张昭富访谈(2)
anonymous-114 05/01 5065
4.5/56
[donate]http://www.barry4ca.com/donate[/donate]
2. Bread and Fiscal Policy
LY: Tell me more about your experience as a fiscal conservative in Democratic Party. I’m very curious!
Barry: Let me tell you a bit of my background first. I have been an engineer and small business owner. I graduated from Taipei Institute of Technology in 1972. In the next two years I was a second lieutenant in combat engineering in the Army in Taiwan. I helped build military underground bunkers, garrisons, and roads. After finishing my service in the Army, I was immediately hired to work on constructing the first freeway in Taiwan. With a scholarship in 1977 I was able to come to the University of Cincinnati and graduated with a master’s degree in Civil Engineering. Since then I worked on nuclear plant construction across the country. Eventually our family settled in Bay Area. The company I worked for wanted to transfer me to Pennsylvania. With a three old and a 10-month infant at that time I decided to quit and start a new career. I started as a real estate agent. It was very hard for me in the beginning. Through perseverance and hardworking I eventually owned my real estate brokerage and loan office. My wife has been along with me and is currently my office manager (laugh). So I have an understanding of how a sustainable business should be run.
I’ll give you the example of the proposed High Speed Rail program. Governor Brown wants to build the bullet train linking Los Angeles and San Francisco. Half of total cost estimation of $40 billion will be picked up by private sector and federal government. Good idea, right? The problem is that the cost, as more often than not, is way underestimated. At the same time and even more important, the planned path goes across the Central Valley, with very little ridership in the middle. Its route choice in Los Angeles is also tricky and questionable. Unlike countries like China where railroads are built and subsidized by the central government with near term profit only as a minor consideration, our California cannot afford to have a project that keeps losing money when our state debt is already so high. From my Civil Engineer background, I understand the cost projection and reality. We need a project that can sustain on its own, that means ridership and the keys to ridership are convenience, saving time and saving money. The high speed rail in design simply couldn’t meet the requirement of Proposition 1A in self-funding. Maybe a plan change can make it work, but we are still facing the issue of wasted money and fogginess in construction cost estimation. I’m just a city councilman, but as a Californian I’d like the government to be responsible for taxpayer’s money and offer a better solution.
For economic development, the priority for AD28 is improving Bay Area daily commuting where billions of dollars of productivity is wasted. Because of special interests and politics, BART couldn’t extend to San Mateo and Santa Clara. We need to get everyone to work together and complete the loop to have the proper infrastructure needed for the local economy. That will allow the businesses in NorCal to keep on growing. This will be laying the foundation for future sustainable success and pay ample dividend. If I become a state assemblyman, I can apply my knowledge and experiences for the district and whole State.
LY: There were people who don’t agree with your assessment. Is it?
Barry: I stand by principle and numbers, not personal agenda or partisanship. I understand that an idea can be unpopular sometimes but people will eventually see and understand. If I’m wrong, I will not hesitate to stand corrected.
Let me give you an example. In 2010, Cupertino was evaluating a plan for a cricket court which cost $250K. I asked the planner how many Cupertino residents would benefit from it regularly. He told me probably less than 10. Maybe more people from the neighboring community could come. I had no issue if it’s a public-private partnership or a multi-city solution to make it work financially for the city. However spending $250K of taxpayer’s money for less than 10 residents was not what we should do. Although it would be more politically correct to vote yes, only I voted NO. The single NO vote by me made a stand but cost me a lot of otherwise “goodwill” in our Indian Americans. Some Indian Americans friends didn't understand me at that time, and someone even called me as “disruptive” and “abrasive”. Even so, I would still be defending their tax dollars, the hard-earned savings from them. I hope that they now understand that I was working hard to safeguard theirs and everyone else’s interest. I will still support whatever makes financial sense for all of us, including our Indian American and other friends. All of us will be able to count on me to defend their rights.
LY: I heard that you worked on Apple’s new Campus deal with Cupertino? I also heard that like some other companies Apple has been very good with their tax reduction strategy.
Barry: I’m not at the position to talk too much about federal taxes. We need fair and leveled playing field for all, large and small business. We don’t want to tax everyone to death, neither can we leave the burden unfairly on those couldn’t exploit or decided against using tax loopholes.
On the local tax part, we have sales and use tax. Cupertino had a tax rebate for Apple back in 1997, subsidizing the company when it was near bankruptcy. The city refunds roughly 50% of the local sales tax Apple pays each year. As Apple turns around and becomes hugely successful, I believe that it doesn’t hurt for Apple to give back more to the community that supported it all along. The new deal I negotiated with Apple, with me in each of at least 12 times against the 7-8 well prepared financial and law professionals on the other side, has been difficult but worthwhile. Now we get back 30% more in Sales tax revenue for the city. Had we had more support among other councilmen and the mayor, maybe we could get back more or even completely phase out the tax subsidy. This allows the city to better serve the residents without tapping into additional tax revenue. We can even cut some local tax.
