Presumably, our elected representations are facing voter anger. Presumably, American voters are tired of Washington’s inability to reduce the federal deficit. With the possibility of majority changes in one or both Capitol Hill chambers, the news is running rampant with various polls regarding the upcoming election. My take – what a bunch of crap!
All of the House of Representatives’ 435 seats are on the upcoming ballot. As analysts focus on the 100 or so seats that are up for grabs, 335 are safe. On the Senate side, voters will determine the fate of 37 seats; the majority of incumbents are safe. If voters are angry and fed up with our elected representation, why will the majority of incumbents get re-elected? Obviously, voters must be fed up with others representatives rather than their own.
Deficits, a 40-year trend, occur when expenses exceed income. I firmly believe that voters believe that our elected officials need to get control on the spending. The real point of contention is finding agreement of where to cut the expenses while determining how much. Even without special interest influence, what is good for some is probably bad for others. In other words, who is to sacrifice?
As extending the Bush tax cuts remains a current debate, one fact remains fixed: taxes are the major source of government income. Republicans love the cut taxes mantra, but would you go to your boss asking for a cut in pay if you were operating a personal deficit?
Interesting, conservatives are now Great Britain’s party in power. Although they do not have a majority, conservative leadership is approaching their deficit with a novel two-prong approach: cut expenses and raise taxes. Besides these recent columns by Ruth Marcus and David Broder, seems I mentioned this approach in October 2008 in relationship to the Obama-McCain campaigns. Thus, I continue to maintain that much of America wants leadership capable of making tough decisions that are contrary to campaign rhetoric and party ideology.