Doing some research on the governor's race--and by research I mean watching youtube videos--I stumbled on this clip of Meg Whitman in an interview. Her plan--aside from making sure everyone thinks that Jerry Brown has been "bought and paid for" by the Unions--is to get California back on track by deregulating small businesses--scaling back start-up taxes and lessening restrictions on starting businesses--something she claims she's had ample experience with at Ebay. Is this really the best course of action? I must confess, I'm rather skeptical of Meg Whitman, with her record shattering 104 million dollar campaign, which, up until now, has only gotten her tied and slightly ahead of Jerry Brown, who incidentally has spent about a tenth of the money Whitman has. Clearly, many don't necessarily agree with the things Whitman is advocating. "Tax Cut" is a warm, fuzzy term, but will it really bring California out of its financial rut? Deregulation, at its worst, could lead to another, California-sized Guilded age, but perhaps that's a little cynical. In a limited way, this plan is similar to Devolution--scaling back state power and putting more power in the hands of businesses. In the end, this boils down to tax cuts on small businesses--which could become big businesses: Meg's plan: good or bad?
5 comments:
Although you may not approve of Meg Whitman's promises and outrageous amount of money she has spent on her campaign, compared to Jerry brown, it's what politicians' do to win the position they are running for. Yeah Whitman has spent a lot of money, but it may take her to spend more money to get even with Jerry brown because she's not as popular. Not everyone approves of what politicians' say and do to win the populace over and they may never change because they have to find someway to win us over even if there plans, such as tax cut on small business, seem badly thought out. We as voters just have to try to look past these things and think who will really do what they say.
Christian--let's not put words in each other's mouths. I never said I did not approve of Whitman, only that I am skeptical of her motives and policies. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "We as voters just have to try to look past these things and think who will really do what they say." Do you mean that we should ignore "these things" like Whitman's history as a CEO and a multi-millionare and guess who means what they say?
I have no doubt that Whitman, if elected, would carry out her plans. I'd like to discuss, however, the plan in question. Is her plan to scale back taxes on businesses "badly thought out?" It seems like she's thought it out pretty thoroughly to me...
Instead of spending 100 Million on a political campaign, she could have donated it to California's failing schools. Shows what character she has.
Cris, if she did donate all that money to education, it wouldn't help her persuade voters to vote for her for governor. There are a lot of instances where money could have been put to better use. I would like to see the effects of Whitman's plan's. Her experience at Ebay does help her. I just hope that her plan doesn't cause additional problems after it helps to solve some problems.
Sorry i didn't mean it like you said that but from the tone of your post i got that you seemed like you didn't approve, but you explaining it more i see what you are saying. Also, when i said we as voters i meant to put after that hat even though we are not voters now, the voters now should have faith in who they can trust to stick to their word. I didn't mean it in the way to ignore her history but rather ignore her, and not just her but any politicians, promises to us that seem farfetched, but i understand everything you are saying and i see where you are coming from now.
Post a Comment