"I'm mad, and I'm just not going to take it anymore," snapped Crawford Notch. "Throw all the bums out in the November election. No exceptions."
"Just what's making you so mad Crawford," I replied.
"The federal government's my problem, that's what," groused Crawford. "It's wasted my tax money, and has nothing to show for it. Let business and the free market solve our problems; tell big government to get lost."
"Do you think everybody agrees with you that big government should just exit the stage? If you do, you're in for a surprise. Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report in the Washington Post that "A new study by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University shows that most Americans who say they want more limited government also call Social Security and Medicare 'very important'. They want Washington to be involved in schools and to help reduce poverty. Nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care."
"Cohen and Balz later write, 'Americans continue to see major areas of government spending as essential. Whether it is Medicare, Social Security, national defense, food stamps, education, unemployment benefits or environmental protection, about nine in 10 call these programs at least somewhat important.'"
"Well", said Crawford, "these smarty pants researchers never mention the fact that excessive federal spending is about to drive the nation into bankruptcy. No one will have Social Security or Medicare then."
"I have to admit that a lot of people agree with you, Crawford. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll notes, 'More than three of four also see a day of reckoning approaching. They predict the cost of entitlement programs (e.g., Medicare, Social Security) will create major economic problems for the United States in the next 25 years if no changes are made. Recognizing the issue isn't the same as reconciling it, however. Raise taxes to address it? Fifty-six percent say no. Cut benefits instead? Sixty-six percent say no. Just 12 percent say both steps should be taken."
"In other words, Crawford, the general public wants a free lunch. It wants something for nothing - benefits without having to pay for them. That's not the way the world works."
"Well, I don't care what you say, Patton. I'm going to vote every incumbent out of office. They're all a bunch of dishonest, lying son of a guns - including Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter."
"Crawford, it's strange that you should put Shea-Porter in that category. There's irony in this election. Voters say they want to replace dishonest, lazy, deceptive office holders with honest, hardworking challengers who talk straight and vote independently. However, no one, but no one, has ever questioned Carol Shea-Porter's honesty. No one, but no one, has ever said she doesn't tell you exactly what she thinks. She may not always vote the way you like, but she doesn't lie to you. No one, but no one, has ever said that Shea-Porter doesn't work hard and effectively to meet the needs of her district."
Now, I was warming to my topic. "Contrast that with her opponent, Frank Guinta. Is Guinta honest? Recently, Guinta amended his financial disclosure statement to add a bank account containing $355,000. Where did that money come from? Guinta says that he 'forgot' that he had the account. Would you forget an account holding $355,000? If that money was a gift or loan from another person, Guinta broke election laws that limit such contributions to only $2,400. Guinta could answer questions by disclosing bank statements showing that the $355,000 was in his account for the past two years. Guinta adamantly refuses to do that, increasing suspicion that he broke the law."
"Is Guinta deceptive? He has flip-flopped on the issues of cap-and trade, global warming, the stimulus package, and abortion to win votes. Do straight shooters do that? I think not. Would he vote independently of party interests while in Congress? I think not. How do you think that Republicans were able to defeat so many Democratic initiatives during the past two years? By demanding that GOP members of Congress vote as a bloc; that no one deviate from the party line; that opposition to Democrats be unanimous."
"And," I added, "there were penalties for any GOP member who thought of defecting. Assignment to lousy office space in remote locations. Assignment to dead end committees. Loss of seniority on committees. Loss of funding from party sources. Bad parking places. Intimidation was effective in whipping GOP members into line."
"If Guinta goes to Washington", I concluded, "he will follow the party line just as other Republican members have. So, there's your irony. You want honesty, diligence, straight talk, and effectiveness? Support the office holder, Shea-Porter, not the challenger, Guinta. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Remember the old saying, 'vote in haste; repent in leisure.'"
This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.
|
