For the latte-drinking, designer-clothes-buying, convertible-driving people of California, the current economic recession has been a difficult one; after all, giving up Starbucks is easier said than done. To make matters worse, the effects of government anti-recessionary actions have lately proven more Tall than Venti, and Californians-like all Americans-have been left crying out for more help.
Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, to his credit, has been working tirelessly to fight the deficit in California, including releasing a revised budget plan last Wednesday. Yet, with higher taxes likely and no relief from debt visible on California’s gorgeous horizon, residents of the Golden State will no doubt be looking for solutions in the policies of their next governor when Ahnold’s term expires in 2010.
But will tough economic times move voters to retreat from the designer brands of Feinstein and Newsom and look for a bargain on…eBay?
Granted, one can get a lot of things on eBay. That handbag you saw at the mall? Sure. An antique china set? Of course. A Barack Obama bobblehead doll? Why not? But solutions for California? Maybe, in the form of a political and corporate hand-me-down: former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman. That’s what Whitman thinks, at least, and reports indicate that she may be considering California’s top spot as her next target.
Whitman is relatively new to politics, but has been slowly dipping her toe in the political pool for a few months now since resigning her eBay position in early 2008. After being involved in Mitt Romney’s primary campaign for President, Whitman’s name was thrown about as John McCain’s potential running mate before Sarah Palin was eventually selected.
Currently, all signs point to “run”. Though we won’t know for a few weeks whether she will choose to employ an exploratory committee (a sure sign she’s in it to win it), Whitman, who was named one of the “Top 10 political newcomers of 2008″ by Politico, has already taken major steps towards becoming a candidate in 2010, including resigning from the boards of three corporations and working to secure “Whitman2010″ domain names.
Whether or not Californians will accept a bargain for their governor, however, remains to be seen. We’ll continue to follow this story as it develops over the coming weeks; as for me, I’ll “Buy It Now” that Whitman makes a run for it in 2010.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Brilliant!
I assume the opening sentence of this post was intended to be humorous, but aside from the fact that it plays into every offensive stereotype of Californians perpetrate by the Rush Limbaughs of the world, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of or sensitivity to the real suffering now being felt by middle-class, working-class, and working-poor families throughout California. Take home foreclosures as one indicator: they’ve reached record highs throughout the state. In the Central Valley (not exactly the latte capital of the nation), foreclosures have been devastating. Bloomberg reports that one in 76 households in Merced (for instance) are facing foreclosure . As for the claim that Arnold has been “working tirelessly to fight the deficit,” well, yeah, if you think that slashing funding for public education at all levels — the main feature of his budget proposals — is really something you want to give him “credit” for. Check out http://www.calitics.com for some real insight into what’s going on in California.
madmad,
In response to your comment, I would like to confirm that the opening sentence of my post was, indeed, intended to be humorous.
Allow me to explain my thinking in constructing my post as I did. In order to introduce the topic of potential gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and to emphasize her past affiliation with eBay, I felt that drawing a connection between saving money due to the recession and investing in a candidate known in the business world for capitalizing upon people’s love of bargains would be an interesting and original approach to this issue. Because news headlines often take a more traditional angle on current events, I thought it would be a worthwhile exercise to expose readers to a new and more creative perspective that might allow for discussion and out-of-the-box thinking.
I realize, however, that you did not take issue with the bulk of the post regarding Meg Whitman, but rather with my use of a common stereotype for rhetorical purposes and my mention of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s anti-recessionary measures. I will address the two aspects of my post in the order you made mention of them.
As a proud member of California’s middle class, I realize that the vast majority of Californians do not necessarily drink lattes, wear designer clothing, or drive convertibles. By employing of these common stereotypes, I did not intend in any way to promulgate or disseminate clichés; rather, my words were meant to sarcastically highlight the absurdity of the stereotypes while utilizing these common perceptions of Californians to contrast with the so-called “bargain” of Meg Whitman. While I myself have been known to drink lattes religiously (once a barista, always a barista) and drive a convertible (which has lately been traded in for a more Midwest-friendly vehicle), I am very much aware that this is not the norm, especially outside of my southern California community in areas such as the Central Valley.
My statement that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been working “tirelessly” to fix California’s budget crisis, also, was made in jest. While one must concede, whether one is in support of or against Schwarzenegger, that multiple measures have been passed in the California legislature in attempt to address the financial crisis that faced California even before the recent national recession, the success of these measures is certainly debatable. As a recent California high school student and with a younger sibling still in high school, I have certainly felt the effects of the budget crunch on public education in California, and have continued to update myself on this important issue (both for the purpose of my articles and for my own personal benefit). Although this was not the topic of my post, it is one that I hope to write more on in the future.
In final defense of my understanding of the gravity of California’s current financial crisis, I would like to respond to your mention of home foreclosures in California. As a real estate orphan (read: the daughter of two California real estate agents) I have long been informed on the southern California real estate market (if initially involuntarily); more recently, my mother has actually been blogging on the subject. When home sales in San Diego are approximately 50% foreclosures, I take note—if only out of concern for my college savings account. But even for those not raised in a real estate-centric household, the numbers on home foreclosures are omnipresent, and impossible to ignore—not only in California, but nationwide.
I hope that I have addressed all of your concerns in proper depth. Thank you for your comment; I look forward to your enthusiastic participation in future Column5 discussions.
In response to madmad’s comment,
I’m not saying I’m a fan of Schwarzenegger’s budget proposals–especially eliminating tax credits for dependents in families instead of raising taxes on the richest n percent–but to imply that cutting education spending is “the main feature of his budget proposals” is just wrong. He’s proposed cutting about a week out of the school year. And in the past he’s proposed cuts across the board, not exclusively on education. (Again, not saying that’s a good idea either.)
Rebecca: I recognize that the focus of your post was on Meg Whitman as a potential gubernatorial candidate; I’m afraid that I just got distracted by the tone of your opening passage. By the way, Chris Kelly has a recent post at HuffPo giving some interesting background on governor-wannabe Whitman:
http://tinyurl.com/7q78t3
Jeremy: The budget proposals that Schwarzenegger has been offering since November do of course involve areas beyond education, and perhaps I was guilty of hyperbole in describing education cuts as “the main feature of his budget proposals.” Allow me to revise my wording slightly: they are “a main feature of his budget proposals.” Of all the program cuts Schwarzenegger has proposed in his latest budgetary bloviations, those from the educational sector are among the most significant – and they are particularly painful because they are coming after a series of draconian cuts to education that have been imposed in previous years’ state budgets. The latest addition of a possible school-year reduction is only one of several new measures that would affect public schooling at all levels. Here’s what the LA Times has to say: “The cuts in the proposal are deep, including a reduction of billions of dollars in K-12 education spending from current levels and shortening the school year by five days. State university and community college offerings would also be cut back as tuition and fees go up.” The San Francisco Chronicle notes, “The budget also calls for chopping about $5 billion from K-12 public schools over the next 18 months, with about $2.1 billion coming from the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.” Further discussion of immediate impacts on public schools can be found in this article from the Sacramento Bee: http://tinyurl.com/94jlde.