We’ve all heard politicians and candidates talking about the “ordinary” people they’ve recently run into, and telling teary-eyed stories to show that they feel our pain and really care about us little guys.
This week I heard a radio segment focusing on a personal story recently used by a presidential candidate in her campaign rhetoric while traveling around Iowa. The reporter following her campaign described how this Senator stopped at a local sandwich shop for lunch with her entourage. The Senator settled onto a stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress, and then was on her way. According to the reporter, this experience gave the presidential candidate “perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches.”
To be sure, it was glorious fodder. She talked about the working mom she had just met who is raising two boys, working two jobs at minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet, and how, when she becomes President, ordinary people like her waitress will have it much better. It must have all sounded so heartfelt coming from a famous candidate, and no doubt crowds were touched by this sort of profound compassion and concern for their less fortunate neighbors.
The reporter decided to return to the diner to get more background on the one whose life had gotten drawn into a famous candidate’s stump speech, thus becoming part the 2008 presidential election. Yes, it turns out that the waitress indeed has had a difficult life. She has often worked two and three jobs to support her boys. In addition to her job in the sandwich shop she also works at a nursing home to pay her own school loans and make ends meet.
The diner indeed had provided lunch for the candidate and her campaign entourage, but this poor waitress, who was the subject of the campaign rhetoric, insisted that she was not even left a tip for her services. Not five cents for the struggling mom by whom the candidate was so moved.
This story reminds me of an issue that came before the state Budget and Control Board last week. At its meeting, the Board approved major salary increases -- nearly 20 percent increases for some -- for a very small group of agency heads, despite no performance review for the raises, despite some of them being on the job for only a few months, and despite none of them asking for raises. The three most generous raises in the group were for $20,000, $23,000, and almost $36,000!
Governor Sanford and I voted against those hefty increases, particularly since state government is heading into what could be a $220 million deficit next year. Yet the three other members of the Board disagreed with our position, overrode our votes, and approved the raises.
Now these three are serious gentlemen of comfortable means who I assume have been successful in business. I simply can’t imagine they would ever grant an employee of theirs, who had been on the job only a few months, or who had not been given increased responsibilities, a 20% pay raise. But many elected officials think differently of spending taxpayers’ money than spending their own, and spending it generously. For some, politics is about power, and many have grown accustomed to letting the hard-working citizens of South Carolina buy that power for them.
Like the Senator who wouldn’t leave her own spare change for a working mother who had served her, too many of our politicians see taxpayers as merely useful props. Some will talk with great compassion about their concern for the poor. They’ll conceive great governmental programs to improve life for middle class families whose votes they covet. But it will be the very people they say they want to help -- the struggling mom raising two boys alone and waiting tables or the self-reliant middle class mom and dad who want to rear their children as their parents reared them -- who will ultimately pay the tab for the generous big government, big spending schemes of the politicians.
Someone once said that “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” In the interest of protecting our financial safety, perhaps it’s time to insist upon more restrictive driving rules for those to whom we’ve given money and power.
This week I heard a radio segment focusing on a personal story recently used by a presidential candidate in her campaign rhetoric while traveling around Iowa. The reporter following her campaign described how this Senator stopped at a local sandwich shop for lunch with her entourage. The Senator settled onto a stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress, and then was on her way. According to the reporter, this experience gave the presidential candidate “perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches.”
To be sure, it was glorious fodder. She talked about the working mom she had just met who is raising two boys, working two jobs at minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet, and how, when she becomes President, ordinary people like her waitress will have it much better. It must have all sounded so heartfelt coming from a famous candidate, and no doubt crowds were touched by this sort of profound compassion and concern for their less fortunate neighbors.
The reporter decided to return to the diner to get more background on the one whose life had gotten drawn into a famous candidate’s stump speech, thus becoming part the 2008 presidential election. Yes, it turns out that the waitress indeed has had a difficult life. She has often worked two and three jobs to support her boys. In addition to her job in the sandwich shop she also works at a nursing home to pay her own school loans and make ends meet.
The diner indeed had provided lunch for the candidate and her campaign entourage, but this poor waitress, who was the subject of the campaign rhetoric, insisted that she was not even left a tip for her services. Not five cents for the struggling mom by whom the candidate was so moved.
This story reminds me of an issue that came before the state Budget and Control Board last week. At its meeting, the Board approved major salary increases -- nearly 20 percent increases for some -- for a very small group of agency heads, despite no performance review for the raises, despite some of them being on the job for only a few months, and despite none of them asking for raises. The three most generous raises in the group were for $20,000, $23,000, and almost $36,000!
Governor Sanford and I voted against those hefty increases, particularly since state government is heading into what could be a $220 million deficit next year. Yet the three other members of the Board disagreed with our position, overrode our votes, and approved the raises.
Now these three are serious gentlemen of comfortable means who I assume have been successful in business. I simply can’t imagine they would ever grant an employee of theirs, who had been on the job only a few months, or who had not been given increased responsibilities, a 20% pay raise. But many elected officials think differently of spending taxpayers’ money than spending their own, and spending it generously. For some, politics is about power, and many have grown accustomed to letting the hard-working citizens of South Carolina buy that power for them.
Like the Senator who wouldn’t leave her own spare change for a working mother who had served her, too many of our politicians see taxpayers as merely useful props. Some will talk with great compassion about their concern for the poor. They’ll conceive great governmental programs to improve life for middle class families whose votes they covet. But it will be the very people they say they want to help -- the struggling mom raising two boys alone and waiting tables or the self-reliant middle class mom and dad who want to rear their children as their parents reared them -- who will ultimately pay the tab for the generous big government, big spending schemes of the politicians.
Someone once said that “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” In the interest of protecting our financial safety, perhaps it’s time to insist upon more restrictive driving rules for those to whom we’ve given money and power.
9 comments:
I'm downright hacked off about raises so huge. That comes close to stealing from us and us taxpayers deserve to know who got them and who gave them. Just those raises by themselves are more than what most people make in total for a whole year. This sounds like bigwigs looking out for their bigwig friends.
How about telling us who got these big raises and what 3 kingfish politicians decided on them, plus what part of SC do they live. If politicians abuse us like this they should be canned.
I'm not taking it sitting down. If they steal my money like this they've lost my vote. I've had more than I need of their BS!!!!!
seems to me that there aint a lick of diffrence between hillary and the sc clowns that crossdress as repubs. repubs aint what they use to be. they use to keep the wasteful spending dems in line. now look who the wasteful spenders are (dems AND repubs). its a mighty sad day in sc. mighty sad.
get rid of the crossdressers or its time for a 3rd party for me. that might be wasting my vote but i don't give a crap b/c its already wasted on so many crossdressers.
a good server like that fine lady ALWAYS deserves at least 20% tip, thats just the way it should be and we have to give more to make up for the tightwad dems who care nothing about anybody but themselves
Kudos for speaking out, Sir. You have a knack for hitting the nail on the head.
hey many democrats would tip her too but when it comes to the clintons its all about the big me, no servant leadership from them
This one had to have been written by Earl Capps, right? It's his complex and witty style.
informative site, wish i had known about it sooner
joseph, i follow a few bogs and this is one to follow, good stuff and right on as you can see
Richard, Is the senator in question, John Edwards? I'm only kidding! Great post - big government isn't good for anyone.
Joseph, almost every Friday the General writes up a new topic for open discussion. Also check out Earl Capps' blog. He can make Irrelevance relevant.
Post a Comment