General Election: Conservatives don’t acknowledge the issues
Published 9:34 am Friday, October 29, 2010
As we near election day, the economy will likely be the biggest issue on the voting public’s mind. That being the case, it is worth noting what conservative challengers, at both the state and federal level, have had to say on the issue.
At the state level, the common refrain has been that of over-spending. If only the incumbents were more frugal and responsible. Yet, not once have I heard the challengers acknowledge the single biggest factor in our state’s budgetary problem: the recession. The Great Recession has led to double-digit unemployment and subsequent loss in revenue, equal to billions of dollars. At the same time, demand for public services (e.g. medical assistance for children) has increased for the same reason. To fill that hole, legislators have cuts programs across the board, transferred money from other programs, used up the rainy day fund and raised taxes on items like candy and soda.
At the federal level, challengers Rossi and Watkins also beat the over-spending drum. They decry high deficits, without acknowledging why we have them. Partly it is because of policies from the previous administration that were never offset: the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, two wars, and enactment Medicare Part D. They attack TARP and the stimulus, short-term deficits, which helped keep us out of a depression and kept unemployment at 10 percent. They, again, ignore the tremendous loss of revenue and increase on government services, such as unemployment insurance or COBRA. Neither would have voted for the new health law, which is projected to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars over the next 20 years. Both think less business regulation is the answer, as if they missed the entire financial sector meltdown which caused this recession in the first place. In short, they support policies that would have made things worse and do nothing to solve or improve them.
Conservative candidates either don’t understand the economy or purposefully exclude this information because it doesn’t fit their narrative. Either reason is enough to disqualify them as serious candidates.
Cameron Peters
Poulsbo
