Why politicians waste money - the voters
This blog and my campaign are about how government needs to stop wasting money. After a substantial amount of campaigning I can tell you one reason why politicians keep wasting our money. Because voters constantly ask them for money.
This morning was a great example. I took my daughter to religious school and attended a breakfast meeting there. There was a speaker who talked about the upcoming elections. As a brief aside, this expert lives in this congressional district but did not know who I was and could not name the candidate (Tom Raleigh) who ran against McNulty in the primary this year -- and Raleigh lives in the same town as this gentleman. I don't say this to come down on the expert, but rather to emphasize how dramatic the underreporting of challengers is.
Anyway, during the course of the breakfast, my presence was announced. Please keep in mind that I was not there to campaign. I was there because I took my daughter for school and I was interested in hearing the speaker. I did not ask that my presence be announced, but the guy running the meeting is a friend and I didn't ask him not to announce me either.
After the breakfast a gentleman confronted me to express concern about how the Pataki and the New York Republicans had shifted funding for some food safety lab from Albany to Geneva (New York). He was polite, but did not seem to fully understand that I am running (okay, blogging) for Congress, and that Congress does not control New York State spending. He was very passionate about this issue. I think that's because he works at the lab in question. He thought I would be able to raise this issue with Pataki and the other Republican leaders at one of our meetings.
If you're not laughing at this point, please read that last sentence again. I have never met George Pataki. I have met Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue a few times, but have never had the time to discuss any policy issues with her. I have met Jim Tedisco and Hugh Farley more often, and they actually know me by name and face, but still have never had the opportunity to have substantive policy discussions with them. If there are such meetings, I have not been invited. I doubt Donohue, Tedisco or Farley are in these meetings much either.
At some point the voter's wife approached, and she was even more passionate about this issue. I'm guessing they don't want to move to Geneva and feel quite strongly about it.
Somewhere in there I explained (when I could get a word in) that while Congress wouldn't have much say about this, that if there were federal funding involved, I would oppose such funding in the first place, as this is not a role I see for the federal government. Apparently this was somewhat offensive - or maybe I had lapsed into speaking Japanese.
I tried to explain that Price Chopper probably would find a way to make sure that the food it sells is safe because they want to keep having customers come in. This idea was flatly rejected. Price Chopper wouldn't do it, I was instructed. Keep in mind here that Price Chopper's owners are heavy contributors to the religious facility where we were having the conversation. I also mentioned my opinion that the States are perfectly capable of taking care of such matters if government involvement is needed, but again I was told that I'm wrong. This couple was really quite unpleasant. They would not stop talking, had no interest whatsoever in my opinion on this issue (or any other) and the wife in particular took a great deal of offense when I told her that if she was not going to listen to what I had to say, then I wasn't interested in listening to her. I had not come to this event to campaign and was due to pick up my daughter. One of the frustrating things about being a candidate is that other people assume that you are at their disposal whenever they want to talk to you. And in cases like this, if you don't agree with them they will keep telling you the same annoying nonsense until you bow down, apologize for your ignorance, beg forgiveness, and agree to support whatever ridiculous position they have. Or in my case, until I tell them to vote for the other guy.
You see, on any issue, there are some very passionate people who believe that the private sector will fall apart and kill people unless the nanny state comes in and saves us all. Often, but not always, these people happen to earn their living saving us all from our inability to avoid killing ourselves.
As candidates, we meet these people when we're campaigning. All the time. They all want us to spend your money on something. By contrast, we very rarely encounter people who tell us to spend less money. It becomes very easy as a politician to promise these wingnuts -- oop, I mean these thoughtful and passionate people -- that we'll spend money to address these problems. Then when you get elected you've made all these promises and it's human nature to try to deliver. And this is how we end up with governments at all levels that are bloated beyond all recognition (a close relative of FUBAR).
We do not need a Commerce Department. American businesses do quite well in commerce and do not need government help. Same with the Agriculture Department, Education Department, Housing Department, etc. To the extent that government does intervene in such areas, the money tends to go not where it is most needed. Instead it tends to go to whatever groups have the most influence and who have given money to the right politicians, etc.
Agriculture subsidies are one of the worst examples of this. Something like 90% of the subsidies go to millionaire corn farmers in the midwest who've got huge tracts of land (anyone get the Monty Python reference?). Meanwhile, farmers in upstate New York get diddly squat. I remember someone telling me about Chuck Schumer's visit to Montgomery County, where he was surprised at how few farmers there are left. That's probably because he's making sure all the subsidies in New York go to all the farms run by his friends in Brooklyn.
We have to stop using the federal government as a redistribution machine. That is not what the founders of this nation intended. Whatever good intentions may have started this have not been achieved.
This morning was a great example. I took my daughter to religious school and attended a breakfast meeting there. There was a speaker who talked about the upcoming elections. As a brief aside, this expert lives in this congressional district but did not know who I was and could not name the candidate (Tom Raleigh) who ran against McNulty in the primary this year -- and Raleigh lives in the same town as this gentleman. I don't say this to come down on the expert, but rather to emphasize how dramatic the underreporting of challengers is.
Anyway, during the course of the breakfast, my presence was announced. Please keep in mind that I was not there to campaign. I was there because I took my daughter for school and I was interested in hearing the speaker. I did not ask that my presence be announced, but the guy running the meeting is a friend and I didn't ask him not to announce me either.
After the breakfast a gentleman confronted me to express concern about how the Pataki and the New York Republicans had shifted funding for some food safety lab from Albany to Geneva (New York). He was polite, but did not seem to fully understand that I am running (okay, blogging) for Congress, and that Congress does not control New York State spending. He was very passionate about this issue. I think that's because he works at the lab in question. He thought I would be able to raise this issue with Pataki and the other Republican leaders at one of our meetings.
If you're not laughing at this point, please read that last sentence again. I have never met George Pataki. I have met Lt. Gov. Mary Donohue a few times, but have never had the time to discuss any policy issues with her. I have met Jim Tedisco and Hugh Farley more often, and they actually know me by name and face, but still have never had the opportunity to have substantive policy discussions with them. If there are such meetings, I have not been invited. I doubt Donohue, Tedisco or Farley are in these meetings much either.
At some point the voter's wife approached, and she was even more passionate about this issue. I'm guessing they don't want to move to Geneva and feel quite strongly about it.
Somewhere in there I explained (when I could get a word in) that while Congress wouldn't have much say about this, that if there were federal funding involved, I would oppose such funding in the first place, as this is not a role I see for the federal government. Apparently this was somewhat offensive - or maybe I had lapsed into speaking Japanese.
I tried to explain that Price Chopper probably would find a way to make sure that the food it sells is safe because they want to keep having customers come in. This idea was flatly rejected. Price Chopper wouldn't do it, I was instructed. Keep in mind here that Price Chopper's owners are heavy contributors to the religious facility where we were having the conversation. I also mentioned my opinion that the States are perfectly capable of taking care of such matters if government involvement is needed, but again I was told that I'm wrong. This couple was really quite unpleasant. They would not stop talking, had no interest whatsoever in my opinion on this issue (or any other) and the wife in particular took a great deal of offense when I told her that if she was not going to listen to what I had to say, then I wasn't interested in listening to her. I had not come to this event to campaign and was due to pick up my daughter. One of the frustrating things about being a candidate is that other people assume that you are at their disposal whenever they want to talk to you. And in cases like this, if you don't agree with them they will keep telling you the same annoying nonsense until you bow down, apologize for your ignorance, beg forgiveness, and agree to support whatever ridiculous position they have. Or in my case, until I tell them to vote for the other guy.
You see, on any issue, there are some very passionate people who believe that the private sector will fall apart and kill people unless the nanny state comes in and saves us all. Often, but not always, these people happen to earn their living saving us all from our inability to avoid killing ourselves.
As candidates, we meet these people when we're campaigning. All the time. They all want us to spend your money on something. By contrast, we very rarely encounter people who tell us to spend less money. It becomes very easy as a politician to promise these wingnuts -- oop, I mean these thoughtful and passionate people -- that we'll spend money to address these problems. Then when you get elected you've made all these promises and it's human nature to try to deliver. And this is how we end up with governments at all levels that are bloated beyond all recognition (a close relative of FUBAR).
We do not need a Commerce Department. American businesses do quite well in commerce and do not need government help. Same with the Agriculture Department, Education Department, Housing Department, etc. To the extent that government does intervene in such areas, the money tends to go not where it is most needed. Instead it tends to go to whatever groups have the most influence and who have given money to the right politicians, etc.
Agriculture subsidies are one of the worst examples of this. Something like 90% of the subsidies go to millionaire corn farmers in the midwest who've got huge tracts of land (anyone get the Monty Python reference?). Meanwhile, farmers in upstate New York get diddly squat. I remember someone telling me about Chuck Schumer's visit to Montgomery County, where he was surprised at how few farmers there are left. That's probably because he's making sure all the subsidies in New York go to all the farms run by his friends in Brooklyn.
We have to stop using the federal government as a redistribution machine. That is not what the founders of this nation intended. Whatever good intentions may have started this have not been achieved.
posted by Albany Lawyer at 1:45 PM
1 Comments:
Warren,
This is why the GOP has changed so radically in the last 12 years of George. They've learned to succomb to the whiney folk who beg for favors and money. It's no longer a duty towrd the needy or homeless. It's a laundry list of demands whose promised delivery at the polls guarantees success. This block will dominate the future unless independent people stop pursuing their own selfish interests (a rational approach btw)and react to it. Unfortunately the cultural climate is also so riddled with fear and acceptance of the redistribution that one wonders if Trotsky's minion's are actually controlling the strings.
Everyone's afraid to blog about it too, for fear of reprisal on a lot of levels. If the boss (a lot of times the state) finds out, I'm screwed. One would have to burn thyself like the monks in Vietnam to garner any attention about these issues . . . .
Post a Comment
<< Home