Phil Angelides for Governor

An election is usually a referendum on the performance of the candidate seeking reelection, in addition to a competition between candidates looking to gain the voters approval with their  proposals and experience. That is the case this year, when the main alternatives for governor are diametrically opposed. In this comparison, we have state treasurer Phil Angelides, who shows a more suitable vision for the future of California. If Arnold Schwarzenegger had been in previous years the way he appears to be in 2006, it would be possible to argue in favor of a second term. But he was not. This year the governor turned 180 degrees in subjects such as  increasing the minimum wage, by endorsing what he had previously vetoed. This is not an isolated case of a conversion; it is for this reason that it is difficult to believe that his movement to the political center is not related to the November election.

On the other hand, it is regrettable that he has not contributed to the improvement of  the social environment in California. On the contrary, some of Schwarzenegger‘s actions, such as his endorsement of the minutemen, helped to foster resentment against undocumented immigrants, feeding negative passions. We think that the head of the Executive branch must unite, instead of dividing Californians.
 
Without doubt the California economy has improved, but during the difficult times, the sacrifices were made by the students of California, from kindergarten to the university. Schwarzenegger’s decision not to increase taxes unjustly benefited some and not others, since the price of the recovery was not paid by all. The strategy didn’t solve the budget’s structural deficit either.

In that sense, we think Angelides is more in line with California’s needs, when proposing a tax increase that corrects chronic budgetary imbalances. It is possible to disagree with the numbers  presented by the democrat, and even argue how difficult it will be to reach that goal under the present legislative structure. However, his desire to face fiscal difficulties in a pragmatic way is a fundamental difference with Schwarzenegger.

Angelides has also shown, during his long public career, exemplary consistency. As state legislator and treasurer, he demonstrated ample knowledge of the state’s finances and the sensitivity to apply it to benefit the middle-class and the poor.

It shouldn’t be difficult to choose between these two very different candidates with opposite ideas, if the superfluous, such as charisma and looks, is eliminated. What is complicated is to determine if Schwarzenegger’s change is a lesson of the 2005 failure that will extend to the future or only a re-election plan. What is certain is that the past years should not be repeated and that the risk is too great to take.

On the other hand, there are no surprises with Angelides; his proposals are progressive and more equitable for all Californians. Vote for Phil Angelides for governor!