State Treasurer candidate Dan Bohrod issued a statement yesterday in response to a recent announcement by Republican Jason Punzel that he was withdrawing from the race for the office of State Treasurer. In his statement, Bohrod noted he was not terribly surprised by the announcement:
“I don’t personally know Jason,“ said Bohrod, “but I think he might be someone interested in improving government rather than destroying it, and while I disagree with some of his approaches to policy, I welcome those kinds of debates. However, these days the fact is that a Republican who so much as intimates that government can improve the public welfare is persona non grata within his own party.”
“Plus,” added Bohrod, “Jason said he wasn’t prepared to sacrifice time away from his kids for the campaign, which is understandable. I wish more Republicans would so forthrightly acknowledge the kinds of sacrifices public servants and taxpayers must make every single day.”
With Punzel’s withdrawal from the race, the remaining candidates include Democrats Dan Bohrod and incumbent Dawn Marie Sass, while the only remaining Republican candidate is Kurt Schuller of Eden.
The talking point that Republicans are against any and all government programs to improve society is so old and played out – and is either lazy or blatantly dishonest.
It’s very easy to make a claim like Bohrod makes when you don’t have to offer a shred of evidence to support it – just a fly by, throw an accusation out there & move on. I particularly love the approach, “I don’t really know XYZ, but I’ll comment & make allegations anyway.”
It’s just a shame Voight came up a few votes short last election. He’s a good guy & ran things well and fairly apolitically. But he had an -R after his name which was enough for a small majority to vote against him & put in someone with no experience, leading to the current mess.
Locke, which government programs do you think are improving society and worth keeping around?
Sorry for the delay in answering – my email notification of a post in this thread snuck past…
I’m a minimalist not a anarkist – I thing there most certainly are places where the government (even the federal government) can and should be involved. I just think it should much, much less than it currently is. And many others my problem is not the government’s role, but how poorly they do their job…but that’s largely a separate issue.
But to answer your question directly, I guess it depends a little on how narrowly you want to define “programs.”
For example many of the federal agencies are without a doubt, necessary and improve society. Things like CDC, NIH & security related agencies obviously serve a vital function. The SEC and similar governing bodies that create a framework for private companies to compete and regulates them to ensure a level playing field. In my view, that is one of the very best things government can do – provide a framework to facilitate private industry (which is my first healthcare reform, would have the feds create the framework for private companies to compete). If that’s the type of thing you’re looking for, I could take the time & give you a pretty long list. But I don’t know that agencies fit your definition of programs.
Likewise, you have lots of critical services – police & fire, water & sewer, all the defense & security roles – but they may or may not be what you’re looking for.
If you’re looking for a more narrowly defined meaning of programs – social/entitlement programs, there are a plenty that I support at least for their intended purpose, if not what they actually achieve. I believe the government should help those who can’t help themselves – which is very different from those who won’t help themselves. The safety-net function. The portion of social security that covers the disabled for example. WIC, AFDC, Food Stamps, school lunches, low-income housing assistance, etc. Of course heartless bastard that I am, I want to see means testing for everything. And again for me, help those who need it – who can’t get by on their own. But those who won’t? I just don’t have a lot of sympathy.
Something else I’d like to see – is that we require agreed-upon goals: targets, milestones, etc that say, “this program/legislation is a success if…X,Y,Z” Even a built-in mechanism before it’s even passed so that failure programs can be killed, successful ones kept. I think it’s absolutely true that some people believe no program ever fails, it’s just underfunded.
Tell me what “approaches to policy” differ between Republicans and Democrats in the position of State Treasurer? How can the State Treasurer use the office to “improve the public welfare”?
Why is this a partisan position? More importantly, why is this a position at all?
Thank you for making my point. When Mr Bohrod was making his “dismantling government” comment he was referring to my candidacy. I am running on the platform of supporting a constitutional amendment to eliminate the office. It is a position that wastes resources and, as recent news reports indicates, is where political partisans are rewarded with cushy jobs.
Of course if you make a common sense proposal to eliminate a government office that is irrelevant and unnecessary in the liberal worldview you are a fire throwing right wing nut.
Please visit http://www.schullerfortreasurer.com to find out more about me and my candidacy.
Kurt Schuller