Thursday, January 14, 2010

Gay marriage

First of all, let’s deal with the umbrella issue of gay marriage: Accept it, it’s here, and it’s right. The sky hasn’t fallen, the seas haven’t risen up in fury, and the Apocalypse isn’t hiding in the closet, ready to jump out and get … you.

Then let’s deal with the red herring of allowing “the people” to vote upon the issue. No. Neither the nation nor the state work that way, nor should they. If “the people” were to vote on every controversial issue, Alabama would still be segregated.

We elect our legislators in this, our republic to represent us, yes, but also to do what they believe to be right. The idea that they are supposed to always vote “the will of the people” flies in the face of common sense. What would we expect them to do? Take polls before casting their votes in Concord or Washington? Impossible, first, and wrong, second.

How often do we excoriate politicians who seem to base their decisions upon polls? Of course, when they do something we don’t like, suddenly we want them to take a poll and do what we think is right. But you can’t run a state, and certainly not a nation, that way.

We elect people for a variety of reasons, not all of which have anything to do with their stands on issues. Sometimes, we don’t really know what they stand for and that can be especially true in New Hampshire, where we have more than 400 legislators. Often we vote for them because we know them; they’re our neighbors. Surely they think as we do.

Not necessarily, but it’s hard to know that, even though local newspapers ask them questions and print their answers. Not everyone reads them, however.

Ask yourself how often you have voted for someone because you recognize his or her name but don’t really know where they stand on, say, gay marriage?

The next election will be for local offices – board of selectman, school board, etc. – in March. These, too, are important posts. Learn as much as you can about the candidates.

Then, in November, we face the infamous “off-year election” that often changes the membership of legislative bodies. Again, learn about the candidates before you vote and don’t get hung up on party labels. It’s entirely possible that Democrat A and Republican B have similar beliefs. Find out, then decide.

Budget cuts

How cuts in local budgets come about is somewhat fascinating because, in a purely procedural sense, there seems to be a step (perhaps more than one) too many, to wit: School or town officials propose a budget to their respective governing bodies.

Those governing bodies shriek and reach for the Digitalis, then send the school or town officials back to the drawing board, ordered to make cuts.

The officials come back to the governing bodies a few weeks later with proposed cuts. Everyone nods and the cuts are made, reducing the budget.

But everyone involved knows going in that this is how it is going to be, so why go through the charade of proposing a budget that is going to be cut anyway? Why not come in with a budget that already reflects the cuts you know you’re going to have to make?

Ah, here’s why it’s so fascinating: It’s a game, and here is how the game is played (and this game is played not only in local, state and federal governments, but also in business): They know that no matter what we propose, they’re going to have to cut it, so of course they can’t propose what they really want/need, so they propose something more than what they think they can survive on, then make the cuts their governing bodies (or boards of directors) request, and breath a sigh of relief.

The problem is, it’s not a game for the people who are directly affected, to wit: those who lose their jobs or have their salaries cut. It’s a bit like being a spectator at a football game and suddenly getting tackled by DeMarcus Ware.

We sympathize with the officials who have to go through this every year and we wish it weren’t necessary, but until the voters wake up and realize that school and town department heads aren’t spendthrifts out to waste everyone’s money – including their own – nothing will change. We still won’t look at spending in a realistic way, at least not in public.

In public, the game will go on.