Sunday, October 03, 2010
Debates, Jobs, Lies
I rarely listen to or pay attention to debates between opposing candidates for office. There was a time when I eagerly watched the television set to see and hear debates among such pairs as Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale, George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, and, most famously, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. I don't know whether those debates influenced the outcome of any elections but they were fun to watch and listen to. I'll never forget Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle that "you're no Jack Kennedy" or Michael Dukakis wavering before George Bush the Elder accusing him of membership in the ACLU.
These days are memory. I have learned that one can't learn what a candidate will or won't do in office from what he or she says in a debate. The aim of the debater is to persuade voters who haven't made up their minds and who have not concerned themselves with some of the more intricate problems in the success or failure of government to provide needed services. Quite often debaters spend a lot of time on an issue that they will have no control over if they are elected. A good example is the claim to create jobs for Californians. Neither Jerry Brown nor Meg Whitman want to be tarred with the accusation that his or her election would cause Californians to lose jobs, particularly because businesses decide to move out of California because of high taxes or excessive regulations. They both favor more jobs. That's commendible of them, but neither one will have the power as Governor to create a single private sector job. The best either can do is to start work on some infrastructure project that will require lots of workers and lots of money. And, where is the money to come from?
Many people in politics who favor the interests of businesses claim that California loses jobs to neighboring States because of (a) high business taxes and (b) excessive regulation, especially regulations relating to creating a clean environment. Environmental laws are said to be bad for business.
I assert that the claim that taxes and regulations drive businesses out of the State is a lie. Regulations and taxes are a problem for a person running a business, especially a small business. However, they are a minor irritant compared with the major cost to any business: the high cost of labor. One can cite many cases of businesses that have left the State because of labor costs. They have gone mostly not to other States but to foreign countries that have really low labor costs. Jolly Green Giant used to can peas in California. A number of years ago it moved its operation to Mexico to take advantage of lower costs for labor and for raw peas. Although it made a profit in California, it made MORE profit by moving to Mexico.
There is nothing that Governor Whitman or Governor Brown could do about high labor costs. I suppose she or he might propose lowering the minimum wage to 25 cents an hour. Her or his term of office would end soon after that suggestion. Remember how the voters got rid of Gray Davis after he raised the auto license fee?
These days are memory. I have learned that one can't learn what a candidate will or won't do in office from what he or she says in a debate. The aim of the debater is to persuade voters who haven't made up their minds and who have not concerned themselves with some of the more intricate problems in the success or failure of government to provide needed services. Quite often debaters spend a lot of time on an issue that they will have no control over if they are elected. A good example is the claim to create jobs for Californians. Neither Jerry Brown nor Meg Whitman want to be tarred with the accusation that his or her election would cause Californians to lose jobs, particularly because businesses decide to move out of California because of high taxes or excessive regulations. They both favor more jobs. That's commendible of them, but neither one will have the power as Governor to create a single private sector job. The best either can do is to start work on some infrastructure project that will require lots of workers and lots of money. And, where is the money to come from?
Many people in politics who favor the interests of businesses claim that California loses jobs to neighboring States because of (a) high business taxes and (b) excessive regulation, especially regulations relating to creating a clean environment. Environmental laws are said to be bad for business.
I assert that the claim that taxes and regulations drive businesses out of the State is a lie. Regulations and taxes are a problem for a person running a business, especially a small business. However, they are a minor irritant compared with the major cost to any business: the high cost of labor. One can cite many cases of businesses that have left the State because of labor costs. They have gone mostly not to other States but to foreign countries that have really low labor costs. Jolly Green Giant used to can peas in California. A number of years ago it moved its operation to Mexico to take advantage of lower costs for labor and for raw peas. Although it made a profit in California, it made MORE profit by moving to Mexico.
There is nothing that Governor Whitman or Governor Brown could do about high labor costs. I suppose she or he might propose lowering the minimum wage to 25 cents an hour. Her or his term of office would end soon after that suggestion. Remember how the voters got rid of Gray Davis after he raised the auto license fee?
Labels: canned peas, excess regulation, export of jobs, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Fox News, Jerry Brown, etc.
Unless you are brand new to this site, you know that I am an opinionated old Democrat. Today I have several things to rant and opinionate about.
A few days ago Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco and bright young hopeful to become the successor to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, announced that he was abandoning the race. He hasn't been able to raise enough money to put on an effective campaign. That leaves the Honorable Jerry Brown as the sole major contender for the Democratic Nomination.
Mr. Brown was governor before, following Ronald Reagan and preceding George Deukmegian. Brown didn't do such a good job as governor the first time. Perhaps he wants to correct some of the mistakes he and other former governors have made. Proposition 13 was passed during Brown's terms of office. He wasn't able to persuade the legislature to put in place something as a substitute for 13. Well, actually, there was a Proposition 8 that year that addressed the same problem, but it went nowhere. The public was gung-ho to cut taxes, protect the business interests of landlords, and all that. Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on poor Jerry.
My problem now, as a Democrat, is that I don't believe Jerry can win. I don't believe the voters are about to give him his second chance. I have to look at the Republicans in the race and try to decide which one of them I dislike the least.
I heard Meg Whitman the other day on the radio. Patt Morrison was interviewing her. Unlike nearly everyone who has commented on the disfunctionality of California's government, she didn't subscribe to the idea that California has become ungovernable because of the very structures that voters have put in place with our easy initiative process. Her idea is that what is needed is someone as governor who will show leadership. What she means is the kind of leadership she has shown running a large corporation. To her leadership means the willingness to fire 10,000 or more state employees if that's what is needed to keep expenses within the limits of the tax revenue the Republicans in the legislature are willing to accept.
I know very little about Steve Poizner. He has been the state Insurance Commissioner, a position first held by John Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi made the office an advocate for the users of insurance rather than the purveyors. Those of his successors who were Republicans have tilted the advocacy toward the insurance companies. I can't say the same about Mr. Poizner. As the only Republican among the state-wide elected officials, he has managed to keep a low profile.
I think I know a little about Tom Campbell. He used to have the reputation of being a rather "liberal" Republican when he was in the state legislature. I don't know where he stands today on the question of getting rid of the 2/3 vote in the legislature, universal single-payer health insurance for California, legalization of gay marriage, the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and other issues that I care about. Based on what was said and written about him a dozen or more years ago, I tend to believe that his positions on these things are closer to mine than are those of Meg Whitman or other "real" Republicans.
Sometimes I fantasize about changing my registration to Republican just so I can vote for Campbell in the Republican Primary next year. Of course, that's just a fantasy and it wears off quickly. My father and his father would both roll over in their graves if I were to leave the Democratic reservation.
Another issue that nags at me is the rather extreme partiality of Fox News for Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans. I often argue with H and R that Fox puts out a lot of "news" that just isn't so. My friend S points out that Fox presents both regular news and news comment. The comment is provided by such pundits as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Mr. Obama has recently taken on Fox News and is trying to discredit the organization. That's probably a mistake. Make Fox a martyr and people will flock to watch and listen to it. Better to take the position that the existence of Fox News is a small price to pay for the blessings of free speech.
A few days ago Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco and bright young hopeful to become the successor to Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California, announced that he was abandoning the race. He hasn't been able to raise enough money to put on an effective campaign. That leaves the Honorable Jerry Brown as the sole major contender for the Democratic Nomination.
Mr. Brown was governor before, following Ronald Reagan and preceding George Deukmegian. Brown didn't do such a good job as governor the first time. Perhaps he wants to correct some of the mistakes he and other former governors have made. Proposition 13 was passed during Brown's terms of office. He wasn't able to persuade the legislature to put in place something as a substitute for 13. Well, actually, there was a Proposition 8 that year that addressed the same problem, but it went nowhere. The public was gung-ho to cut taxes, protect the business interests of landlords, and all that. Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on poor Jerry.
My problem now, as a Democrat, is that I don't believe Jerry can win. I don't believe the voters are about to give him his second chance. I have to look at the Republicans in the race and try to decide which one of them I dislike the least.
I heard Meg Whitman the other day on the radio. Patt Morrison was interviewing her. Unlike nearly everyone who has commented on the disfunctionality of California's government, she didn't subscribe to the idea that California has become ungovernable because of the very structures that voters have put in place with our easy initiative process. Her idea is that what is needed is someone as governor who will show leadership. What she means is the kind of leadership she has shown running a large corporation. To her leadership means the willingness to fire 10,000 or more state employees if that's what is needed to keep expenses within the limits of the tax revenue the Republicans in the legislature are willing to accept.
I know very little about Steve Poizner. He has been the state Insurance Commissioner, a position first held by John Garamendi. Mr. Garamendi made the office an advocate for the users of insurance rather than the purveyors. Those of his successors who were Republicans have tilted the advocacy toward the insurance companies. I can't say the same about Mr. Poizner. As the only Republican among the state-wide elected officials, he has managed to keep a low profile.
I think I know a little about Tom Campbell. He used to have the reputation of being a rather "liberal" Republican when he was in the state legislature. I don't know where he stands today on the question of getting rid of the 2/3 vote in the legislature, universal single-payer health insurance for California, legalization of gay marriage, the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and other issues that I care about. Based on what was said and written about him a dozen or more years ago, I tend to believe that his positions on these things are closer to mine than are those of Meg Whitman or other "real" Republicans.
Sometimes I fantasize about changing my registration to Republican just so I can vote for Campbell in the Republican Primary next year. Of course, that's just a fantasy and it wears off quickly. My father and his father would both roll over in their graves if I were to leave the Democratic reservation.
Another issue that nags at me is the rather extreme partiality of Fox News for Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans. I often argue with H and R that Fox puts out a lot of "news" that just isn't so. My friend S points out that Fox presents both regular news and news comment. The comment is provided by such pundits as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. Mr. Obama has recently taken on Fox News and is trying to discredit the organization. That's probably a mistake. Make Fox a martyr and people will flock to watch and listen to it. Better to take the position that the existence of Fox News is a small price to pay for the blessings of free speech.
Labels: Fox News, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Prop. 13, Steve Poizner, Tom Campbell
