« "National Association of Professional Women" Is a Scam | Main | I Live In A Resort Vacation »

Friday, 17 September 2010

What If Meg's $120M+ Governorship Purchase Were Spent Directly On Californians?

I just read a report that Meg Whitman, former eBay CEO, has spent over $120 MILLION on her campaign for governor of California. $120 MILLION. They said this was the most personal money ever spent by a candidate in any race.

She's going about it all wrong.

What if she had spent $100 MILLION creating jobs, bolstering school districts' budgets, feeding hungry people, paying off mortgages of people in trouble, and rebuilding areas hurt by wildfires and other disasters.

I mean like literally. Give money to businesses so they can hire. Give money to school districts that can't retain teachers. Give money to towns trying to figure out if they should fire some cops or some firemen. Pay off people's mortgages. Just give and spend, throw it out there. An investment with human return. There is where I like to think I'm an innovative idea person. :)

The economic and human effect would be amazing, and the press, word-of-mouth, and everything else would be amazing. People who had their mortgages paid off might have money for Xmas gifts. More law enforcement and emergency services mean safer, happier towns. Don't wait for tax cuts... give grants to struggling businesses who have a history of success but are down in the down economy. Better teachers in better schools means a better future for better-educated kids. Better! Better everything! Not out of your tax dollars or some bailout everybody wants to fight over. Right out of Meg's pocket. She has it!

Meg could then spend $20M advertising that. Which she'd barely need because the word-of-mouth on her would be AMAZING. Oprah would probably interview her. Fox would want to talk to her. CNN. Everybody would want to talk to her. She'd make news in every state and probably around the world.

She wouldn't have to run a zillion ads promise what she WOULD do. She would already be DOING it. People would love her. They would have faith and trust. Actions speak louder than campaign promises!

I don't live in CA. I'm not voting on this. I don't know Meg's policies, and if she would be good or not for the state. But I am SURE that her money could be better spent. That's $120M down the drain, nothing to show for it other than maybe she buys her way into office.

Well, she could have bought her way into office AND changed so many people's lives in the process.

| | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

It's a great idea. It was kind of like my wife's a while back. She thought that if they were going to give out bail out money they should give it to the people. Then they could pay their bills and buy stuff. Trickle up economics. The trickle down stuff never seems to work

I recall that's the same suggestion Jon Stewart made on the Daily Show when Gwen Ifel was on (regarding bailout money to consumers for mortgage debt instead of bailing out banks).

Deb you make a great point. At least spending $120M on something tangible as actually helping people is far less of a risk than making a run for the governorship and possibly losing.

The comments to this entry are closed.