The Seven Words Presidential Candidates Never Can Say (1/23/07)

by Dean Hartwell

 

Over thirty years ago, comedian George Carlin recorded a monologue called “The Seven Words You Never Can Say on Television.”  While there is no need to repeat these obscene words here, his concept that certain words are forbidden to certain people holds true in other walks of life.

 

With the presidential campaign of 2008 unofficially begun upon the announcements of intent to run by several candidates, we should identify the words that we will not hear between now and Election Day.  It’s a shame because there is nothing obscene about them, but we as voters can demand their use of the candidates.

 

Tax – The old conventional wisdom was that candidates rarely won by saying that they would raise taxes.  Now candidates have trouble articulating that they would even consider the possibility.  President Bush has cut income taxes for the wealthy and has connected this policy with what he claims is a “strong and growing” economy.[1]  In the last election, Democrat John Kerry promised he would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year.[2]

 

What is the problem with ignoring the possibility of raising taxes?  It is because we have a budget deficit of $248 billion that, according to White House estimates, could increase to $339 billion in September of this year.  If cutting taxes got us out of deficits, then why have six years of Bush tax cuts put us here?  Cutting spending won’t do since most of the budget is beyond debate.  Remember that President Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget.

 

DINK – This acronym means “dual income, no kids.”  We hear all the time about policies that are for the “family” and which strengthen “family values.”  People with children get tax breaks and often get privileges at work if they need to attend to soccer games and PTA meetings.  Candidates should thank the DINKs who work hard and provide taxes with few credits or other benefits.  They and the single people form a large part of the electorate.

 

Gay – The gays are another group rarely mentioned favorably by those running for office.  In fact, they are often part of the DINK category as well.  Right now, politically-active gays want the right to marry.  Is that asking too much?  Remember that most states used to forbid people of other races from marrying one another.  Unfortunately, the politicians were AWOL on that one and the courts had to issue decisions like Loving v. Virginia to overcome this discrimination.[3]  I don’t think the current U.S. Supreme Court cares as much about marital rights as the Earl Warren-led Supreme Court that decided Loving.

 

Sorry – Clinton had to try several times to apologize for his conduct with Monica Lewinsky before he got the word “sorry” out.  President Bush recently said of the war in Iraq that “mistakes have been made,”[4] a clever passive-voice phrase that allows the speaker to refrain from being the subject for the making of those mistakes.

 

Apologies may appear to be a sign of weakness.  But some situations call for it.  Regardless of who was at fault for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, no one from the Bush Administration apologized nor did anyone get fired for what happened, even though the official 9/11 Commission Report blamed it on negligence.  No one, that is, except for Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, who said to the public, “I failed you.”  Naturally, he is not running for office.

 

Government – We have been told by members of both parties that “the era of big government is over.”  If that is so, no one has told us what size government fits our current needs.  Someone needs to fix the potholes and if you don’t allow the government to do this, the wealthy will be able to afford it and the poor will keep driving their cars over them.  On a larger scale, ask yourself how much oversight should be conducted over the government’s purchasing of weapons?  The defense contractors wouldn’t mind less government so that they could overcharge the taxpayers for the weapons they make.

 

But if you listen to candidates for president, how many of them talk about the need for government?  They all stay away from the topic since most people encounter government in a negative situation, such as divorce, taxes or someone else infringing upon their property rights.  Someone needs to remind the voters that the government provides us services that the private sector cannot, or cannot perform without bias.  Traffic lights don’t get fixed by themselves, freeways don’t get built by themselves and water doesn’t get cleansed by itself.  Contracting out to private sectors still does not change the fact that someone unbiased must make the selection of a vendor.

 

Debt – We are in debt in the amount of $8.7 trillion.[5]  That may not mean much to the average voter, but our politicians could acknowledge that paying interest on the debt.  For example, the third-largest portion of our federal budget is our payment on the interest, $406 billion in Fiscal Year 2006.  This far outweighed many other parts of the budget, such as education ($61 billion).[6]

 

Sacrifice – Instead of asking us to sacrifice to fight the “War against Terrorism,” the Bush Administration has given tax cuts (mostly to the wealthy) and has encouraged us to “go shopping.”  It would have made more sense to call for a special tax to fight the wars that Bush wanted to fight and then vote on them in Congress.  He also could have advised us to consume less gasoline by using public transportation so that we never succumb to the temptation of fighting wars for oil or pleasing oil-rich dictatorships.

 

A candidate who asks for sacrifice will please me.  I wrote about the issue of politicians who tell us what we want to hear typically winning and how these politicians have failed at governance because they tied their own hands from the ability to call for sacrifices like the ones I just mentioned.  Find out how Truth Matters![7]

 

 

Archives