Political Commentary
September 17, 2008

I am officially skeptical about the upcoming presidential election. I recognize that campaign promises are promises yet to be broken, but we seem to be OK with that as these promises inspire great debates around dinner tables throughout America. Why? Why do we care about the promises? We get in stand-up, sit-down, walk-out arguments about who’s going to be a better president based on statements we know are not true. Who is a better candidate? The one who promises to make “one plus one equal three” or the one who promises to make “up down and down up.”

What’s the promise du jour? “I promise to help the middle class.”

Anyone making from $20,000-$200,000 per year is middle class depending on who’s definition you use. According to Wikipedia, the middle class is anywhere from 25-73% of American households. Who wouldn’t tell a few lies to get 73% of America’s vote? Here’s a few promises yet to be broken:

1. Promise: I’ll lower your taxes. Interpretation: The only campaign promise ever kept in the history of mankind.
2. Promise: I’ll send your kids to college. Interpretation: No you won’t. You’ll put together a program that will either a) make someone else rich, or b) create a new bureaucracy. Both will be aimed at the poor, paid for by the middle class and ignored by the rich.
3. Promise: I’ll give you healthcare. Interpretation: No you won’t. You’ll put together a program that will either a) make someone else rich, or b) create a new bureaucracy. Both will be aimed at the poor, paid for by the middle class and ignored by the rich.
4. Promise: I’ll shrink government. Interpretation: No you won’t. When was the last time our government was reduced in size?
5. Promise: I’ll balance the budget. Interpretation: You might, but it’ll be mostly luck if it happens. A strange combination of fiscal restraint and good fortune may keep this promise, but it will not be by any sort of design. And the Republicans sure as hell won’t do it.

A friend pointed out that this campaign presents a clear philosophical choice. In this corner we have small government, lower taxes, and fiscal responsibility. In the other corner we have high taxes, more government services, and loose fiscal policy. Consider the last 28 years. 20 of those years saw lower taxes, record debt and financial crisis. 8 of those saw fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. In neither case did we see government get smaller. Question: which party was in power for 20 years and which for 8?

In this election one camp says “I promise to help everyone” the other says “I promise to make the rich help everyone else.” My new found skepticism says that in four years there will be two things that differentiate how each presidency would have played out: a) Supreme Court nominations and the impact on abortion in America*, and b) whether taxes went down or up. Everything else will turn out the same regardless.

So why don’t we cut all the BS and just say “I’ll lower taxes and increase the tax burden on your children” vs. “I won’t.” See you in November.

*Whoa! Where did that come from? Seems awfully important to be getting so little attention in the election.