factbat.com

Jerry Brown certainly does not appear to be that average stealthy character most politicians are these days, nor does he expect voters to believe that he has no personal interest in being governor of California. When asked if he would accept compensation for his role, he replied succinctly “Hell yes, I’ll take a salary. I need the salary.”

Brown, a seventies style politician nicknamed “Governor Moonbeam” by voters, and who was California’s governor from 1975-1983, is wise enough to take a tough stance against Sanctuary Cities, and at the same time humane enough to realize that the death penalty is an unrelenting pragmatism that reduces this state to complacent fragments of vengeful divisive angst.

Well, the narrative on pragmatism, complacency and vengeance are this author’s own thoughts on the matter. However, Brown alludes to such insight when he states “I think we’d be better off without it… I respect the will of the people and I’ve demonstrated my fidelity to the law. There’s no one who has defended as many death penalty convictions as I have.”

However, as a staunch conservative, this author find’s it unfortunate that Brown may not understand the meaning of freedom in this nation, and speaks like the consummate politician who exudes the belief that prohibitions and statutory mandates are the only way to get things done.

When it comes to issues such as “legalization of marijuana” he stops short of any form of support for it, and simply reiterates the fact that Californian’s will be voting on the matter soon.

However, it is imperative that Brown show some sort of interest in the complexities of this collusive realm, which is part and parcel of a government who continues to be indefensibly involved in exacerbating the black market style drug culture in this nation by engaging in the extremely shady theatre of a proposed “war on drugs.”

Removing the lucrative schematic of marijuana, which is currently created by its status as a “prohibited substance”, and transplanting this substance in the regulated market where alcohol and many other mind-altering pharmaceuticals now cohabitate would further decrease crime in the state, and at the same time generate local revenues and rehabilitative programs that would both reduce debilitating stigmas and attract relevant federal funding.

One must further understand that legalizing marijuana would also free up a plethora of state funds that are currently allocated for mitigating the implementation, enforcement and consequences of prohibition. While simultaneously reducing the cost of production and distribution of the substance.

The offsets then must be managed, since as crime and illicit engagements decrease, drug enforcement officers will be seeking jobs, and the state will be required to either shift them to new positions or terminate their employment. Given the current budget shortfall, there does not appear to be much wiggle room for unnecessary, or non-critical, government personnel.

Brown does not say much on the “flat tax” issue, but then there is a myriad contentions and specificities that will need to be hashed out in what will certainly prove to be a significant amount of critical debates on the matter.

He does appear abreast of the facts on this tax scheme however, as he states “The pure flat tax is more of a concept than a reality…but the idea of a simpler tax - I think that could be a very important discussion with Republicans…there is a way to restructure taxes that could be helpful and require a debate going forward.”

While it is typically believed that implementing a flat tax is an arduous and Byzantine prospect to consider, the truth is that what is most daunting is the actual accounting aspects of the mechanism which create philosophical arguments as to the definition of terms such as “earned” or “income”, and brings into question just what is meant by “compensation”, or how it should or should not be taxed.

However, regardless of the time and energy required to engage this issue, the fact is that the implementation of a viable flat tax system would reduce government workloads, manipulative tax schemes, exported manufacturing, and other disparities, while simultaneously stimulating competition in the markets, thus increasing quality, production, wages and profits.

Brown states that he does not have a position on California’s proposed $11 billion Water Bond, but insinuates that he may believe the measure to be extreme when saying “We didn’t even have smelt when I was governor. Well, we had them, but they certainly didn’t have lawyers like they do today.”

What is remarkable is that in California’s Bay Area there is much attention given to preventing small bait fish from being sucked into water pumps, but almost no concern for the billions of gallons of treated sewage saturated with ammonias, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, and various other ecosystem destroying toxins, that is pumped into the bay each day.

Hopefully Brown will take the time to address this important issue during his campaign, as well as the water treatment facilities that currently are not compliant with mandatory requirements that they test their discharges for toxin levels, and are also neglecting to implement available new technologies that would reduce these toxins.

This would be a more equitable line of defense against possible damages to local fish populations by first addressing the destruction of their habitat.

Brown in many ways fit’s the mold of a true public servant, even refusing a state-owned car and driver during his last term as governor. However, he acquiesces that this time “I’ll have somebody driving me, but it will be modest.”

The six million dollar question is: does Jerry Brown possess the intuition necessary to dig California out of the current economic crisis? As a Democrat, can he clearly see the infeasibility of this state’s mismanaged, unproductive, and disproportionately influential government? Can he trim the strangling thicket of bureaucracy and excessive government manipulation that is cutting off the circulation of California’s astonishingly productive free markets?

Brown was mayor of Oakland California, and did reduce crime, pioneered charter schools and attract plenty of business development, so hopefully he can produce more than a socio-political will, and bring some heated debate on economic stability during this election season, because his opponent certainly will.

In stark contrast to Brown, Meg Whitman, who has divulged a paltry amount of political views, is campaigning with a multi billion dollar war chest, and has stated that she will refuse a salary.

So just what might Whitman’s incentive be for taking this job in California? Does she intend to take the heat of a California Governorship for absolutely nothing? Or does she merely have her sights set on a national post that would inundate her term with federal pandering and back scratching meant to garner friends in Washington.

This is certainly something worth pondering.

What is inculpating in this analogy, considering Whitman’s possible ulterior motives, is that her incentive appears to be little more than the promise of taking command of a proposed position of authority which would enable her to dispatch or dictate changes in the state, and eventually the nation, from a far removed, yet traditionally powerful, station.

However, this detached form of elective does not in any way define the role of public office as it was initially intended or envisioned for this nation. And if this is what Whitman is fighting for then she will prove to be just one more power hungry sycophant seeking to impose a self-styled, and likely ignorant, will on the state of California.

It is highly likely that she expects to be able to run California like a company, and given her experience, that means dictating policies and reforms rather than conforming to a democratic principle whereby her actions are first and foremost bound by a duty to, and respect for, the rule of law under the constitution, relevant to its effect on the sovereign citizenry of This State.

Whitman claims that she will be hard on illegal aliens. However, she stated that she would not have supported SB1070, Arizona’s new law that enables state police to enforce federal laws the federal government refuses to.

In an ad, Whitman claims only that she will build a “virtual economic fence by going after those who employ illegal aliens.” It appears she has little intention of actually taking a stance on the issue, or proving that she is supportive of the U.S. Constitution of which she will be forced to make an oath to protect, uphold and defend if she is elected.

Whitman speaks like a candidate who’s advisors have convinced her that it will be economic rather than social issues which will decide this election, because as nearly everyone is aware, budget woes loom as a major issue in the gubernatorial campaign.

So can Whitman win as a business woman who possesses no desire to engage the personal day to day concerns of California’s residents? Can she convince the voters that her lack of sociological insight is not a serious disability that will render her ineffective in the long run?

Whitman most clearly emulates a candidate who intends to say whatever she feels will get her the votes she needs, and from whomever she can woo into casting them in her elusive direction. This kind of political pandering is indicative of a candidate who either has no true vision for the nation, or simply just does not really care because her true constituents are only the investors who are willing to accept the short term gains she is offering.

This would come as no surprise from Whitman, the E-bay billionaire who used her position as head of the company to enrich herself at shareholder’s expense. In 2002 investigators accused her of giving a sweetheart deal to, of all companies, Goldman Sachs, which Whitman employed to handle E-bay’s banking business in a quid pro quo that was reciprocated by Goldman Sachs when giving her a head start on initial public offerings of stock for her personal portfolio, netting her a tidy profit of $1.78 million.

A remarkable state like California desperately requires leaders who will exfoliate the worries of the people and look beneath the superfluous realms of social contrast with the insight and outlook reflective of the residents’ overall needs.

This means that a governor must literally possess the ability to look deep into the pools of time, as if they were a crystal ball. Considering the large population of this state, any governor of California also must literally be able to inspirationally minister to the heart and soul of an entire nation.

However, California is so much more than just a heavily populous region, or else it could be run like New York or Illinois.

California is a geographical location which draws to it both the lonely hearts and the crooning archetypes, the silent eyes and the spoken souls, creating electric space for both the dichotomy of opposing stars and the brilliant nuance of integrated creation.

California is a state that commands symbiosis with the planet. It is bathed by western shores, cured by arid deserts, cooled by northern peaks and tanned by southern borders. It offers a contrast so diverse that one can climb to the heavens at night and reach into the bosom of hell the next day.

Does anyone expect Whitman to be an inspirational leader for such an extravagant and cutting edge state when she is almost certain to feel bound hand and foot, and literally gagged by the Constitution? Because, for a person with Whitman’s past, this is exactly what it will feel like to her as she begins to get a taste of the cacophony of cares which feed the fires of this hectic household of diverse heritage.

She does not in any way strike this author as the kind of person who’s character is formidable enough, and intellectually broad enough, to persevere in a way that will guide this State on what must be a collectively autonomous course refractive of the contributions of so many auspicious and enlightened individuals.

Few people these days are able to eschew the self centered prerogatives of popularity, and in the public sector of California such personal prerogatives will never be enough to inspire the crucial engineering will necessary to create a structure which is capable of sustaining this state’s star studded predilection of production. Arnold Schwarzenegger, while certainly a popular personality, has been an abysmal failure as a governor.

Unfortunately, he merely reflected the typical echelons of American society which have become saturated by those who are most comfortable with goal oriented thinking or a lifestyle insensitive and unresponsive to the reality the majority of the population engages every day.

Schwarzenegger appears to have forgotten that even ditch diggers can dream.

It is extremely rare to find a successful person in America who is also inexorably bound to their humanity and persuasive to the needs of the average citizen.

Meg Whitman appears to be little more than a money maven who will put California on a chopping block designed to merely trim the fat. However, if California does not soon realize that financial gain is far too often an endeavor that exists in utter contrast to posterity and morality, then a little financial hard times may be the undoing of nearly a century of social progress that has made California one of the greatest states in the nation.

Far too many people in this nation have literally pilfered their financial success by clinging to a class of consciousness which views “common” as a pejorative. And in the great state of California, such a divisive mindset will always flow against this system’s vein with such a force that, if allowed to run its course unchecked, will eventually create a hypertensive malady destructive to the paternal pulse of this state’s greatest triumph: the creation of a wholesome heart that beats with the promise of indefatigable hope for even the most disenfranchised.