As the election season enters the final month in 2012, everyone is ready for it to be over. Nobody likes the volume or the tenor of the negative campaign ads. Unfortunately, negative ads about the “other guy” are way more effective than positive ads about your own candidate. The electorate seems to believe or respond more to the bad things said about all the candidates. It’s sad that our system has devolved to that point. It doesn’t seem to matter if the negatives are true or false. If an allegation is said and repeated a hundred times, it must be true.
Having been a candidate in a campaign where things were said about me that weren’t true, I know how difficult it is to deal with it.
So if we are all so sick of the negative campaigning, can’t we do something about it? The short answer is NO. The long answer is YES but with a great deal of effort from our citizenry.
Our constitution guarantees the right of free speech so limiting what one candidate can say about another is not an option. The laws of slander and libel cause candidates and their surrogates to walk a thin line when “bad mouthing” an opponent; but short of accusing a candidate of criminal behavior anything goes. And in a couple cases this year one candidate in particular was accused of criminal acts but not by an opposing candidate.
Maybe limiting the amount of money spent on a campaign might be a solution. That idea has been circulating for some time. If you limit the amount they can spend the candidates will have to choose which path they favor, and that will, by itself, be an indicator of character. More often than not, the result of limiting campaign spending is to give an advantage to an incumbent. Name familiarity alone can swing an election; certainly if the challenger doesn’t already have some public exposure.
Personally, I would be an advocate of voter testing. In order to work in the concession stand at the carnival, workers are required to pass a test to secure a food handler’s permit. If we require testing at that level, this should be a “no brainer”. Every voter should have to pass an exam that tests a voter’s knowledge of the election process; where the information is to assist in making an informed choice. Not to steer voters to one party or another, but to insure that voters are informed of their rights.
If every voter was required to read the voter’s pamphlet and be ready to answer questions they would be able to see the differences between the candidates from the positive point of view since candidates tend to showcase their strengths and their goals for their time in office in the pamphlet. Negative campaigning is most often handled by Political Action Committees (PACs).
The reason there is a disconnect between our elected officials and the electorate is because most of us don’t pay attention to the promises made in the campaign and the results delivered after being elected.
Then add to that the partisanship. Our two party system gives candidates and voters only two choices. Duh! And when you get right down to it, what do the Parties stand for?
If a voter identifies with a Political Party first and only supports candidates of that party they never test whether the candidates advocate for issues or represent values similar to their own. If that is the case, then those folks don’t care to read the voter’s pamphlet. Testing them wouldn’t be a waste though because if they can pass the test then at least being stupid was their choice and not someone else’s.
As time has passed, the parties have evolved; and not for the better.
Observing who supports a party financially is one of the best methods of estimating who the party will advocate for if their candidates are successful.
In my view;
The Democrat Party is closely identified with labor unions, alternative lifestyle and environmental advocacy groups. It tends to believe that bigger government is the solution to society’s problems. It also supports the idea that successful hard working citizens should be required to share the fruits of their labor at a higher rate than others.
The Republican Party is closely identified with Pro-Business groups and Christian Conservative advocacy groups. Republicans tend to believe that government’s role is to serve the people rather than have the people serve the government. Republicans tend to believe that if you work hard and are successful the government shouldn’t tax you at an unreasonable rate to the benefit of folks not willing to make the same sacrifices.
Neither of the two mainstream parties seems to be too concerned about how far from our Constitution our government has strayed. Certainly inside the beltway, the folks in power in both parties are reluctant to talk about it. But Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been shaking the bars across the country drawing attention to it because he sees beyond his own tenure in government; to the eventual doom of our country if we don’t start migrating back to the Constitutional principles espoused by our founders.
I tend to agree with the writings of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and principal authors of the Federalist Papers James Madison and Alexander Hamilton who outlined the risks and rewards of adopting our form of government. They wrote about their concerns in the late 1700’s that have sadly become the norm in government today.
For readers that don’t know me, let me say I’m a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Moderate. I’ve been a capitalist and a business owner most of my adult life so I hang with Republicans. I’m probably a Libertarian. When I ran for County Council in 2009 my campaign platform included 1) Limiting the size and scope of government and 2) Guaranteeing private property rights
I was a Tea Party guy before there was a Tea Party. Unfortunately, the movement hadn’t caught on enough to get me elected. Having said that, the Republican Party didn’t support me when I ran for office.
The stereotyping of the parties and their candidates along with the party’s demand that a candidate toe the line, consistent with the party line, contribute to the frustration in a campaign when voters are trying to sort out the favorites and the duds and filter the negatives for a kernel of truth or character.
For candidates that have been previously elected to public office the process is a bit easier since they have a track record that should speak to some of the issues. Add to that editorial board interviews and candidate forums and you can get a good ideal about a veteran.
It’s the first timers and previous losers we have the most trouble with since we don’t have a clue about their ability to do the job, let alone effectively if they are elected. Those same editorial board interviews and candidate forums help, but there is no substitute for experience. I guess the word “effectively” is the key since in a strictly partisan environment voting along party lines is considered effective.
For candidates that haven’t served in a public office before you need to look at their background, their work experiences and their education to determine if they possess the skills to do the particular job.
If you are running for Sewer Commissioner you might need different skills than if you want to be a US Senator. It’s amazing how many people run for School Board seats without a bit of budget experience. Generally school boards manage the top one or two budgets in a community and quite often the elected board members just take the word of the district finance guy or the superintendent when making multi-million dollar decisions.
The bottom line for eliminating negativity in campaigning is removing the power of the two political parties in the Congress and legislatures across the country so the parties are not pulling all the strings and educating voters.
It’s disheartening when a reporter interviewed quite a few college students on the campus of DenverUniversity following the first Presidential debate. Time after time he asked the students if they thought it was unfair that President Obama was not allowed to use a teleprompter and they answered YES.
K-12 Education at the highest level should be our goal so when kids are old enough to vote they are capable of understanding their responsibility. If college students appear that ignorant on that campus, is that an indication of students across the country?
I certainly hope not!
No Loss for Words 
Business & Government; Necessary Partners
by Steve DanaThere’s been a lot of cheap conversation about tax breaks for businesses in the political discourse again this year. Over the years there’s been a lot more.
The truth is, there is a great deal of competition in attracting private sector businesses that pay family wage jobs, that don’t pollute the environment and stimulate the economy both locally and nationally because savvy elected officials understand how much successful private sector businesses contribute to the economy.
If all government officials took the approach the City of Seattle took in dealing with the Seattle Super Sonics basketball team and decided to NOT understand the needs of the business, NOT understand the competition for a franchise and worst of all, fail to understand the economic value a business like a pro basketball team brings to a community at large, where would we all be. The team didn’t get what they needed from the city so the owner sold the team to a guy from Oklahoma City whose local governments could justify the investments necessary to reap the benefits and the team was gone along with their revenue stream.
Now a guy wants to bring another team back to Seattle and the city is taking a different approach. If Christopher Hanson were to consider other cities as well he might get an even better deal.
Even professional basketball teams stimulate the economy to the tune of millions of dollars per year trickling down through the local economy to enhance tax revenues to the city, county and state.
Is an NBA franchise a business worth going after? What concessions are we willing to offer a business to locate in our community? Should government be in the business of attracting businesses?
This model applies to businesses up and down the economic spectrum, certainly more so for larger businesses.
When Boeing was contemplating their options regarding location of the 787 manufacturing facility, multiple states were thought to be in the running. Governors of states were in a pitched battle to land the plumb jobs and tax base at stake. How much booty would it take to get Boeing to locate in one state rather than another? In the end, Washington State got the nod, in spite of the fact that other states offered better packages, due in large part to the existing investment Boeing has in the state. Still Boeing squeezed the state for concessions and credits against their tax bills over a lengthy period of time.
This same process is at play every day when a business is negotiating with land owners for sites for business expansion. Uncomfortable regulatory restrictions, mitigation fees and various taxes are often on the table when a chance to land an A-list business is in the works with local, county and state elected officials.
In spite of the fact that Democrats characterize Republicans as the handmaidens of the business community every day, Senator Maria Cantwell is campaigning hard in a television ad championing the fact that she landed a tax relief package for a business in the state of Washington. Certainly when Senator Cantwell is campaigning she understands how the game is played. I’m not sure how she can forget that when she badmouths the tax benefits granted to other businesses calling them loopholes.
At the end of the day, each public entity must consider the benefits that come back to them when compared to the cost of procuring those benefits.
Growing the economy and creating private sector jobs are the big things in politics today. Well, this is what growing the economy looks like. It’s offering incentives to businesses to locate in a community or state with the expectation that those dollars will come back to the public through enhanced sales tax revenues, property tax revenues and appreciation to other businesses through the trickle down process. Statistics show that every job created by the Boeing Company spins off three other jobs so as the Boeing Company adjusts its payroll you can estimate the effects either up or down.
Democrats would have us believe that public sector jobs are the same as private sector jobs. In their minds work is work, but if there aren’t sales tax revenues or enhanced property tax revenues (which only come from private sector businesses) there isn’t revenue to pay the salaries of the public workers.
As much as we need public employees like teachers, cops and fire fighters, those public entities consume public resources and produce none of the revenue needed to pay for their services, so it’s vital that we have a healthy private sector to provide that revenue stream. If you burden the private sector too much, it withers and subsequently the revenue stream does as well.
Entrepreneurs take the risk to open a business with no guarantees based upon their estimation that there is a market for their product. Generally they invest their own money and maybe additional funds from their families and in some cases funds from outside investors in exchange for a piece of the business. The government doesn’t offer the local hardware store or restaurant, public funds to pay salaries and overhead until it turns a profit. (Well, generally they don’t.)
They secure a building and pay rent, they buy inventory or supplies, they hire and train their staff all on their own dime then they open their doors and hope their product or service appeals to the public enough that customers come through their doors, still on their own dime, then they pay their sales taxes, their B&O taxes, Unemployment taxes, their L&I Insurance and their payroll taxes before every taking a dollar home to support the family.
And Democrats want to demonize these guys if they aren’t enthusiastic about coughing up the more dough to pay for a boatload of benefits for their employees.
If I take all the risks, is it fair that I be vilified for making a profit? Where does the survival of the business fall in the priority of the public sector? (I once had an encounter with a government regulator who was clear that my survival wasn’t his concern.) If I work for less than my employees and re-invest the proceeds of the business back into the business for five years am I ever entitled to finally enjoy the fruits of my labor without criticism from the left as a filthy capitalist? How much profit is just enough, while another amount is too much?
Real jobs are created by private sector employers and our economy will never recover until there is an incentive for private sector investors to create those jobs.
If the jobs my business produces are good for the economy should the public offer me an incentive to locate in their jurisdiction?
The heart of the political struggle is the degree to which the public sector can even exist without a robust private sector. There is no doubt that the private sector can survive without big government. So what’s it going to be?
Posted in Economic Development, Political commentary | Leave a Comment »