Wednesday, November 1, 2000

By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

This is the first time in my life that I can remember going into a presidential election with little idea as to who is most likely to win.

In previous elections, you always knew there was a chance for a surprise, but you pretty much could call the winner with little fear of an upset.

And I'm amazed as I hear all the predictions of a record turnout.

I'm amazed because, in spite of all the new registrations and absentee voters, I still think most people are not that thrilled with any of the candidates.

In fact, I think most people are going to vote as much against someone as for someone, and that goes for those who will vote for Gore and those who will vote for Bush, as well as the few who will vote for the lesser known alternatives.

I'll admit it. I'm among those who will be voting for the proverbial lesser of two evils.

That's a rhetorical "evil." I don't think either of the candidates is truly evil in the biblical sense... no more so than any of us, since all have sinned.

But I do feel, as I've stated, that both leading candidates will involve the federal government in activities that it should not be involved in, and neither will go nearly far enough in reversing the pendulum swing toward socialism that we've been riding for about 50 years now (which happens to be almost precisely the length of my life, since I had a birthday Saturday. Hmmm...)

Bush, of course, is the obvious choice for those who value freedom and believe in the principles of free enterprise and self-reliance upon which this nation was founded.

Conservative pundits like to slam Gore for buying votes, but both candidates are doing that. Bush just happens to be buying votes by doing things that I think are better for the country, like tax cuts and some right-minded improvements to programs like Social Security.

In addition to cutting taxes, we should be getting rid of the graduated income tax and replacing it with either a flat tax or a national sales tax. And instead of "reforming" Social Security, we should be phasing it out over the next 30 years or so.

But taxes are too high, and the government is running a surplus, which means that it has overcharged us in our tax bills. If the cashier at Kmart overcharged you for a box of Pampers, you'd want your money back. Same principle applies.

Gore, of course, has stepped up the tactics of fear and class envy that the Democratic Party seems to have perfected into a science over the last dozen years or so, and that might put him over the top.

He wants you to reject Bush's tax cut because people who are richer than you will get their share. It's not their fair share, mind you, because a fair share would mean that everyone's taxes would be cut by the same percentage. Bush wants to weigh his cuts somewhat toward the lower end of the scale, and would even eliminate taxes altogether for a sizable percentage of those on the bottom.

That is, the bottom of the taxpaying group. Those in poverty already pay no taxes, but Bush's plan would increase the number of people in the lower middle class who also would pay no taxes. What worries me about that is that eventually we'll have a majority who will pay no taxes, and they'll mercilessly milk the minority who do pay taxes for anything and everything they decide they want.

But, of course, Gore would take us even further in that direction, so again the choice is clear.

If you're thinking of voting for Gore, however, because you agree with his "targeted" tax cut approach, you should know that "targeted" means that you won't get a tax cut if you own a home, unless you're willing to give up your home interest deduction to get it.

Apparently, Gore places anyone who itemizes deductions in the "richest 1 percent," but far be it from me to label that "fuzzy math."

Concerning Social Security, Gore is turning up the volume on his "scare the old folks" tactic, trying to make you think your benefits will be cut or ended if you don't elect him.

They won't be. They'll be continued and increased to keep up with inflation, and you'll have a lot more control over some of your money (not nearly enough of it, but some) under Bush. And you'll get a prescription drug program under Bush as well, with only very minor differences between his proposals and Gore's.

Gore's constant statement to the contrary are, let's see... less than totally honest? Not entirely correct? They're lies, folks. Plain and simple.

Well, enough about that. Bottom line, the closest I'm going to give you to a prediction is to say that Gore has a slight edge because he is the sitting vice president at a time when the economy is doing well.

If you think about it, that's quite an indictment. The fact that the race is so tight at a time when the economy is doing so well suggests that people generally don't trust him and don't like him.

So why is there so much interest in an election when most people are not that wild about either candidate?

Pay attention, folks, because you won't read words like this in this space very often:

I honestly don't have a clue.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page