Primary Elections and "Change"

(Yes, I know it's been a while since I did a full article outside my specialty. This one just flowed out)

You know, even as often as the candidates use the word "change", I'd be okay with it if they told us precisely what they want to change in the same breath. If they're really for changes the public wants, they wouldn't have a problem with this. If, on the other hand, the change they want is stuff like more privilege for politicians, more bureaucracy, more government control over individuals, I'd like to find out about these things before I cast my primary ballot on February 5th. I'm not voting for anyone who says they represent change without saying precisely what changes they want to make. There's a lot of things I'm happy with about this country and don't want to see changed. There are many more that, as bad as they are, could be made a lot worse, and are likely to.

When I hear a new program proposed, I want to know how they propose paying for it. Who are they going to tax to pay for this, or what other program are they going to cut? Much as I think the budget is too big, I want to know what cuts the various candidates want to make when they say they want to cut it. Not that I think there's a lot of programs that it's not worthwhile to cut so the people who pay taxes keep more of their own money, but I think it's important information to know. There may be people that don't agree with me on the ideal size of the federal government (small enough to drown in the bathroom sink), and they're entitled to the information. That way, whatever candidate gets elected, there's no crying that he or she didn't campaign on the issue and acknowledge the costs.

So far, precisely two candidates that I'm aware of have gone beyond the cult of personality and given the public some specific plans for what they would do if elected. Rudy Giuliani has done a considerable amount of this, but Fred Thompson is the current front runner in detailing specific plans. No coincidentally, they're the only two who could claim popular support for specific ideas if elected. Not to mention that the voters would have vetted the consequences of those plans as well.

Also not coincidentally, they're at the top of my "likely to get my vote" list on February 5th, and both are lagging their former support in the polls. It isn't surprising to anyone above the age of eight that it's more popular to run a "promise the moon, but don't mention how we're going to pay for it" campaign. Easier to get elected when entrenched interests don't have concrete reasons to oppose you. But by the time you get to voting age, you should be conversant with the fact that government programs don't magically pay for themselves. Before adults tell the salesperson they've got a sale, we want to know and agree upon the price we're going to have to pay.