Oct 012010
Image by The Wolf via Flickr

The Tuesday debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman illuminated the drastic contrast between the two candidates. It was a classic battle of public servant versus business tycoon. The two combatants presented diametrically opposing views on most topics, but nowhere was the contrast more stark than in their divergent commitment to honesty.

To his credit, Jerry Brown shared his beliefs and priorities in a direct and sincere manner. It’s unlikely that he won over any supporters with his eloquence or flawless articulation, as he did spend a fair amount of time sputtering and at times trailed off into incomplete thoughts. But all things considered, it’s hard to see how viewers who hadn’t already made up their minds would not be at least somewhat captivated by his frankness.

The current Attorney General spoke on both his past record and his plans for the future with openness and candor. When asked about his personal pension, currently due to be over $78,000, he replied that at age 72, he was “the best pension buy California has ever seen,” and he added that should he win in November, the buy would get even better. And at only 20 minutes into the debate, Brown was just getting warmed up with a personable style that would show throughout the event.

Brown’s absence of guile even touched the sharp edge of fumbling when asked why Californians should trust his commitment to the state in light of his past flirtations with the presidency. The former 3-time presidential candidate’s response was a candid “Age! You know if I was younger, I’d run again.” But Brown didn’t leave it there. Instead, he continued, “Now I have a wife, so I’m home at night and don’t try to close the bars in Sacramento.” Endearing? Possibly. Foot in his mouth? At least a couple toes. Honest? There is no doubt.

Most of the debate proceeded in similar fashion, with Brown often shooting from the hip and Whitman being more scripted and sticking to her talking points. But the real fulcrum for revealing their individual veracity came on a question from a college student asking Brown if he would roll back UC and CSU fee hikes from recent years. Brown’s response was “Not my first year, not with a $19 billion deficit. We have to get real here.” His answer was certainly not what the student wanted to hear, but it may have very well been music to the ears of those who want real solutions.

When the same question was posed to Whitman, the former eBay CEO seemed to forget about the state’s deficit and spoke instead of her plans to add $1 billion to higher education. She did take the time to elaborate on the topic, revealing that she would get the money from cuts in welfare, but failed to explain why she wouldn’t apply the savings to the budget shortfall. She also failed to be honest about the situation with welfare in California.

Whitman’s spin on the welfare issue is indicative of her general attitude toward the truth. California’s welfare state being a talking point of her campaign, she reiterated her “facts” on the matter at the debate. The situation according to Whitman is that the welfare problem in California is so bad that there are five times more welfare cases than in New York but only double the population. This really does reflect a problem, only the problem is with Ms. Whitman’s penchant for skewed “facts” and wild spin.

California’s population is indeed roughly twice as large as New York’s, but that’s about the full extent to which Whitman’s “facts” and the truth actually coincide. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are a whopping 1.4 million recipients of welfare in California and only 389,586 in New York, for a ratio of 3.6:1. Still significantly higher than the corresponding population ratio but not the 5x multiplier pushed by Whitman. The truth is that Whitman’s deception is based upon completely ignoring New York’s separate state welfare program (SSP) and looking solely at their TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) recipients — a completely disingenuous comparison, since the combined TANF/SSP totals are what impacts the state budget.

And Whitman’s skewing of the caseload numbers doesn’t even begin to convey the degree of her dishonesty. Misinformation Meg relies on the New York welfare comparison to frame a picture of an out of control California government and the dire need for fiscal reform. She uses a distorted caseload number to make her point but oddly never mentions expenditures. Why? Because based on the most recent data available, New York spent nearly as much on public welfare as California. The 2008 totals were $33.4 million compared to $35 million. New York’s per capita expense was $1,710, and California’s a comparatively meager $955.

This much focus on Whitman’s distortion of the welfare story may seem a bit much. If it was an isolated instance, it could appropriately be overlooked, but such is not the case. The truth is that Queen Meg’s deception has been evidenced consistently throughout her campaign. Her ads openly attack Jerry Brown on his record as governor, lying about his records on taxes and jobs. She pretends to be factual on his record as mayor of Oakland but instead presents a fictitious tale of slander. She lies about state spending, talks out of both sides of her mouth on immigration, posits fallacious nonsense about tax cuts and job creation, spins some seriously illegitimate yarns on California’s business situation and does it all with conviction and a smile.

Politicians in general are not known for their truthfulness, so maybe Meg Whitman has just come down with a serious case of politi-deception-itus. Whatever the case, the Red Queen seems completely unable to curtail her deceit and refrain from perverting the truth. When it comes to Whitman, the old joke seems to fit like a glove: how do you tell when Meg Whitman is lying? That’s right — just look and see if her lips are moving.

Enhanced by Zemanta

  3 Responses to “Moonbeam versus Pinocchio”

  1. Hello,
    Not really commenting about this particular entry. Didn’t see another way to let you know how much we appreciate your efforts and ideas. I hope that’s OK.

    I wondered if you could give advice as to where to go from here. These times seem set in stone, relative to my taste. Are you able to move away from politics, since it is a cause of so much discomfort, pessimism, and unproductiveness. It seems a good time to become a monk, or immerse oneself into another nationality, etc.

    So I wonder why political bloggers can be so thorough about a cause, yet not likewise dedicate themselves to an alternative life style. I guess there just aren’t a lot of missions as large as the merry go round of politics.

    • Audrey, I appreciate your comment, but I don’t really have any advice. For me, politics is the expression of the philosophical and moral beliefs of a society. We build the political system that reflects our collective values, and I truly believe that in that respect, America took a serious wrong turn around 30 years ago.

      I blog about politics, most often feeling like a voice in the wilderness, because I believe people need to hear certain truths. I have nothing to gain other than doing my part to help change our course as a nation and attempt to bring us back on a path where we once again understand that morality and politics are inextricably intertwined. Our system should serve all Americans as best it can, and people from all stripes need to understand that those who seek to divide never do so for any interests but their own.

      • Thanks for that. We do some business in our smaller town of 13,000 people, $29,000 per household. Usually we have to travel for work near the area of Erie, Pennsylvania. While driving around today I thought of what I wrote you yesterday. I see no solution, and I’m not hard to please. Capitalism means it don’t count unless it sells. It’s a materialistic society, and people don’t hide the fact. With education, I don’t see anything changing because I’m not a fan of public schools. It will always be the haves and the havenots. So politically, unless a third-party becomes viable, does one relate to the party representing the less well-off, or the party that doesn’t represent them. Generally speaking, even young voters would get in line with the upwardly mobile. I know this depiction is too “black and white.” I remember you writing that that’s the problem with today’s political discussion. But that’s our level of education in this country, I suspect. If you don’t want to admit that, then how about concluding there’s a problem with americans and always have been. Old confederates who were never going to get along with everyone else. Any place that starts with rebellion, invasion, slavery, repression probably won’t fare well. It looks broke. We’ve always been happy go lucky, Audrey and I, but it doesn’t work in dealing with such a collective. I’m ready to drop out, psychologically, looking for my next bold move. Maybe it’s not advice specifically. Who in your opinion have got it right, and surround themselves with “goodpeople?” For example, there are lovely amish here who are a fine example, if only we would limit ourselves and become a bit narrowminded concerning god. Seen any good collectives out there to be explored? Just curious. Chuck

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>