“Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” It’s a simple statement that I’ve made more times than I can count to countless candidates over the past couple decades. When I was younger, I know they brushed it off without a thought. Party loyalty eventually trumps all other concerns sooner or later for most politicians, rightfully so since failing to be loyal can lead to a campaign war chest filled with dust and spider webs instead of cash.

Last month on election night, I spent the evening tallying votes for a gentleman that has been a friend of my mother’s family for more years than I’ve been alive. I was surrounded by campaign workers that were literally drunk on the Kool-Aid – true believers in the fiscal policies that have taken our Commonwealth to the brink of disaster time and again. The man of the evening, while generally loyal to his party, remains committed to a very simple concept – he believes that he is a public servant, and his job description is to do the best that he can for his constituents first, and our Commonwealth as a whole second. (That is not to say that he engages in predatory practices that leave residents of his home district better off than the rest either.) This gentleman won, in spite of not carrying his home town – he lives in a more affluent section of his district, and they were apparently looking for anyone claiming that they were interested in cutting taxes.

And there lies the current problem, not only for us in state-level government, but also Federal. Everyone wants to pay less, and get more. There is no patience in this equation because we are the “I want it now” generation. Technology has made everything faster, and the expectation of having everything immediately is inevitably leaking into what we want from our leaders. But the fact remains that we didn’t get where we are overnight, and any change in our situation will not happen quickly either. Beyond impatience, there is a general atmosphere of unreality.

Capitol Building

On a basic level, just about everyone understands the concept that government by its nature is inefficient. It is a bureaucracy, and is incapable of doing anything for less money than most entities in the private sector. If the Federal Government was a private corporation, it would have declared bankruptcy and closed its doors ages ago. We understand this, but rarely acknowledge that understanding, particularly when considering governmental programs that will benefit us. Instead we focus on what we can get right now, not considering the consequences of our actions.

Now the GOP is fighting to keep tax dollars out of the hands of the government, and Democrats are crying that President Obama is caving to their demands. The problem both parties are attempting to solve – our limping economy – probably won’t be well-served by either party’s plans, primarily because both are suffering from the same short-sighted “need it now” problem that the public has. It is disturbing that in all the wrangling over the Bush tax cuts, no one mentioned the concept of attaching some strings for the top 2%. Would it be so difficult to add a line to the tax forms, asking how much a business or individual has invested in the economy? Letting the tax cuts stay intact doesn’t guarantee that those with the most capital to invest will do just that. On the contrary, it’s already been suggested by some experts that the people with money will just keep it, not invest. (Not like that’s anything new, or as my mother and grandmother always said, “the rich have their money because they don’t waste it.”) It would be interesting to see politicians from either side argue against a deal that gives tax breaks to businesses and individuals that are hiring more workers, or investing in more businesses. But that’s just common sense, not sophisticated statecraft.

It would all be more believable if instead of generalized comments about government tightening the belt, there were concrete plans. While I am all for reducing government in size and spending, I have yet to hear a realistic plan about how to do it. That is the problem. We’re always so concerned about getting “what” we want, but rarely wade into those vast waters that contain ideas on “how” to do it. Speaker Pelosi famously illustrated this with Healthcare Reform by stating that they needed to pass the bill before they could really know how it would work. The devil’s in the details, yet the details are almost always overlooked until it’s too late. The mysterious numbers that have been tossed around that theoretically show what the price tag for the program will be are just like any other statistics. Any good statistician will tell you that it’s possible to make any study say precisely what you want, and being a cynical creature at heart, I suspect that’s precisely what is behind the numbers on Healthcare. The truth probably lies somewhere between what left and right have said (if we’re lucky), and will only be known in time, unless Congress radically changes the law in the coming months. One thing that is certain is that bureaucracy will be a large part of the equation.

Right now, the party line on both sides of the aisle is generally out of touch with reality. On the left, they want more government at a time when we can afford it the least. On the right, they want less government and taxes, but are vague on precisely how to make cuts. There is no realistic talk about how to keep government bureaucracy from growing by leaps and bounds to meet the needs of current programs and new programs that will be necessary to implement Healthcare Reform. No one is talking about whittling away existing government programs by handing responsibility for them over to the private sector. Most importantly, no one is making concrete suggestions on how to get the people off their most dangerous addiction – government.