Obfuscation, adumbration … Love those words! Big problem though, so do politicians and other con men. These words, and a few others, provide the guiding lights for those who consider having to be specific or to take a stand, a catastrophe.
Far better to stay general, confuse and offer the people the chance to put their own interpretations on what you say. And, later, if someone questions a specific point the truthful answer is “I didn”t say that!” Almost any facts, semi-facts or poll results can be manipulated if you stay away from specifics.
The problem with being specific is that you have to answer for it and perhaps face the consequences of having to live up to what you said or admit to having been wrong.
The saying “Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time,” should be a badge of honor not a curse.
That individual had the guts to make a decision based on the information available at the time and also had the guts to re-evaluate his decision on the basis of new, improved information.
I think this country deserves far better and specific information, reasons for actions and explanations of what our country”s and our politicians goals are.
To me, a good example is the recent statement by the Speaker of the House with respect to the “debt ceiling discussion.”
Speaking for both sides of the debate: “We have different ideas of what our country should be.” Probably more true than we”d like to think, but the problem is that the people have no idea as to what the different sides visualize as best for our country in terms of spending and for what, revenue improvement, the approach to deficit reduction and given we can get the country to operate at a profit, reduction of the national debt.
I think it is reasonable to ask both sides to put Mr. Boehner”s statement in details the people can understand. Then the people can make judgments.
Another thing I”d like explained is, why whenever balanced budgets are discussed or any government plans are spoken of revenue, the income of the U.S. is never questioned?
Why is it taken as a constant? Tax rates have never been lower in known history, because of the split between regressive taxes based on a use base and the same for everyone and the progressive income tax (allegedly based on the ability to pay). The lower ones income is, the more tax one pays.
Why, particularly from the Tea Party standpoint, is it so onerous to ask the very-well-off to pay the same tax burden as those who are at the median ?$53,000? And, make no mistake, our tax laws need a lot of changing to prevent lawyers and loopholes from increasing the injustice.
Spending reductions are another example of where far more details and explanations are needed. Pretty obviously there are many items that can and should be reduced, but the people should be privy to the reasoning that selects some, but not others for reduction. Certainly defense issues fall into this category.
It would be nice to know the effect of any spending cuts on such vital things as employment and public safety and service levels.
And, as we see from what is happening in our own state, does a federal reduction simply get passed on to the states and local communities so that the net effect of the saving is really negative?
Many old sayings reflect the successful approach of not saying anything: “no news is good news,” “silence is golden,” “out of sight, out of mind,” “what you don”t know won”t hurt you,” “don”t kick sleeping dogs” and such. Pretty good strategy to deprive people of information, so they can”t question you.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
