Several folks have wondered whether I’ve had many responses to the letter I sent out Monday morning, asking local-area candidates whether they were willing to commit, publicly, to fiscal responsibility via PAYGO.
The short answer is… no. I consider the number of responses received to date to be insultingly inadequate.
I’ve sent a second request to those who have not deigned to respond one way or another.
Thus far, I’ve heard from candidates in the following races:
US Senate (
one response2 responses)
US Representative, District 7 (one response2 responses)
US Representative, District 10 (one response) [Added]
US Representative, District 18 (one response2 responses)
US Representative, District 29 (one response) [Added]
The only conclusion I’ve been able to draw thus far is that the vast majority of candidates in my area are not interested in the concerns of local citizens. I hope they prove me wrong.
I’ll be posting Monday with specifics.
This is truly disheartening. As Gerald Treece often says in his Sat. am segments on Channel 11, you are going to have to be “bloody bold and resolute” on this one.
Those who are currently in office — the very worst offenders — and even those who ‘aspire’ to be in office are often so full of themselves and their own political agendas that they pay no more than an aside glance towards a single person, even tho that person may be a part of their constituency.
Keep on with your inquiries, Polimom. Demand answers. I’m with you all the way on this one!
We need to see if we can get you on the Op/Ed page of the Chron’s website with this one.
eDwight, are you listening?
~EdT.
Here’s the problem: pay as you go is generally a good idea (though you have to keep in mind that there are times when deficit spending is a legitimate activity that produces positive results – for example, to stimulate economic activity or to pay for extraordinary expenses due to one-time events).
But the politician who stands before voters and says, “we have to pay for what we do. Therefore, because much of our budget consists of programs that we’ve commited to, debt service we can’t get out of, military expenses we can’t lower, and so on, this means no tax cuts. Maybe even an increase,” they don’t get elected.
Everyone likes to talk about waste in government – and of course there is waste – but when you get specific about cutting it, it gets ugly. It’s generally not as large as most citizens think. One citizen’s waste is another’s valuable federal project.
So faced with voters who want their stuff and don’t want to pay for it, a politician who promises a realistic pay as you go approach is pretty much a politician who won’t reach, or remain in, elected office.
It’s all Congress’s fault, of course.
John — I agree with you generally. As a result, I was very careful with how I asked the question in my letter for commitment, specifying PAYGO with exceptions for emergency intervention (such as the current economy).
Even with that, though — I’m absolutely appalled that there are people running for office who haven’t even take the time to respond at all (so far). And don’t even get me started on how I feel about politicians who lie, or a population that will vote against the truth.
I’m not sure who this is a bigger indictment of, to be honest.
I wonder if you could pitch fiscal responsibility as a “for the kids” campaign. Focus on education, personal safety, maybe clean environment and energy, and fiscal responsibility. All as a sort of package. One could pitch these same concerns from a liberal to moderate to conservative point of view. People might be willing to give up a little more for their kids.
Or maybe not.
“People might be willing to give up a little more for their kids.”
LOL!! Maybe — but I am concerned, to be honest, that a huge swath of society has no grip at all on the concept. I had dinner with a (very conservative) banker recently, and he tells me that he talks to people all day long who haven’t a clue how to handle money responsibly. He fears for their children (and ours). In fact, he’s quit his job, and is going for a teaching certification so he can teach exactly this.
As John pointed out, people just want to hear what is in it for them.
While the ‘for the kids’ approuch might work, it’s only going to do it for a small group. Most people want to hear how it makes it better for their kid now.
Is it helping him get to college? No, it is making it harder.
Is it getting him better teachers? No
Is it making the neighborhood safe for little Suzy to play outside? No
Then how is it for the kids?
If I can come up with that in 10 seconds, then how does one run it in a campain?
Richard Small: Against tax cuts and making your neighborhood safe
Richard Small: Against tax cuts and helping the poor get into college
Richard Small: Against tax cuts and hiring more teachers
Richard Small: Investing in a future that will never come
Brought to you by the ‘All negative, all the time’ slogan writers of America.
Making stupid people think poorly.
It’s an indictment of us. We want our stuff. We don’t want to pay. If someone dangles a $100 tax refund in front of us, we vote for him.
All the problems in Congress are symptoms of a central problem, which is a nation of ignorant voters.