woman candidate), preferring the “vibe” of Mr. Wells. Of course, that writer is perfectly free to state his own personal preferences among the candidates. Christine does have a strong and clear presence, without a doubt. She could never have made the change from a Navy wife (finished raising her two boys) to Professor/Deputy Secretary/District Director by being weak. I would just ask this—in the cesspool that is Sacramento, do you think Mr. Well’s comforting “vibe” is going to be more effective or Christine’s energy and passion to do what needs to be done to clean up the mess? With no disrespect to Mr. Well’s pleasing personality, I choose Christine. I hope you will too. We need her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.