LETTER: Don’t exclude funds in debate

Editor,

I was pleased to finally see a political commentary in The Statesman that addressed what one party stood for, and not just a bashing of other parties beliefs. That has become far too common, and while I wholeheartedly congratulate Medlir Mema for writing such an article, I would like to remind him that his columns regularly spend time bashing his opposition. I will freely admit that I have done the same in the past, so I include myself in the collective guilt of political junkies of our day, spending more of our time degrading the views of others instead of extolling the virtues of our own beliefs.

That, however, is not the primary reason I feel a need to respond to Mema’s column. One of the biggest problems with political discussions these days is that everyone touts the benefits of their political platforms, while patently ignoring the costs. This criticism falls equally on all politicians, regardless of where on the political spectrum they are. To say that you are in favor of funding for public education is fine, and even advocating 100,000 new teachers is also great, but let us understand that you mean to pay for it out of our own pockets. If you mean to tax businesses to fund those programs, then make sure you explain to us that doing so will cause many businesses to curb their hiring, making it harder to revive the economy.

If we’re going to have a discussion about government programs, we do a terrible disservice by convincing people that they are costless. Any time the government does anything, it takes money out of our pockets, either directly through taxes, or indirectly through making it harder for us to find jobs. That should be the real debate, but political parties often ignore the costs in an attempt to gain voters.

Jeremy Kidd