Like many of you, I am attempting to sort through information which would help me decide who might be the best candidates for the national election this fall. As you have found, this is no easy task. Most candidates present little factual or entirely truthful information about opponents, and typically describe few details about their specific goals as a candidate. About the only thing to really go by are past results produced by the candidates running.
Some things are clear. Most candidates from one party believe that given enough money, the government can best determine the future of our country through programs designed to aid and assist us. Candidates from the other party feel too much money already taken from working citizens to support programs that are not very successful, too expensive or unneeded. Organized labor, other unions and individuals directly benefitting from government payments, incentives or stimulus dollars generally side with the government approach to solve our problems. Individuals or businesses who are striving to keep their jobs or create new ones feel that regulation and taxing policies of the government are excessive and act as disincentives to expand business here in our country.
While both approaches have merit in many cases, an important reality is that income and profits generated from the private sector are required to support the public or government sector. When those individuals who do have money to invest in businesses that would create jobs and resultant tax revenues feel their return on these investments is poor, their money is invested elsewhere. Jobs are then created elsewhere, and the base of the economic pyramid here in our country shrinks. Tax revenues shrink in kind. Candidates who fail to understand this relationship or who are unable to respect or support the function of free enterprise will be unable to help solve important future problems of our country.
It is also apparent that the track record of federal government to solve problems over our recent history is not good. When was the last time government leaders actually sat down together and solved an important problem in a responsible manner? Candidates demonstrating a record of problem solving, leadership and diplomacy might help break this deadlock of inaction. More recently, extension of executive branch powers have avoided the rule of law in certain instances, and basic constitutional law has also come under attack. Candidates with a respect for our rule of law and the constitution would be valuable here.
Underlying these concerns and either approach to problem solving a candidate might support is a slow and continual loss of many core values that put our country on the path to greatness. Corruption comes into play many times with government officials. Greed and efforts to circumvent current law result in penalty or jail time for numerous business leaders. In most cases, innocent people pay the price for these actions. This process is like good top soil being eroded to expose subsoil below. Too much erosion, and even a good soil cannot fully recover. Candidates of high moral values, integrity and character, who knowingly choose to reduce this erosion or repair damage already done, may be better choices.
Are there candidates out there who meet these criteria? Existing elected officials are certainly not fulfilling their role in this respect, so we may need to consider new candidates who might be able to reverse direction and exhibit new leadership in addressing important issues we face. Perhaps it is time to plant a cover crop and start rebuilding our soil from the ground up. Cover crops sprout and root quickly, so selecting the right candidates could make a big difference in a fairly short time. Let's begin our search for these candidates now before erosion gets worse and gullies begin to form.
John Crumrine,
Tiffin
