Republicans in Paradise

He may not be First Dude or First Doctor, but he is First To Know His Nanny had a Fake Social Security Number.

Very nice lead Brandon! And very well written article.

However, the GOP brief attention to the area isn't going to change the fact that the Dems have the political power in most of the area, they are not going to be as sleepy as some may think and Mike Stoker is going to be mopping up gravy when DAS WILLIAMS is through with him!

Say no on Meg and Stoker the joker!

Looks like the usual weak turnout for two equally weak candidates. My question for Ms. Whitman would have been, "how come your two sons are nowhere to be seen on the campaign trail?" Are there some skeletons in the closet?

Please... spare us Gov. Moonbeam. We need jobs, infrastructure repair, border protection, we need REALITY! Decades of Moonbeam in office have landed us where we are (Mars?) so if you want change (and jobs!!!), VOTE for Meg on Nov. 2nd.

>>>>> Meg 2010!
>>>>> Watson 2010!
>>>>> Stoker 2010! (please no more Das... please... no...)

OMG! NO on Meg, Watson and Stoker! Don't vote against your own financial interests!!! Republicans believe in trickle down economics, believe in giving the tax breaks to the big corporations, and certainly don't believe in helping the middle class or even less in helping those less fortunate. Das, Lois, Boxer and Brown want to support EVERYONE getting a quality education, EVERYONE being entitled to quality health care, taking care of our environment against the corporate polluters and defending the rights of us regular people, not the multimillionnaires. Vote Democratic!

When "Gov Moonbeam" was in office he balanced EIGHT budgets and left office with a budget SURPLUS. If that If that is crazy then I am all for crazy If you were paying attention in 1978 you would know that Howard Jarvis, yes the prop 13 guy, campaigned for Jerry Brown! Stupidity is voting for a woman of questionable morals who is such a Californian that she could not be bothered to vote untill 2002.

We've already had a charismatic, successful, wealthy business person sincerely try to make some progress in California with dismal results. For better or worse the Calif legislature is party bound, and tied up in deal making (it is our way). We need a seasoned, visionary politician/negotiator who is also a true Leader and Advocate for all the people of California. Jerry Brown will bring order & progress back to or legislature process, Meg can only continue the power struggle between the 'BIG Business Executive' and the 'public servants', if you want another 4 years of this horror show Meg is your gal.
If you want a return to sanity, a chance to do this differently, to create a California where Everyone prospers, Jerry Brown should be your decision.

The joke is that in the 1970's Brown was derided by his own party as being a miser. Now in the bizzaro world of the Tea Party and Whitman he is painted as a big spender. Before the next marching and chowder genuis gets on this thread and starts bloviating about Brown being a "tax and spend liberal" or a socialist they should first do teh Goolgles News serch wit dees ke wordz, "brown budget california." Then get back to us.

The bizarro world is the one in which people believe that Brown, Boxer, Williams, et al are anything but professional big-spending politicians out to feed their own egos. The world in which people continue to believe that increasing taxes on the 'rich' (those 1/10 of 1% of the taxpayers who already pay half the income taxes in CA) will solve CA's problems.

I'm curious as to how many of the pro-left posters here are willing to step up to an increase in their own taxes - say 10% or so - if you pay taxes, that is. How many of you are living in homes paying 10 or 20% the property tax that your neighbor pays - you're the ones whose taxes should go up. Maybe you're part of the 37% who pay no taxes (or so you think) - then you have nothing to lose by electing the big spenders - except, eventually, your handouts.

John Locke,
Nice try but ya fergot two do teh Goggles befour poppingoff. Your post was pure spin 100% fact free.

Meg Whitman "You know, 30 years ago, anything was possible in this state. I mean that is why I came to California so many years ago."

Jerry Brown was governor 30 years ago.

"Democrat Jerry Brown's campaign for California governor edited some video of his Republican rival, Meg Whitman, in which she waxed nostalgic over how great California was 30 years ago.

When she did that, she probably didn't realize the gift she was handing her Democratic opponent who just happened to be California's governor during that golden era. Now she likely does."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoliti...

Will anyone entertain the possibility that Brown and Whitman are equally terrible candidates?

@Hershell: "fact free"? Hardly.

This is a fact: "1/10 of 1% of the taxpayers ... pay half the income taxes in CA". This is well known (although perhaps not by you) frequently reported, and based on figures from the CA government.

Another fact: one of my neighbors pays 10% of the property tax paid by his next door neighbor who is in a roughly comparable house, but inherited it from Mommy and is taxed at Mommy's tax rate under Prop 13. Easy to find cases like this using the local property tax database online.

And, rather than spin, my post was also a reference to the long term consequences of the golden goose theory of taxing the so-called wealthy and of Prop 13 now coming home to roost - consequences that, combined with over-the-top government worker pay and pensions, have brought California to defacto bankruptcy.

It was also a question to all the supporters of big spending pols, which I notice you didn't answer.

Read carefooly, pay atensun to fects, thimk clarely, and learn to spill wile your at it dude. Ur post oferd nothing.

@revisionist: yes.

Yikes, quoting NPR now? Something is terribly WRONG in California and it didn't happen on Meg's watch... If you think things are going well in CA... by all means vote Democratic. Business owners I know (the ones who create jobs) tell me Meg wins or they leave the state. So dear Student Readers, know this. If the Dems win (again) better sharpen up those resumes and prepare to relocate (once your parents stop paying the bills).

People in the United States are currently paying the lowest taxes in 60 years - part of the stimulus money enabled that. The Republicans were spending like drunken sailors from 2001 to 2008. Clinton handed Bush a surplus; Bush in fact grew government. As for the effects of governance by the two parties, please see this graph that tells it all.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/h...

And Brown is infinitely better than Whitman; one has to look no further than campaign costs, where one of them is spending like a drunken sailor.

And it did not happen on Brown's watch either. Jobs were created under Brown, that is why Whitman thinks that time was great.

We have had 8 years of a Republican governor, and people think that Whitman will be better, when she sounds just like Arnold?

Uh, tabatha, she's spending her own money. Unlike Brown who, like always, is spending other peoples' money. Ever occur to you that someone who is willing to bet 15% of her personal funds on a campaign, which she might lose (oh darn, $140 million, or whatever it is to date, down the drain) for arguably the most thankless job in the world might actually want the job for the right reasons? How much of your net worth would you bet on your candidate?

The argument against electing a rich person because she is rich is actually quite stupid - a rich person doesn't owe backers anything. Remember, it was Jerry Brown who gave government employees collective bargaining rights and his big spender Democrat buddy Gray Davis who raised their pensions by 50%. In other words, these two were bought and paid for by the unions, who now are Brown's biggest supporters. Now just who do you think people like these two are loyal to? The average citizen? Get a clue.

And remember, the same state who elected Arnold simultaneously defeated the ballot intiatives that would have allowed him to do what he promised. So ease up on Arnold - the voters didn't want him to succeed. Which makes the fact that he and Whitman said some of the same things completely irrelevant - you're much too easily manipulated by TV advertising.

"The voters did not want him to succeed?" - really - how about the fact that the voters, in democratic fashion, voted on issues put before them on the merit of the issues. If they voted Arnold in, don't you think they would have wanted him to succeed?

I do not have a TV, and I get most of my information from online news sources. There is a difference between being rich and prudent and being rich and wasteful - maybe you cannot see the difference. I made no allusions to her wealth, but to her spending habits. But of course, you missed that.

Yes, the California voters, in typical schizophrenic fashion, voted for Arnold but not for the initiatives that he supported and that would have allowed him to carry out his promises in this ridiculously gerrymandered and dysfunctional state. No, clearly they did not really want him to succeed, or they would have voted to support his initiatives. Or they don't get the rather basic concept of cause and effect. Duh.

Regarding Whitman's spending, your response indicates that you entirely missed, or ignored, my point. Or do you just think that spending 15% of her own assets to pursue this campaign is by definition wasteful? She's gone from no name recognition to a close race with a 'storied' California professional politician. Pretty effective spending, I'd say.

Take a BIG step up from pure political consideration and think about what I said regarding her motives. Unless, of course, you think that being governor of California is a privilege and an honor and something to put on one's resume. Somehow I don't think she sees it that way. I sure don't. As I already said, it's got to be the most thankless job imaginable. Brown's motives may be as pure as he claims (permit me to doubt), but he IS owned by the unions and that, in my book, is enough to disqualify him from any public office.

JohnLocke,

Isn't 1/10th of 1% of California's population somewhere in the neighborhood of 37,000 people? Are some of those people, "corporations"? Source? Names please. I want to send out some "thank you" notes.

Who is the average citizen? How much do they make? What percentage of their income does the average citizen pay in taxes annually? How does Meg Whitman represent this "average citizen"?

What percentage of their income do people who make more than $250,000 pay in taxes annually? What percentage of income did people who make more than $250,000 pay annually in the '70's?

What was the average amount of tax paid by multi-million/multi-billion dollar corporations in the '70's and '80's? How much do they pay now?

What has changed in the last 30-40 years? How was the economy affected by changes in taxation that began in the early '70's? How was the middle class affected? Why did mothers start working to help support their families in the 1970's? Why did people refinance their homes and borrow against their homes in the '80's and '90's an '00's?

BTW, be careful about online "news". Some of it is true journalism, but a lot is pure conjecture, opinion, and proselytizing. WSJ, NY Times, The Economist, and LA Times online is one thing, but moveon.org, Huffington, and their rightwing competitors? just move on.

@Kingprawn:
That is correct; according to the Franchise Tax Board figures(do your own research - I doubt you'd trust mine) about 38,000 individuals, not corporations, pay just about 50% of the California individual income tax.

As to the rest of your questions, I'm guessing we are on opposite sides of a very old question. My point is about the discrepancy in tax rates among individuals. You have brought up the issues of taxes on corporations - different subject.

I'm not going to argue the rape-the-rich and drive-away-jobs tax policies of California with you. The history speaks for itself.

JohnLocke,

As our past posts have shown, you and I having opposing views on most topics under consideration in this election. I don't have a strong desire to debate these at this late date... I've already made my choices. Given the bombardment of the airwaves, etc., by candidates and interested parties of all stripes, anyone paying attention has probably made their choices, too.

However, I find myself in agreement with you regarding Prop. 13. It is in bad need of reform (of course, I'd apply reform to corporate property taxes as well as individuals). Regardless, I'm convinced that none of the current batch of candidates will have the political courage to tackle this.

But I keep hoping!!

John Locke is right about Arnold, he did try to enact reforms and the unions polluted the election. It's scary, really, how much power the unions have (candidates take their money, then candidates owe them...). Arnold didn't do that... he was just too naive to realize that taking on ALL the unions in one election was much too idealistic. Call it an Austrian thing... a straight-shooter's error. Meg, on the other hand, won't be so naive. And that's why the union bosses HATE her. Anyone union bosses hate I like! We cannot afford the unfunded liabilities the union bosses have created. Their "bad math" equals weapons of financial mass destruction for this state. Moonbeam is on the union dole. Vote MEG 2010.

JohnLocke, you will have to supply a link to your statistics regarding percentage of tax burden backing up your assertion that "38,000 individuals, not corporations, pay just about 50% of the California individual income tax."

This table on the Franchise Tax Board website says more like 118,349 returns (those over $200k) supplied about 51% of the total. That is a significant difference from your claim.

http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutFTB/Tax_St...

@Kingprawn: There's a reason JohnLocke doesn't provide links.

2009 Tax Rates
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2009_Cali...

2010 Tax Rates
http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2010_Cali...

According to the FTB site, the maximum tax rate in CA is 9.55% (with the top bracket starting at $46.7k for individuals, $93.5 jointly, or $63.6k as head of household). I did read one place that claimed that people making over $1 million a year pay around 10.5% (but that's not what the FTB says, so...)

If, in fact, 38,000 people do pay 50% of the state's income tax, that means there are a hell of a lot of EXTREMELY wealthy people in the state of California. That's averaging approx $631,000 a piece in income tax per person (about $48 billion is raised in state income tax revenue) - meaning these are people making around $6,000,000 a year in taxable income - unless you're factoring the corporate taxes without counting the corporations, in which case, they are even richer.

To give you some perspective, Bill Gates made about $1 million a year in 2006 when running Microsoft (salary + bonuses). Personally, I think JohnLocke just pulled a random figure out of his ass, but I guess it is possible that CA has that many INSANELY wealthy people - who, of course, need our protection when the CA unemployment rate is 12.4%.

Look the donks have hell bent on repealing Prop 13 and spending, spending, and did I mention spending. Now the Independent readers maybe mostly renters but this will hurt renters as much as owners. Property taxes are large cost in the rental housing market. If Prop 13 is repealed owners will increase your rent anywhere from $300-400/ month to pay for the new money grab by democrats.

The question young people need to ask themselves, with all the new taxes and then a tax powered rent increase where will the money come from? Will it come from dinners out? Will it come from weekends out with friends? Will it force people out of the area and state?

Democrats have but one arrow in their quiver; TAX and SPEND. For over thirty years the democrats have controlled the legislature (where spending and taxing bills are made) in California and have been SPENDING and TAXING. This is why we are in the position we are in. Business fleeing the state and huge budget deficits. The government makes NOTHING, the government produces NOTHING It is the private sector and the donks are killing the golden goose.

JohnLocke,

Are you part of the 1/10th of 1% that pay half of our taxes here in CA?

no, but it doesn't surprise me that you would think that.

An offer to the poor over-taxed wealthy:

I'll trade you my tax burden and my income for yours.

Deal?

@EatTheRich: interesting inference, but using salary income is wrong - many 'rich' people have capital gains income that greatly exceeds salary income. Gates is a perfect example.

@binky: granting your data, my claim is then wrong in specifics. So 4% pay 50% of the taxes. My point is the same. From the same table, 40% pay none. Want to bet which group consumes the most government service?

@Walter: spoken like a true class warrior. I never claimed the wealthy deserved your sympathy; I just believe the idea that they can be treated like the golden goose, as CA does, is ultimately doomed. what makes you think you'd come out ahead on the trade you offer?

@GoletaEngineer: I absolute agree that business property should be eliminated from Prop 14 protection. I responded to jukin's claims about a $300 to $400 increase in another set of posts with some alternate logic and a reallife numerical example indicating that the increase in rents would be much less than he claims, assuming proper legal controls on landlords if Prop 13 is revised - he hasnt' responded.

Prop 13, not 14. Fumblefingers.

@JohnLocke: According the Governor's 2010-11 budget, the capital gains tax accounts for $5.3 billion in revenue (taxed at 9% and up about $1.5 billion from last year) - roughly 10% of the over all income generated from personal income tax revenue for 2010-11. But I see you finally yield that you invented your numbers, so that point is moot.

The point still is - those 4% contribute that much to the CA income tax revenue because they are insanely wealthy - and they pay the same tax rate as someone filing individually at a salary of $50k per year.

@ John Locke, I don't know where or when you queried me on my figures. I went from my own rental properties. I have done my best to provide affordable rentals and if Prop 13 is repealed is will mean over $400/ month on one and almost $300 on another. I sure as hell won't eat the government grab for money but pass it on...just like corporations do on corporate taxes.

What one has to consider is what would that tax money have gone to? I have never seen a government project (& I have consulted on many) that ever worked as efficiently as a private project. Money does not grow on trees and rich people are not like Scrooge McDuck swimming in pools of cash.

@Eatwhatever: No, I did not admit I invented the numbers, because I didn't. However, I neglected to save the appropriate citation, so I have to withdraw that comment and go with the numbers Binky came up with. 50% of the tax from the top 4% is still too much, esp when the bottom 40% pay nothing.

@jukin: I commented on your numbers on Oct 16 in chain attached to an article in the Indy entitled "Stark Choice for Assembly". To repeat, here's my calculation on the commercial prop tax question, based on my own business lease. My lease payments total $30,000 per year. The property owner pays $3000 per year or about 10% of the rent I pay (I saw the tax bill). If the property tax is increased under a modified Prop 13 by the maximum allowed 2% per year, then the tax will go from $3000 to $3060 the first year. If the tax is passed through to me then my rent will go up by $60 per year, or $5 per month, or 2/10 of 1% increase.

If your expense is to go up by $300 per month, then you must be paying around $15,000 per month in property tax (a 2% increase on $15000 is $300) in which case the rents you are collecting must be huge. what am I missing here?

Found the citation. My numbers were off (aging memory) but not enormously. "Surprising statistic of the day: according to The Economist [in November of 2008], half of the state income taxes in California are paid by just 144,000 wealthy individuals. They represent about 0.39% of the state’s population of 36.5 million"

For those interested, the link is here:

http://www.economist.com/node/1260822...

Yeah, John - you weren't off by much at all - just by a factor of 3.7. (Like, a totally different number than what you had indicated, but whatever, you found your non-bylined article from two years ago to prove your non-existent point.)

You still fail to grasp the concept that these people are EXTREMELY wealthy and, yet, are taxed at the same rate (9.55%) as those in the middle class who are making $50k a year (and the capital gains hardly makes up for your discrepancies).

According to this study from the California Budget Project (I don't lose my links):

www.cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100412_pp_who_p...

And I quote:

"Measured as a share of family income, California's lowest-income families pay the most in taxes. The poorest fifth of the states non-elderly families, with an average income of $13,200, spent 11.1 percent of their income on state taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.2 million, spent 7.8 percent of their income on state taxes."

Yeah, I still say you're full of it.

"An offer to the poor over-taxed wealthy:
I'll trade you my tax burden and my income for yours."
-- Walter

I'd like to extend the same offer!

Especially considering the wealthy don't proportionally pay as much tax as the rest of us do (most of their income is taxed at the lower capital gains rate, not the marginal income tax rate).

Income disparity continues to widen and favor a tiny handful of Americans. From the business section of NYT:

"The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent ..."

There is a whole slew of income disparity data out there you can look up. To me, its a wonder more of us with opposing political views don't come together to do away with policies that favor the uber-rich (e.g. Bush tax cuts). After all, I doubt many of us posting here are in the top 1% club.

Then I heard something from a Reuters reporter recently that partially explained this enigma. He said that a recent poll revealed that 15% of those polled thought they were in the top 1% of income earners. Furthermore, 30% of those polled thought they would eventually rise to stay in the top 1% !!!

Sounds like an identity as well as an income crises to me.

As antagonistic as we all can be with each other (even when in the same boat) we certainly are an optimistic, if not foolish, bunch.

Yes, I was off by a factor of four. I admit it. Doesn't change my view. 4/10 of 1% paying half the state income tax while 40% pay nothing is still ridiculously lopsided. I'm not proposing raising taxes on the truly needy. But those in the middle don't pay nearly enough in this state.

To the point of "insanely rich", let's continue with the Bill Gates example. Microsoft currently employs something like 135,000 people. These are jobs that would not have existed but for him. I am neither a Microsoft nor a Bill Gates fan, but I am curious as to what you folks think he deserves for creating those 135,000 jobs? Or Whitman for the 16,000 jobs she created at eBay? Those jobs pay taxes that pay for all this government largesse you argue for. Government does not create wealth or real jobs.

Government takes from people with private sector jobs and gives the money to people with government jobs or on various benefit plans. Most of Europe is now discovering the fatal flaw in 'social democracy'. The U.S. should observe and learn

EastBeach's comment made me think. I wonder if people who are fundamentally optimistic and hope/believe that they might achieve some level of wealth someday are those who are less in favor of overtaxing the 'rich', while those in jobs with lesser potential or with a lesser view of their own potential or who are just lazy have the other view. Wouldn't be too hard to go from that to a demographic of which jobs/careers/occupations might lead to big bucks and which have, shall we say, less of a financial future. And from there to those who believe in people keeping the reward of their efforts and those who believe in taking those rewards away. Food for thought.

Just in time for Halloween, heh.
I've despised this women since she mismanaged eBay, a job from which she was fired!
Among her first moves at eBay, right after Sept. 11, 2001 when the economy was nosediving- was to raise seller fees an incredible mark up. Then she turns around and donates millions of eBay dollars to Harvard or Yale or whoever her Alma Mater is. She cares about California schools?? Why not have donated that money to the UC system for example? And why not donate her own money instead of trying to buy status. And that is all she is, someone who thinks status and political office can be bought.
She has no real ideas or even a clue how to govern based on her campaign alone.

She grew eBay from 30 to 16,000 jobs and she mismanaged eBay? Fired? Got proof?

She IS donating her own money - to her own campaign to become governor (God knows why she'd want it). Sounds like you have a personal ax to grind. Looks like Brown may very well win. Hide your wallet!

Its public record she was fired. Most of those jobs are in India it turns out, and she had to spend her own money because no one else would!
My opinion is based on a variety of facts, observations, and experiences with this horrible, pathetic excuse of a candidate much less a CEO. Her resume is a facade; a few suckers are willing to buy it while others deceitfully promote it.
To quote Republican P.J. O'Rourke on the Republican Party "Government is bad and we've got the candidates to prove it." As of the past few decades, when you haven't nominated someone who was maliceous towards the government, sometimes entering the grey area of shall we say betrayal to one's nation; then you nominate candidates who absolute puppets. Either way perfectly functioning programs, departments ect gradually get messed up until they are as dysfunctional as apparently most state capitols regardless of governor's party affiliation.
Don't you have any Eisenhowers left? The only sane person in the Republican leadership, Ron Paul, is treated like a pariah because he actually operates reason and conviction; not hate, greed or fear.
Looking forward to Jerry Brown as governor, even Whitman says it was better then!

"But what few people outside of the investment community know is what a disaster Meg Whitman's business career really was. In fact, Meg Whitman's record in the corporate world reads like a laundry list of failure: it's a resume marked by fraud, gross incompetence, wasteful spending and gross disregard for anyone's interests but her own. In her obsessive drive to become a billionaire, Whitman left a legacy of bitterness among untold numbers of jilted employees, shareholders and eBay clients, while enriching herself and a handful of fellow executives and investment bankers."

http://www.alternet.org/news/148629/h...

Sounds just like her campaign - "wasteful spending, ...gross disregard for anyone's interests but her own"

That Alternet article is a little long on snark and short on facts, but one thing beyond dispute in Whitman's history: she had perhaps the easiest path to being a Billionaire in history.

Meg Whitman joined eBay six months before their IPO, and was given options and stock at pennies on the dollar. When web-darling eBay blew up as did many others in the '90s -- poof! instant Billionaire.

The most credit she should receive for her initial fortune is being blessed with good timing, moving from job to job every couple years (Stride-Rite, Disney, FTD and Hasbro), and keeping out of the way of the juggernaut which was eBay in those days (70% MONTHLY growth, according to eMeg).

Some interesting reading regarding latest Gallup polling on the direction of the upcoming election in the U.S.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nil...

One final thought, not so much about Meg as about the election in general. The U.S. is a center right country, is about to take a big step back in that direction, and the Dems will lose control of one and maybe both houses at the Federal level. At this point it is not clear that Obama will win a second term. If past history is any indication, CA's defiant left wing stance will ensure limited help from the Feds. So a bit of moderation in rhetoric and willingness to compromise to the center might be of benefit...

Gee, I'm so sorry to have missed the blessed event of Meg Whitman visiting the Goleta GOP HQ. I'll be sure to catch her after the election whining about all that money she wasted pretending to be someone she is.

Anyone remember Michael Huffington?

Too soon a fool and her money are dearly parted.
And departed.

"So a bit of moderation in rhetoric and willingness to compromise to the center might be of benefit..."-JohnLocke

At this time in history, a compromise to the center would be a move to the left for both Republicans and Democrats.

The Dems are right of center? Where do you get your information? moveon.org? Perhaps you've been testing Prop 19 substances for too many years? Or studying under Kim Jong Il? Jeez, even Castro has given up on socialism and the Swedes are moving away from their multi-decade and now admittedly failed experiment in so-called Social Democracy. What do you consider the Center?

"Government does not create wealth or real jobs."
--JohnLocke

I think its the combination of both private enterprise *and* government services and infrastructure that optimally create wealth. Its not an either-or thing.

As a simple example, many of Bill Gates' friends, colleagues, and employees no doubt were educated in public schools. Without interaction with so many well-educated folk, who knows what would have become of Microsoft?

I thought it would be interesting to see what the San Jose Mercury thinks of Whitman. After all, Ebay is HQ'd in Silicon Valley and Whitman lives in Atherton. Plus the Mercury has enough clout to interview candidates before writing their editorial endorsements.

From the Mercury's candidate interview with Whitman:

http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/...

" ... Perhaps the best illustration of Whitman's manipulation of facts and cluelessness about government is the anecdote she likes to tell about eBay's building project in San Jose. It took 21/2 years to break ground, and she uses this as an example of government regulation run amok. But it was eBay's decision to redesign the project that held things up, not San Jose, which fast-tracked the plan. When we brought this up to her, she shrugged and said it just shouldn't have taken that long -- as if the reason didn't matter."

I didn't want to bash Whitman, but I don't like blatant dishonesty.

@EastBeach: Government does not create wealth or real jobs in the classical economic sense. Government jobs are net consumers of tax revenue, which has to come from where? Private jobs.

But I agree that education up to a particular age is something that arguably should be done by the gov, with proper oversight from non-gov, non-union bodies. In a democracy, or, more accurately, a constitutional republic, such as ours, that education should include subjects to help people understand and vote issues - economics, taxation, etc. Unfortunately, the state of public education in the US is deplorable and CA ranks near the bottom of the pile. And the answer is?

No source to reference, just my opinion. I think we like to believe that Democrats and Republicans are miles apart on the vast political spectrum, but in reality, they are bumping elbows within a truncated continuum devoid of true extremism.

"So a bit of moderation in rhetoric...might be of benefit"
-JohnLocke

Right back at you, sir.

Meg won't win. In California if you look at the record for self funded candidates, it's horrible. They never win. I'm not sure why, but feel free to speculate.

What gets me is the fact she was so busy doing whatever it was she was doing that she hardly ever voted over the last 30 years. And now that she's a billionaire she's decided to run for the highest office in our state - even though she has zero political experience.

I liked Arnold, but at the same time he wasn't able to get much done in Sacramento simply because he was a political neophyte. I'm not sure if I want to put in another "rookie" when we're having such a hard time in the state. And her negative ads - holy crap, that's all you see. Nothing positive is coming out of her campaign, it's all attacks.

@Kingprawn: I agree that both parties are at extremes, but certainly not at the same extremes. Having said that, I also think that both parties are a disgrace and focus more on blocking the other party's move than on actually accomplishing anything for the country. I have and continue to wait for a true Centrist party to emerge - the Tea Party sure ain't it.

Now I understand Herschel_Greenspan's previous comment ...

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2010/...

It'll be interesting to see how Whitman's campaign handles this rape story so late in the campaign.

And I wonder if Mike Stoker would have shimmied up to Whitman had he known this story was breaking during their meeting.

People generally see the bad in the opposing candidate while failing to flush out what is bad in their own party of choice.

JohnLocke,

With respect to your earlier comments regarding Government's role in wealth and job creation, I wanted to bring a little counterpoint.

The government actually can play a vital role, with respect to research and development. Most companies these days, particularly those publicly traded, have difficulty making long term R&D investments. Their shareholders usually require a shorter term ROI, and this creates pressure to fund only that R&D which has a short term return. Of course, along with this is a lower risk threshold for that investment.

The government can (and does) perform longer-term R&D investment which has higher risk or may not provide a return at all in the short term. However, this R&D may have a huge return in the long term. Further, this R&D may not have any commercialization potential, but can still provide large benefits to society as a whole.

I'm sure we would not need to think too hard to find other examples where the government aids wealth and job creation. R&D is just an example I am very familiar with.

Yet more food for thought (this thread is a veritable feast!)