Words or Deeds?
Our incumbent congressman, Jim Himes voted to increase discretionary government spending by 22% but now talks about favoring a 1% spending reduction. Himes voted with Nancy Pelosi over 95% of the time. Now, he talks about being "independent". His evidence is that he votes against her almost 5% of the time on largely symbolic or procedural matters. This might have worked during the bubble era, but our families cannot afford Himes anymore.
Today, we are in the position of having to choose whether we should believe a record of wasteful excess or election year promises of reform. How can we decide? In 2008, we decided that we could afford to take our chances on the current congressional leadership. We trusted their good intentions, enjoyed the benefits, and ignored the costs. On one hand, they had unambiguous voting records of command-and-control statists who would bring the most important aspects of our lives under government control. Increasing amounts of our private property would be taxed, spent, and regulated out of Washington. Entire sectors of our economy would be taken over. On the other hand, their election year rhetoric indicated that they would govern based on common sense and pragmatism. They said that they would be independent, despite any concerns that voters might have had based upon their records.
This election year, Himes presents us with the same decision. In 2010, we can take Himes at his word or we can take a look at his record. Should we trust words or deeds? Our most recent experiment with trusting in the words of our politicians serves as a cautionary data point.
===============================
Please send your comments, news tips and press releases to GreenwichRoundup@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment