California news outlets have touted Meg Whitman as the first woman that might actually become governor of the state. She will also be the first billionaire as well. Media reports have also noted her wealthy status, but the only issue they raise is whether or not all of her financial holdings will be invested in blindly. This is an important point, but why is there no cynicism or great attention paid to the fact that she is an enormously wealthy business woman? Since she has used tens of millions of dollars from her own wealth to contribute to her campaign, along with generous donations from investment bankers and hedge fund managers, why is her opinion of any matter to ordinary citizens?
Although the Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a millionaire with a blind trust, he has shown some support to address human-caused global warming. Whitman, on the other hand, is unequivocally against such endeavors because of her concern for business interests. She also plans to significantly cut government spending, which may be possible considering another proposition of hers to cut taxes. However, she notes on her website broad tax cuts for citizens may not be possible early in her term, but she lays out plans to cut different business taxes along with eliminating capital gains taxes.
Whitman’s wealth dwarfs the lifetime incomes of thousands of Californian residents, yet she claims as governor she will fix our state for the better. Rank and file citizens want their children and themselves to attend affordable colleges, such as state universities and community colleges. Many also want affordable health care. In general, these things are not concerns extremely wealthy people have because they can afford everything they want, and more. How out of touch Whitman is with the average Californian is debatable, but this debate is rarely if ever heard. Common sense will hopefully suffice.