November 13, 2002

Here are four editorials I sent my hometown newspaper regarding my opinion on voting.

October 23, 2002

Walla Walla Union-Bulletin Editorial Board
P.O. Box 1358
Walla Walla, WA 99362

Dear Editorial Board:

On November 5th, voters will again elect a U.S. Congress that is 99% Republican and Democrat. What has this type of voter thinking gotten America?

Under the Clinton administration the National debt went from $4 trillion to $5.7 trillion, and that was during one of the strongest economic growth periods in world history. Under the Bush administration the National debt has gone from $5.7 trillion to $6.2 trillion in less than two years, and they project deficit spending through, at least, 2006. During the period of the Clinton and Bush administrations there has been Republican and Democratic congresses.

So by voting for a Democrat or Republican from 1992 to 2002, you the voter, have gotten an increase in your National debt of $2.2 trillion. Meaning, much of the money spent for schools, medicaid, welfare, building the infrastructure, fighting the war on terror, and tax cuts for the rich, has been done with borrowed money. Great job guys and gals in D.C..

For those of you who say, "It's not my congressperson's fault." I say back to you, "Maybe it's time to think more about the whole and not just one individual." If they can't accomplished nothing as a whole (Congress and the Executive branch), but to borrow more money, putting more and more burden on America's future generations, just maybe, it's time for a major political change.

The boomer's parents left them with $1 trillion in debt and small Social Security obligations, however, the boomers are on their way of leaving at least $10 trillion in National debt (already $5 trillion) and $10 trillion in Social Security and Medicare obligations to their children. Is that what you really want to leave your children in a legacy?

The U-B once had an editorial stating that the average family has $8,000 in credit card debt and how that was a major problem for most families. If you go to a government web site looking into the National Debt, you will find that the government calls the National debt the Public debt, which it really is. For a family of 4 their portion of the Public debt is $84,000 or 10 times what their average credit card debt is. The money the average family of 4 pays in interest to finance their share of the Public debt via their taxes, is $1,300 a year.

Hopefully, the media believes that the staggering National debt is of public interest and will support open discussions on the subject.

Sincerely,

Dear Editorial Board:

The mid-term election is less than a week away. Like all elections, the media and the politicians tout the importance of getting out and voting.

I'm asking the U-B why is it important for everyone to vote? (If you do write an editorial on the importance of voting, could you be more specific as far as the benefits, that is, don't just say it's your civic duty.)

The fact is, nothing would happen. 99% of the politicians elected would still be either Republican or Democrat (money rules, the truth sometimes hurts). And if anything did change, it would actually be for the worse: the politicians would all be on bigger ego trips than they already are.

I personally believe that the smartest thing to do is to not vote, which would send the message, none of them deserve it. Not to mention the fact that 15 years from now when all the fiscal irresponsibility of politicians become as evident as the fiscal irresponsibility of corporate America, that I will have the privilege of telling myself that I did not support the politicians and their poor judgment. I did not want to continue to borrow more and more money, putting huge tax burdens on future generations. That I knew there were limitations, there was no way that government (local to federal) could just keep increasing taxes and borrowing, something had to give.

Clearly, simply electing a Republican or Democrat by a larger number of voters would not change anything. However, not voting would force a change rather the media, the wealthy, or the politicians liked it or not.

I believe this is within the realm of public interest: 65% of eligible voters agree with me, since like me, they don't vote (I'm referring to eligible voters, not registered voters, and I'm referring to a mid-term election.).

Sincerely,

Dear Editorial Board:

Well the mid-term elections are now over. What are the results? 99% of the politicians elected had a (D) or an (R) behind their name. And 61% of eligible voters did not vote.

What does a person who voted think about someone who didn't? Generally, it's that the people who didn't vote are lazy and uninterested, that they aren't doing their civic duty.

I did not vote because the most important issue to me when it comes to government is fiscal responsibility. Since 1980 the National debt has gone from $1 trillion to $6.2 trillion and it has gone up with the approval of both Republicans and Democrats. Yes, you could argue that they spent the money or wanted to spend the money differently, but they both wanted to spend, spend, and spend more.

Meaning, if you wanted a fiscally responsible government you had nobody to vote for if you wanted the person you voted for to have a chance of winning. Even if there was a chance for a third party to win, when it comes to fiscal discipline, there's no third party that offers a plan to deal with the staggering National debt.

Maybe the reason why someone didn't vote is not because they're lazy or uninterested, maybe it's because for the issues that are most important to them, there is no one on the ballot?

For those of you who say, that's not an excuse, you still should vote. If I would have voted I simply would have done what most of those who voted did, which is to reinforce that the politicians are doing their jobs. Clearly, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, the politicians are doing a lousy job. I do not want to suggest to them that I support their poor judgment.

I'll make a prediction. Two years from now those who voted will be rewarded with $500 billion more in debt that will be passed on to their children. The new U.S. Congress will increase the National debt from $6.2 trillion to $6.7 trillion by the next Presidential election.

If you're not part of the solution to pay down the debt, yes, that does mean making hard choices now, then you are part of the problem, that includes the media. If the media does not want to have numerous discussions on this subject, at least as much as they want to talk about sports, then, the media is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Sincerely,

Note: my voter turnout number was based on the following:

"Voter Turnout Rises a Little, Wednesday, November 6, 2002 6:50 PM. WASHINGTON (AP) - Curtis Gans, director of the independent Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, estimated Tuesday's turnout at 77 million, more than 39 percent of voting-age citizens."

Dear Editorial Board:

For the past week there has been a lot of news analysis on why the Democratic Party lost big last week.

Political analysts are saying it was the President's popularity, 9-11, homeland security, the fact that the Democrats have no direction.

The Democrats should have won the 2000 presidential election: everything was going their way in November of 2000. And they should have won by a large enough amount to negate the Florida vote counting issue.

Since the Democrats lost in 2000, they had problems way long before Bush was president, and way long before 9-11. As far as not having any direction, the Republicans have no direction either so that can't be the issue. So what's really going on in the Democratic Party?

Last Thursday on CNN's "Talk back live," Jesse Jackson said the base of the Democratic Party is, "Organized labor, women, and African-Americans [sounds like Jackson's use of the word "rainbow" is misleading]." Jackson also stated, "60% of the workers in Georgia make less than $20,000."

So Mr. Jackson, what about the non-African-American males who make less than $20,000 and who don't belong to a union? You and the Democratic Party could care less about them, right? Wrong, non-African-American males who don't belong to a union are very important, they are a large part of the population, like it or not.

The Democratic Party needs to quit being so race and sex oriented, that is, care about the little guy, the guy with no representation in D.C., regardless of the person's race or sex.

If the Democratic Party doesn't do that it will slowly die (it's already been dying for 4 years). And maybe that will be a good thing. That way a new party could emerge (yes, that has happened in America). One that represented middle-class America regardless of sex or race. One that stood for middle-class values and issues: honesty, a strong economy with fiscal responsibility and a solvent Social Security system, freedom, love for the U.S. Constitution including the 2nd amendment and religious freedom, a quality public school system, affordable and available health care for all U.S. citizens, respect for nature and the environment and foreign policy that protects America as well as accepting those who have different political systems.

I know U-B, this editorial is not politically correct so just stamp it "rejected."

Sincerely,