The seemingly endless exchange between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman over Brown's record of personal frugality is very much like the entire campaign: almost totally phony and beside the point.
The basic facts are clear. Brown refused to live in the new governor's mansion when he became governor in 1975. He also was careful not to accept the perks of office, like planes and cars.
This is nice, but Brown's personal frugality is essentially irrelevant to the challenges of trying to balance budgets and reform a broken system. Perhaps it gives him slightly more credibility if he were inclined to try systemic reforms. But Brown has made clear that he's not going to try systemic reforms, so the fact that he's good with a buck means nothing.
Naturally, the daily dialogue in this utterly vapid campaign has been about precisely this. Brown in some statements has not explained his record of frugality, particularly in matters of planes, as clearly as he might have. Whitman's campaign has seized on these little mistakes to suggest he's a liar (and thus must be a big spender).
So to sum up: We have Brown trying to use personal frugality as a replacement for an actual plan for the state. The best word for that is irresponsible.
And we have Whitman calling Brown a liar and in the process, issuing ads and attacks that are at best disingenous and at worst intentionally misleading (for example, the Republican, a staunch supporter of Prop 13, is blaming Brown for a state deficit created by Prop 13). The best word for this is dishonest.
There's your choice, California. Do you prefer irresponsible or dishonest?
