Meg Whitman: JUST SAY NO!

I'm feeling politically biased today (moreso than usual!) and the more I hear about Meg Whitman and her grab for the governor's seat in California, the more I feel she is just another Arnold Schwarzenegger, except with lady parts (eww).

Before I even get into her campaign talking points, I'd like to mention the fact that as the former CEO of eBAY, Whitman is a ridiculously rich woman. Sort of like former blockbuster movie star Arnold. This automatically puts her out of touch with the regular California resident and her massive spending on her campaign (last reported at $4 per second) really ought to be turning them all off. It's like a repeat of the Schwarzenegger campaign - he who has the biggest pocketbook shall win! Just because you're rich and made a lot of money for yourself does not qualify you to be a governor.

Okay now that I've gotten my personal opinion out of the way about rich, power-hungry slimebags, I can move on to the real issue at hand - analyzing Meg's platform she's using in the race.

Whitman is running on the premise of three main points: create jobs, cut spending, fix education.

That sounds all warm and fuzzy at first glance, but when you look closer into her methods, it is clear that she really has no idea what the job of the governor really is about.

Create Jobs

It is NOT the governor's job to create jobs. So why she makes this her first priority is beyond me. Anyone with any knowledge of California state government should know that the Governor's job is to approve legislation, submit and approve the annual state budget and ensure that the laws of California are being upheld. Her promise to create jobs is basically a front to pushing her own agenda of cutting corporate taxes. If you read her website you will see that the only thing she talks about in the creation of jobs is cutting business taxes. Cutting taxes for businesses does not automatically ensure that people will get jobs. For all we know, the benefit from these tax cuts may go straight to the pockets of CEOs.

Cut Spending

I don't think Meg Whitman realizes that you cannot cut government spending without ignoring California laws. State agencies and departments have been created through legislation that has been passed and included into California law. This means that state workers are carrying out the laws of California and if you cut the spending on these programs, then the laws would not and could not be upheld. Many state agencies actually collect revenue and make money for the state, so cutting their budgets doesn't really seem like an effective way to rein in spending. A more effective way to control government spending is to ensure that new legislation has funding sources. Cutting government spending would be doing a disservice to the people of California.

What Meg does not understand is that public service employees are the real people who run the state of California. These are the people who teach our children, protect our neighborhoods and environment, administer services to the disabled, unemployed and endangered people in our communities. Public service positions are jobs that help hold up the economy and our society. We pay taxes for clean water, new roads, public schools, etc. It's a worthwhile investment to invest in upholding government laws.

Whitman further wants to defend the 2/3 majority vote required to pass the annual budget and make the legislature a part-time entity filled with "citizen legislators".

Nearly all other states in the United States pass their budgets on a simple majority vote. While it is true that democrats dominate the California political landscape and may have the power to pass budgets with their own agenda's in mind - a 2/3 majority vote consistently leads to gridlock each year that makes the budget passage late. When the budget is passed late - many IOUs are issued which digs the economy into deeper holes. A majority vote for budget passage does not mean taxes could be raised without a 2/3 vote - and I think she is implying that that is what will happen. It's absolutely not true.

Also, Meg's idea about citizen legislators is completely ridiculous. It takes years to learn about the ins-and-outs of government policy and to say that regular citizens should be legislators is like saying an actor is qualified to be a governor (ha). No but really, if you have a cop serving as a legislator and he votes to up his salary and then goes back to being a cop after his term is over - isn't that a conflict of interest? Furthermore, making the legislature part-time in a state where government policy is so complex would only lead to many special sessions being called and more staffers being hired to cover for time the legislators are not in Sacramento. The California legislature used to be part-time, but they were changed to full-time for the very reasons I just listed. And that was back in the 1960s - why should we move backwards 50 years?

Fix Education

Meg doesn't say much about HOW exactly she is going to fix education other than she wants more money directed into the classrooms. I think what she fails to realize is that the decline in public education in California has been overall impacted by Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, which penalized schools that were under performing and rewarded schools that were performing best. Federal changes need to be made before state changes can really have an effect, but one way to make California schools better is to treat teachers to better pay. It's difficult to recruit the best and brightest to teach our children when teacher pay and job security are low. Teachers in California are required to get a post-graduate certificate (almost the equivalent to a master's degree) and are paid far less than those who go into other professions. I highly doubt it's on Meg's agenda to increase teacher salary, so I'm just going to assume she's just saying she'll fix education so that people who don't read into the substance of her campaign will think she is all about the children.

To me it is pretty clear that Meg Whitman knows very little about what the Governor's role is all about. I'm sure she's a brilliant business woman, but that doesn't mean she understands what is best for the people of California as a whole. We need a leader who will protect public services and who understands that being governor is not like being a CEO - your job isn't to make a buck, it is to adminster the law.