I was talking to someone on a chat board the other day and I mentioned that I had a blog and that there was no one reading it. I also mentioned that I was OK with that, because then I could say anything I wanted and not have to worry that someone might argue with me. Still holds, although, if you are reading this, I promise not to argue if you want to comment. I don’t promise to think the best of you if you disagree, but I won’t argue with you… at least not for very long.
Back to Meg … Meg Whitman is running for governor of the state of California. Meg Whitman was the CEO of one of the largest Online Sales sights in the world, EBay.com. She is also the 4th Richest woman in the state worth over a billion (with a B!) dollars and has spent more of her own money on her campaign than any other candidate has ever spent on a run for governor, ever. BTW, the Governor’s job pays $206,500 per year.
Why spend over $100 million on a job that pays less than 2/100th s of percent of that? Obviously it isn’t the pay. It may be altruism, and while I can’t deny her that motive, since I think most public servants start out that way, I also think it has to do with ego, flattery and the desire for power. None of those thing disqualifies her to be governor and all of those things play into the makeup of any politician running for any office. But what is she really out to do? California currently has a Republican Governor in Arnold Swarzenneger, so she can’t run her campaign on a change of party will do the state good. Arnold, while fairly liberal in many ways for Republican holds to much of the GOPs base beliefs, so she can’t say that she represents a change of philosophy either. California, like most other States, is not enjoying a great time economically and the state is in fiduciary trouble with shortages in revenues to fund even basic programs like police, schools and fire. So she can’t run on the grounds of continued management styles. She tells us she has a plan, to create jobs, to turn the state economy around and to make us all prosperous and happy.
So what is in her plan? Anything new and exciting? No, not really. She wants to cut taxes for corporations and rich people and says that will create new jobs. Let’s see, we’ve had 10 years of similar tax cuts under Bush nationally and that didn’t create new jobs. In fact we have lost more jobs under Bush and the Bush Tax Cuts than any other President in the last 60 years. What tax cuts for businesses and for the rich have done is create hoarding, where companies are keeping large cash reserves rather than reinvesting it in their businesses and where the Rich invest in expensive luxury toys like airplanes and yachts which don’t put much money back into circulation. What’s the best way to put money back into circulation? Give it to people who will spend it on daily necessities. It’s one reason that things like Unemployment payments actually stimulate business, because the unemployed spend the money they get on things like food, shelter, clothing and other things that actually create jobs and drive the economy. But, hey, let’s take care of Meg and her friends and give them yet another tax break…. They deserve it don’t they. Only if you are into water sports and like being trickled down on.
Education is another concern of hers. Well she talks some talk, but she’s never walked the walk. Local control of schools is a good thing and has been out in the educational sphere for quite some time. Nothing new there. In fact, the NEA and AFT have been all in favor of that kind of thing for years. Local control for curriculum and for teaching strategies and programs have proven to help improve student performance ever since the 1970’s. Getting control of the moneys for education down to the local level is too. The problem is history is against her, here. Republican governors in California have always had a problem with fully funding education. Most have made severe cuts in the funding or at least attempted to in order to fund things that are not as high a priority on the state’s list of priorities. Education is the number 1 priority in California, by law! So, Meg is saying some good things, although she’s probably also in favor of vouchers and continued low pay for teachers (interesting how business always says they have to have high salaries and bonuses in order to attract high quality personnel, but don’t think that applies to teachers, police or fire). I’m sure she’s also for merit pay for teachers.
The problem with merit pay for teachers, as it is for business too, is that no one has ever….that’s EVER with all caps…. Figured out a fair way to assess merit. Most merit systems in private business I have seen are completely dependent on the opinion of one’s boss about one’s performance. If your boss doesn’t like you, it doesn’t matter how well you perform, he/she will find a way to make you look bad. In the classroom, how are you going to measure teacher performance? Is student performance on standardized tests a good measure? Even the standardized test people will tell you that the scores on these test really only have meaning when looking at a large enough population. If you have a class of low achievers or special education students, do you get a break if their performance is not the same as more capable students? Is it luck that determines that you get the really bright students who always ace the tests and make you look good? Just saying it, doesn’t make it work. There needs to be more thought there.
The other problem with Meg is that she is running as many other do on the fact that she was successful in business. Sorry, Meg, Governing and Government are not business. While I believe that some things you learned in business might help you become a good public official, a hell of a lot of things you learned there won’t and in fact many of those things probably make you a less desirable candidate. There are parallels but there are as many or more differences between success in business and success in Government. There are also some big differences in attitude. Business is selfish, centrally controlled and constantly trying to gain an advantage on its competition. Government is suppose to be focused on the people represented, all the people, BTW, not just your small circle of acquaintances. It is there not to make money to but spend money in order to deliver the services and meet the needs of the people who live in your state as defined by those people, and not necessarily as defined by you. Good government is not about ego, but about service. It’s not about showing off your talents and abilities but showing how those are used to benefit us all. It’s not about dictatorial management but management by consensus. It’s not working with sheep and herding them in the direction you want, it’s working with cats, who need to be influenced, but won’t always go along with the program.
Sorry, Meg, I know Jerry Brown can do this job. In spite of the misinformation you have put out about his years as Governor and late Mayor of Oakland, he has proved he knows how to run a large and a small government. You have proven diddly, except you were in the right place at the right time when Ebay went ballistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment