Recently,
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2832 and SB 1056,
which would have raised California’s minimum wage by
$1.00 over the next two years and would have required
economic impact reports for new supercenters opening
in the state, respectively. The vetoes were justified
by The Governator as being necessary to “make every
California job more secure.” As I pondered whether
this was in fact true or not, it occurred to me that
I hadn’t heard much about economic policy lately.
This struck me as strange for two reasons: 1)
the economy has been struggling along for the better
part of three years now, and 2) there are only six weeks
until the presidential election.
In
fact, as Election Day 2004 draws near, there seems to
be a growing dissatisfaction with the way the presidential
race is shaping up. I’m hearing more and more
people complain that Kerry and Bush should spend less
time slinging mud and more time addressing topics like
Social Security reform and the problems with health
care. Frankly, I can’t say that I disagree.
I too would prefer to see our candidates debating how
best to resuscitate the economy or fight terrorism.
Watching them take potshots at one another’s military
service history is like watching a couple of junior
high kids fighting at the bus stop.
About
a year and a half ago, I was talking to Dileep at the
Pub Quiz when he commented, “I just want a President
who's smarter than I am.” And really, isn't that
all anyone wants—to know that their elected leader will
make better decisions than they would; to be able to
have faith that, should the President make a questionable
decision, it was probably made because of access to
better information, not because of faulty logic and
poor reasoning ability? Is that really so much
to ask? And if it's not so much to ask, doesn't
it seem that the best way to learn about our candidates
is to require a series of unscripted, public debates?
The
problem is, a serious debate requires conflicting views.
Yet, over the last two decades, the ideologies of the
Democratic and Republican parties have drawn so close
together as to be nearly indistinguishable. Instead
of communicating a bold vision for the future of the
country, both parties have chosen to avoid all that
is controversial. When everything is going well,
maybe that’s a fine strategy—during those times, most
people are happy maintaining the status quo. But
during times of crisis, the electorate needs to know
what their prospective leader will do to solve the nation’s
problems.
Which
brings us back to Schwarzenegger. I was glad to
see him veto those bills. No, not because I’m
a fan of big business, but because I’m a fan of the
American election process. We may choose to agree
or disagree with Schwarzenegger about the effects of
a higher minimum wage; ultimately, our feelings don’t
matter. The veto is done, and nobody’s feelings
are going to change that. What does matter, though,
is that we have learned something about Schwarzenegger
and what he believes in. At least in the next
gubernatorial election, we’ll have some idea what we’re
voting for or against.
Martell
can be reached at martell@babblog.com.
|
