California voting 2010: The Governor's Race
The Governor's race in California, weeks ago thought to be Whitman's, days ago thought to be a dead heat, now seems to be Brown's for the losing -- the latest CNN polling has Brown at 52%, Whitman 43%; and it was taken before the debate last night, which engendered this comment (whose source I've lost):
"Whitman, who has already alienated voters with her constant TV ad barrage, came off as a robot programmed by Pete Wilson and Grover Norquist."
I didn't watch it, but the general impression I read is similar. Whitman did not come out of that debate the winner.
Be that as it may, I doubt that it matters all that much who California's next Governor is in terms of the mess the State is in. The government is dysfunctional and will, in all likelihood, stay that way.
Like Schwarzenegger before her, Whitman may claim that she is going to turn the government upside down and shake out all the waste, fraud and abuse. She would likely have as much luck at that as the Governator did. The legislature would never let Whitman do much of what she wants (even assuming it would do the State any good, which is dubious), and as long as the Republicans maintain at least a third of the seats in one or both Houses, they will never let Brown do anything about the state's fiscal woes.
But there is at least one extremely important reason to vote for Brown over Whitman: health care.
Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed a bill to implement a single-payer health care system in California. There is no doubt that Whitman would again veto this legislation, and while Brown has been wishy-washy when asked, there is little doubt that he would sign it. A single-payer health care system is the only even remotely plausible way that the United States is going to be able to stop itself from going bankrupt from absurd rates of increase in health care costs relative to inflation. And a single-payer system will never come out of Washington; it is going to have to start in the states (notably Vermont and California) and spread.
It's a fairly long-term thing. By current federal law, California would not be able to implement a single-payer system until at least 2017 But the enabling legislation could and should be passed much sooner, and this will not happen if Whitman is Governor. Further, there is the possibility that the law will be changed to allow dates early than 2017 for States to apply for the right to do this.
I decided to prog through Brown's and Whitman's web sites, looking for interesting things. Here's one good and one bad thing I found on each of the sites.
Good things:
Whitman: Eliminate the $800 small business startup fee / tax (caveat: I assume the amount of revenue generated is small, but it should be made up for somehow). She has a point. The State should not be putting obstacles, monetary or bureaucratic, in the way of starting small businesses.
Brown: A Clean Energy Jobs Plan. Governor Moonbeam has become Governor Windstream and Sunbeam. Whitman has nothing specific about clean energy.
Bad things:
Whitman: Make the California legislature part time. OMFG. YHGTBFK. California is the world's fifth (or sixth, now) largest economy, and has nearly 40 million people. The state requires a full time legislature; one that can actually do its job of both legislating and oversight. Montana may be able to get away with a part-time legislature, but her argument makes no sense at all for California. I'd rather pass a law chaining them to their desks for nine months.
Brown: No mention of or plan at all for California's penal system. Of course, Whitman's plan is to 'build more prisons', but Brown's failure to take any stance here is disturbing, if not unexpected.
So, if you can about the long-term future of the United States, and you care about the environment, you'll vote for Brown. If you care about capital-gains tax cuts, and you still believe in the Republican canard that they actually care about fiscal responsibility when in fact all they care about is tax cuts, then you'll vote for Whitman. If you care about making the state government get its head out of its ass, then you'll vote for A. Miracle.
Choose well!
"Whitman, who has already alienated voters with her constant TV ad barrage, came off as a robot programmed by Pete Wilson and Grover Norquist."
I didn't watch it, but the general impression I read is similar. Whitman did not come out of that debate the winner.
Be that as it may, I doubt that it matters all that much who California's next Governor is in terms of the mess the State is in. The government is dysfunctional and will, in all likelihood, stay that way.
Like Schwarzenegger before her, Whitman may claim that she is going to turn the government upside down and shake out all the waste, fraud and abuse. She would likely have as much luck at that as the Governator did. The legislature would never let Whitman do much of what she wants (even assuming it would do the State any good, which is dubious), and as long as the Republicans maintain at least a third of the seats in one or both Houses, they will never let Brown do anything about the state's fiscal woes.
But there is at least one extremely important reason to vote for Brown over Whitman: health care.
Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed a bill to implement a single-payer health care system in California. There is no doubt that Whitman would again veto this legislation, and while Brown has been wishy-washy when asked, there is little doubt that he would sign it. A single-payer health care system is the only even remotely plausible way that the United States is going to be able to stop itself from going bankrupt from absurd rates of increase in health care costs relative to inflation. And a single-payer system will never come out of Washington; it is going to have to start in the states (notably Vermont and California) and spread.
It's a fairly long-term thing. By current federal law, California would not be able to implement a single-payer system until at least 2017 But the enabling legislation could and should be passed much sooner, and this will not happen if Whitman is Governor. Further, there is the possibility that the law will be changed to allow dates early than 2017 for States to apply for the right to do this.
I decided to prog through Brown's and Whitman's web sites, looking for interesting things. Here's one good and one bad thing I found on each of the sites.
Good things:
Whitman: Eliminate the $800 small business startup fee / tax (caveat: I assume the amount of revenue generated is small, but it should be made up for somehow). She has a point. The State should not be putting obstacles, monetary or bureaucratic, in the way of starting small businesses.
Brown: A Clean Energy Jobs Plan. Governor Moonbeam has become Governor Windstream and Sunbeam. Whitman has nothing specific about clean energy.
Bad things:
Whitman: Make the California legislature part time. OMFG. YHGTBFK. California is the world's fifth (or sixth, now) largest economy, and has nearly 40 million people. The state requires a full time legislature; one that can actually do its job of both legislating and oversight. Montana may be able to get away with a part-time legislature, but her argument makes no sense at all for California. I'd rather pass a law chaining them to their desks for nine months.
Brown: No mention of or plan at all for California's penal system. Of course, Whitman's plan is to 'build more prisons', but Brown's failure to take any stance here is disturbing, if not unexpected.
So, if you can about the long-term future of the United States, and you care about the environment, you'll vote for Brown. If you care about capital-gains tax cuts, and you still believe in the Republican canard that they actually care about fiscal responsibility when in fact all they care about is tax cuts, then you'll vote for Whitman. If you care about making the state government get its head out of its ass, then you'll vote for A. Miracle.
Choose well!