On paper, Pam Stevens looks like a brilliant choice: an African American Republican and Kenosha Unified School Board member.
It took about four minutes to discover a major problem in Ms. Stevens past that she’s going to have to explain if she is serious about competing against Wirch.
Turns out that Stevens is a deadbeat with a history of unpaid taxes, bills and small claim cases that should make her too embarrassed to run as dog catcher let alone state senate.
While I understand that financial difficulties can happen to anyone, I can’t help but wonder how Pam Stevens would be able to keep Wisconsin’s multi-billion dollar fiscal house in order if she can’t even keep her own finances in order.
A candidate’s personal finances are fair game. I think it only fair to temper such criticism as you have because a downward debt spiral is nigh impossible to recover from – especially now with the cost of living as high as it is. At the same time, Stevens’ pattern does suggest something other than that. Really, it is nonsensical almost unrealistic for her to run for office until she pays her taxes at the very least. But, of course, not paying taxes isn’t a negative for the conservative base and the Republican Party has a history for putting forth candidates that at any other point in history would be considered weak at best. But, they win. So, maybe Ms. Stevens stands a chance….
As I wrote, I understand that lots of folks go through financial difficulties, but Stevens’ situation seems to stretch over a period of years without any type of resolution, and that’s troubling.
Agreed. Precisely how it is troubling is a matter of some concern. I’m willing to give a goodly amount of lenience on a number of financial matters when it comes to assessing levels of “personal responsibility” in a candidate – medical bills for instance, though I’m less accommodating for something like child support. What I find most troubling is her delinquent tax warrants. These suggest a character lacking in civic responsibility. I’m not judging her character, she has yet to respond to her own record. But I am suggesting “lack of civic responsibility” could be a legitimate criticism leveled by her opponent given the excessive amount she owes in taxes.
Unfortunately, I think PJ expresses the mixed emotions voters have about this issue. I speak from experience, having lost an aldermanic race to an opponent whose home was foreclosed for the third and final time three days after election day. Like Ms. Stevens, he had a long history of failure to pay taxes (both state and federal), unpaid debts to local businesses, and layers of mortgage debt. He also had a failed business under his belt. All of this is a matter of public record, as is the fact that he’s an official in the local Republican Party organization.
I’m so old I remember a time when people were embarrassed to have mismanaged their finances to such a degree, and would not have presumed to tell an entire unit of government, and thereby more responsible citizens, how their taxes should be allocated and spent — at least not until their own affairs were in order. Now we seem to be a nation of cheats and corner-cutters, more than happy to give the miscreants who run our world the benefit of the doubt, particularly if they share our political philosophy.
So what you get is serial misbehavior, grotesque mismanagement of both the macro- and micro-economy, collapsing financial institutions, officials at the pinnacle of government committing egregious acts and/or ommissions such as not paying their taxes in the correct amounts on time, or filing misleading financial reports, and on and on and on. This is a bipartisan phenomenon.
Many voters are fond of saying that ‘character counts’ and yet are willing to overlook behavior that indicates a lack of sound judgment at the very least. Evidently an ability to manage one’s personal finances is no longer a minimum qualification for elected office in the minds of many voters, no matter how loudly they complain about the fiscal irresponsibility of government.
Well said, J.R. My sentiments exactly. Your final point speaks to a poignant truth all too evident in the sphere of politics today:
“Many voters are fond of saying that ‘character counts’ and yet are willing to overlook behavior that indicates a lack of sound judgment at the very least. Evidently an ability to manage one’s personal finances is no longer a minimum qualification for elected office in the minds of many voters, no matter how loudly they complain about the fiscal irresponsibility of government.”
While managing personal finances and managing an economy are not analogous, I do think how an individual treats one’s own household finances is a strong predictor for how responsible and honest a public servant one will be.
Standards and expectations have indeed lowered among voters – I suspect due to a shift in partisan priorities. I can’t help but wonder, too, how protracted a phenomenon this “lowering of standards” may become.
Taking a wider view, I think we can credit the Conservative-Libertarian/neoliberal emphasis that has taken place since the late 70’s (definitely after Reagan) for creating an economic system where it is impossible for most people to succeed financially. The first guinea pigs of this system were Generation X. Demographically, they carry the brunt of current private debt in the nation. Despite the fact that we have our canaries in the coal mine with Generation X, Generation Y is moving into an even more unsustainable debt situation within our neoliberal system. Perhaps we have shifted into a new era of politics where personal finances will not be considered with the weight they once did, due to changing demographics and economic inevitability.
Young people are more likely to be in more debt than ever before throughout the entirety of their lives, surely this phenomenon will impact attitudes within the political sphere. I hope the trend that J.R. has outlined will be reversed and not accelerated in years to come. Zach, any idea of Pamela Stevens’ age?
She is in her mid 40’s.