|
|
Words rather than deedsCan you believe that new government leaders always come up short on the promises of their campaign? It seems to be their nature to over promise and ours to over expect, yet we repeat this dance at every election cycle. It has been said: "A politician's first goal is to be elected and his second goal is to be reelected." Often the candidate is no more ready to govern than we are to be governed. When on the stump, we hear the message that the world will fall without the challenger's vision or without the incumbent's steady hand. But, when seated and informed of the challenges of a complex society, the objective seems to be more to keep the system moving rather than venturing into new arenas. Didn't we vote for change last November? The Obama campaign promised to hold a rural summit shortly after being elected. Check the words "campaign" and "elected." So, the new president was confronted by war in Iraq and Afghanistan, meltdown of the financial markets and bankruptcy of the automotive industry. That shouldn't keep him from getting out, milking a few cows, and saving the rural folks. Funny how priorities of the moment became far different than promises of the campaign. I guess I'll have to accept that pressing needs of a huge sector of our economy and direction of the military outweighed a listening session about rural economic problems. But I'll bet it was probably a close call. I am now interested to observe that this administration's commitment to climate change is not as strong as the campaign indicated. The prospect of regulation is still there and agriculture will be placed in a more restrictive environment, but the push in Congress seems to be fading. Members of the U.S. Senate, particularly Midwestern Republicans, give the indication that the president went to Democrat leaders of Congress and said he had promised the American people that he would address global warming. Their job was to put forth legislation that would do so and get it passed through both houses so he could sign it. Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives delivered with a reactionary bill that had many pages most had not read when they approved it. But, as the bill comes to the U.S. Senate, the slow and deliberative body begins to react to a majority of people who oppose paying for the regulatory changes called for in the legislation. So the president is off the hook because he transferred the task to the House and the House is off the hook because they passed it and transferred the task to the Senate. Now the nearly unbeatable staggered six-year term members of that body can slow it down and water it down. They can actually make the majority happy by voting against it! Wow, what a country! Now it is on to health care and energy. Those issues have strong constituencies and promises for "change" that will be addressed in a similar manner. Bills may emerge in all these areas but they will be much different than the "mandate" of the election. You know, I've determined that our government works well when it works slowly and often works best when it doesn't work at all. The good part of changing parties in power is summed up in the words of Will Rogers: "There is no one more honest than a Democrat who is not in office!" Go back to 1994 when the Republicans took over the U.S. House of Representatives and move that same group to 2008. The system they said they'd change was only shifted in their favor. The candidates of 1994, who promised to have self- imposed term limits, were still there and talking about how advantageous it was that they had experience and seniority. Now don't get me wrong, I love my congressman. In fact, that brings me to my next point. I saw a poll that asked voters if they thought Congress should be "thrown out." Seventy percent said "yes." It then asked: "Would you reelect your congressional representative?" On this question, 70 percent said "yes." I have that scored at 532-bad and 3-good. Regrettably, that viewpoint gets everyone reelected (see above) and only reinforces the status quo. As much as we say we dislike what our government does to us, we dislike it more if things change. We also don't want others to get benefits we don't, so we won't risk giving up our programs for fear others will get to keep theirs. Mine is an entitlement but yours is a subsidy. The Internal Revenue Service collects a sizable percentage of our income as taxes every year and we could send candidates to Washington, D.C., to remedy that situation, but we won't risk losing our deductions under the current system. It's full employment for accountants and lawyers but we'd rather keep this system than change. I believe eventually change will come. Some will actively oppose it but most will grumblingly accept it. Government will tell us it is taking care of us while it takes care of itself. We will continue to ask candidates to promise more than they can deliver and secretly be thankful that they can't. Editor's Note: This is Ken Root's 35th year as an agricultural reporter. He grew up on a small farm in central Oklahoma and started his career as a vocational agriculture teacher. He worked in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri as a broadcaster and was the original host of AgriTalk. He has also been the executive director of the National AgriChemical Retailers Association in Washington, D.C. and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters in Kansas City. Ken is now the lead farm broadcaster at WHO and WMT Radio based in Des Moines, Iowa. He has been a columnist for HPJ and Midwest Ag Journal for eight years.
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2011. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
