Written by Ralph Johnson   

*Sigh*

There must be a better way!

Every election cycle, it's the same thing. A wide array of candidates first hits the scene, some (like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul) espousing major changes or radically creative ideas. These most innovative of candidates are quickly brushed aside in favor of more conventional, “electable,” contribution-friendly folks—or “The Usual Suspects,” as they are otherwise known. The “front runners” assemble their troops and “war chests,” battle lines are drawn, and the game is on.

Incessant ads fill the airwaves, and all ears are glued to the obligatory “debates,” where nothing is actually debated, but where each candidate is given the opportunity to deflect the moderator's carefully crafted questions and enjoy 90 seconds of free media time in which to spin the discussion toward whatever focus-tested talking point his/her handlers have crammed in during their marathon debate-preparation sessions.

After the final “debate,” we're into the “home stretch,” where ever-darker television ads predict global Armageddon if the opposing candidate is elected, questionable truths are inflated into huge, unsubstantiated lies, and all the expensively opposition-researched character-assassination bombs are strategically deployed (timing is everything). Endless polls of “likely voters” (whose opinions are fed into each campaign's ordinance-spotting software, designed to target each sound bite down to the square inch) are taken. The results are then broadcast on all available media, so that news commentators will have something to rattle on about, and so that spectators (some of them voters, others who simply have large wagers riding on the election outcomes) can keep track of the punches, counter-punches, and the incoherent screams of the drunks in the front row (otherwise known as “poll participants”).

This all rises to a fever pitch in the last week or so, culminating in wall-to-wall Super Bowl-style election-night coverage on the teevee, where pundits bloviate, boil each electoral district down to a condescending, generalized pigeonhole-adjective, and armchair-quarterback the strategies of the various candidates, killing time while actual votes are tallied. Finally, all the prognosticating is done, and we actually see which haircut won the popularity contest.

Then we get the bad news.

Within a couple of months, whichever gubernatorial or presidential candidate has survived the mud-wrestling match schedules a much-heralded photo opportunity (during which no questions are permitted) where he or she reveals his/her first shiny-new BUDGET. Only now, long after the last balloon has dropped/popped, and the last confetti streamer has been swept from the floors, are we as an electorate permitted to know what was ACTUALLY on the candidate's mind while he or she was peddling “change for the future,” or “a return to dignity,” or whatever meaningless pablum he/she was dishing out for months and months on end, like a rap phrase stuck on infinite repeat.

The people we elect to these positions are granted immense power, a virtually guaranteed 2-to-6 year contract, incredible budgets for the hiring of sycophants/advisers, and health/pension benefits to die for—better than any “greedy public school teacher” could imagine in his/her wildest dreams.

Don't you think the vetting process should be at least as demanding as an interview for a position as a grocery clerk?

Or perhaps here's a better analogy: a BUSINESS PLAN. Before any investor or lending institution will release funds to an entrepreneur, the bare minimum requirement is a clear, well-crafted, specific business plan that includes market research, projected expenses, infrastructure requirements, revenue targets, over at least a 5-year period—with the dollar amounts clearly spelled out, broken down by category, carried out to two decimal places. Usually that's just step one! Most investors/lending institutions dig deeper than that, forcing prospective businesspeople to jump through even more hoops before giving a green light.

Any large business, before granting a contract to an advertising agency, demands to see UP FRONT what they'll be getting for their money. They want to see a portfolio, a clear vision, and often want to see polished demos/samples of exactly what they'll be paying for, all at the ad agency's expense, BEFORE they buy.

Why should we demand any less from somebody applying to run an entire STATE, or even the entire country? After all, as taxpayers, we'll be handing this person the keys to the treasury--a pool of money larger than most of us will ever see—and in the case of the whole country, a larger budget than any single corporation has at its disposal, no matter how hugely multinational and powerful.

So here's an idea (duh...why didn't we think of this before?):

Force the candidates to reveal their planned budgets BEFORE the election—both the spending AND revenue sides (so that you'll know what taxes are going to change, and for whom).


Don't think that's possible? Sure it is. Every candidate (particularly at the presidential level) hires an army of specialists—foreign policy advisers, economic advisers, media advisers, speech writers, pollsters, statisticians, plotters, planners, strategists. These people earn handsome salaries entirely focused on putting vague, non-committal generalities into the mouths of their “horses” on the campaign trail. In truth, these advisers are paid to teach candidates how to lie (or conceal the truth) more effectively than their adversaries. Millions are paid in order to custom-tailor “The Message.”

And “The Message” is invariably simplistic, emotional, anti-intellectual hot air. It's designed to obscure rather than illuminate. That army of consultants is hired only to get the candidate into office, without regard for how that candidate will actually govern when elected.

Now, let's consider a different world, one where candidates aren't given the choice to waffle or change the subject.

On a given date, far enough in front of the election to give voters and journalists a chance to digest it, all candidates would be required to submit a plan—an outline of what they'd do if elected. This plan would be required to include a DETAILED budget, in the same format they'd submit after elected--based on publicly available data, number-crunched by their highly-paid campaign advisers (or, more accurately, by their advisers' woefully underpaid assistants and interns).

Let's get real here. Yes, there are non-economic issues discussed in the political sphere—abortion, gay rights, treaties, etc. However, 98% of what any elected government does is to divvy up the available pie (decide who gets what money, and for what purpose) and to hand their constituents the bill (create tax policy). Beyond that, most of what government does is just scribbling and bibbling.

Even when it comes to ideological priorities (pro-business, pro-consumer, what-have-you) the bottom line is the budget. When House Republicans decided to penalize NPR for what they perceived as a liberal bias, they did it by voting away NPR's funding. Say what they will, it's all about the money.

In the past (and, actually, right in the here-and-now) when politicians have created “plans” for public consumption, said plans consist of emotion-driven, focus-tested platitudes—catch-phrases like “education for the jobs of the future,” or “stimulating innovation.” That's not a budget, it's a 30-second TV ad, the kind of ad big corporations like BASF use to improve their image, without even telling us what they DO, or what they MAKE:

“At BASF, we don't make the [product or gadget], we make it [better, stronger, faster, cheaper, safer...]”

The ad didn't tell you HOW BASF accomplished these things. It was just designed to make you feel good, and view BASF as beneficial to your life. And maybe it WAS, but without details you had no way of knowing that—you just had to take their word for it, the same as we're forced to take the word of political candidates that they have our interests at heart (and not someone else's, at our expense).

During the 1992 election cycle, Clinton/Gore actually published a BOOK with their “plan.” In an effort to be better informed, I eagerly purchased (yes, it cost MONEY) a copy. I was bitterly disappointed—it was just a bunch of glittering generalities of the type described above, without concrete dollar amounts. Nothing specific—nothing I could have actually used to make an informed choice. The Republican Party has never even been THAT forthcoming (except as it relates to non-economic social issues, like abortion or gun control).

AND WITHOUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, FOLKS, WE DON'T KNOW THE CANDIDATE'S PRIORITES. It's that simple. Since most of governing involves choices about what to fund (and not fund), the dollar amounts are the only reliable information we have about what's on a candidate's mind.

The advantages are obvious:

1. You know what you're buying. With a detailed budget, however preliminary, you at least have a clear understanding of a potential leader's mindset, and plan for YOUR money. And you find out what he or she ACTUALLY values, as opposed to what he's willing to say just to “get you into bed.”
2. When that prospective budget turns out to be completely non-representative of the official one that comes later, you know the candidate has lied to you, and you can act accordingly.


Now, politicians will (duh) fight this sort of thing tooth and nail, and naturally come up with all sorts of objections and reasons why it can't be done. So let's do a Q and A, and tackle some of those:


Q:
"But, but...I won't have the staff to handle such a huge project until I take office!"

A:
You have a staff now, don't you? Fire the hair stylists, image consultants, and pollsters, and hire some economists, public policy experts, and accountants. I'm sure there are plenty available. The staff you hire (and the prospective budget you produce with their help) will surely tell us more about you as a potential leader than what clever slogans you drool on the stump.

Q:
"I don't have enough information, and won't have access to all the facts until after I'm in office!"

A:
What government does, spends, and legislates (aside from classified activities, which can at least be assigned a general budgetary dollar-figure) is all public information. You want us to elect you to run our state or our country, and you're telling us that you don't have the skills or ambition to research this information, or the funds (in your massive war-chest) to hire people who can? If we were hiring you for a private business, we'd expect you to have done your homework, and to be able to PROVE that you have a better idea how to run it. BEFORE you're hired--not after.

Q:
"But, it's only September! things CHANGE! Won't the situation be different, in January, when the first formal budget is due?"

A:
Well, Mr/Ms candidate, we'll all be living through the same changes as you—can you trust us to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow for some wiggle room? After all, up to now you've insisted that we trust YOU without any knowledge of what you're actually going to do—and remember, YOU work for US, not the other way around.

Q:
"But...the budget is very complicated! You voters just can't understand all the complexities, and you'll make irrational choices based on emotion!"

A:
Ah—I see, as opposed to NOW, where you force us to make emotion-driven choices based on your hair style or what tie you wear, or whether or not you wear an American flag pin on your lapel? And then you spring your REAL plan on us, after leading us down the garden path, AFTER you're hired, after we can no longer fire you without a complicated and exhausting process? You say you want to listen to the people, and know the will of the people. This ought to give you a pretty good idea, don't you think?


Q:
"Budgets are PROJECTIONS—we have to make estimates based on changes over time, economic growth, new expenses, changes in the tax base, etc..."

A:
That's the case with the OFFICIAL budget, too!! We know that already. Yes, things are only estimated—WE have to estimate, as well, when we plan our household budgets. Nobody can see the future—what we want to know is what your priorities are, not whether or not you have a crystal ball.



The really important facets of this proposal are twofold: It has to be detailed (not just vague categories like “Making the State Friendly to Business”--which is a slogan, not a budget line item) and it has to include the revenue side, meaning the candidate has to indicate how the budget actually BALANCES (or what deficit will be incurred). If taxes need to be raised, it should specify ON WHOM, and by HOW MUCH.

My family tells me my idea is a pipe dream, that it'll never happen. Maybe they're right.

But when Scott Walker proposed his “budget” (much of which wasn't really a budget but rather a political power-grab), tens of thousands of people stormed the capitol in protest. The same thing happened when Rick Snyder revealed his actual “solutions” to Michigan's budget “crisis” (as opposed to just saying he's “going to run the state like a CEO," which tells us almost nothing about his actual plan of action).

Every idea has to start somewhere.

If there's that much political energy out there (and as we've seen, there's more than enough concern coming from all points on the political spectrum) isn't it something that we, as an electorate, given enough energy and noise, and with the help of the political media, could demand from candidates? Couldn't we make it a requirement of all candidates for chief executive positions?

There are more than enough examples, in the private sector, of people in charge of the purse strings demanding huge amounts of speculative, uncompensated work from prospective consultants or contractors.

--Yet we can't demand this of the people we're in charge of hiring to run entire cities, states, or the country?

Please.

Only in a public election are we expected to hand the keys to a multi-billion dollar bank account to somebody who ducks every question about how he's actually going to spend it.


I think most people would say that sounds kind of insane.

It would never fly in the private sector.

So the next time some pol tells you he's going to "run the government like a CEO," tell him:

"Fine--show me your budget--and it had better add up!"