Many Candidates Void of Why They Are Running

Abdul-Hakim Shabazz from indypolitics.org, had an article that really starts about these Senate primary candidates who are running on the Republican side. I think Abdul wrote the article because Braun, the governor, Mike Braun, is planning a $500,000 ad buy through his super PAC to support challengers to Republican incumbents who voted against redistricting. By the way, I think a little bit later this week in the Indy Star I am going to have a column coming out about this—about Braun spending all of this money to make Trump happy but no money on items that could really help the people of Indiana. As I am reading this article from Abdul, I am thinking to myself that it prompts an interesting question that every person should be asking anyone running for public office. If you plan to be a primary voter this May or June, or if you are a convention delegate, the question you should ask every person running for public office is simple: why are you running? What are you running for? I think the answer to that question would be fascinating and would tell you a lot about the person. Here is what Abdul wrote, and I thought it really echoed many of the things we have said on this program. Look, I have said this many times. It is not because I am a fan of these incumbents. Many of them have done a horrible job. What I am a fan of, though, is better government. When you have people challenging incumbents who are not telling you exactly what they will do if they are elected, there is a good chance you are not going to get much different. There is a good chance you are not going to get someone who will be a fighter for you. When there is no obligation—when there is no clear statement of “this is what I will do if elected”—you cannot hold that person accountable. Abdul wrote this, and I thought it was a great point. He said voters in Senate districts 11, 19, 23, 39, and 41 are not waking up every morning worried about legislative maps. They are worried about property taxes, schools, roads, utility costs, economic development, public safety, and increasingly what data center expansion means for their communities—from energy consumption and water use to zoning, traffic, and long-term tax implications. They are worried about their communities. They are worried about whether their communities are being hurt at the Statehouse. Bingo. That is exactly what I have been saying for months now about these primary challengers. Look, it would be great to get new blood in the Statehouse. It would be great in many cases to have new ideas in the Statehouse. But those new ideas have to have meaning. We have to know what those ideas actually are. With most of these candidates, other than vague statements like “the government doesn’t own your home and you shouldn’t have to pay property tax,” there is not much detail. Okay, great. I think that is wonderful. Now you have my attention. But what are you willing to give up? What are you saying has to change? Who is going to get less revenue? If you are talking about property taxes and you want to change the system—which is great, full support—what are you changing it to? Are you willing to say publicly that the public education system should get less money? I certainly am, but I have not heard that from anybody. Are you willing to say the police and fire departments should get less money? I certainly am, because I know they can do more with less in many cases, especially fire territories. That is not an indictment of the great men and women who serve as firefighters or police officers. I have been a local elected official. I know every government entity can find a way, if they have to, to do more with less in any budget—water and sewer, police and fire, roads. Every department can figure it out. But none of these candidates running against the incumbents are saying that out loud. It is easy and lazy to say people should not have to pay property tax. Okay, how do you fund the police? How do you fund the fire department? How do you make sure roads get paved? They do not have answers for that. And there should be answers. There are certainly ways you can do it, but it involves effort. When you have a group of people running around broad ideas—especially the broad idea of “Trump supported me”—you are being deprived as a voter. When issues come up later, these candidates are not obligated to any previously held position. Not that candidates always honor those positions anyway. We see it all the time: people say they will run and do something, and then they do none of it. These candidates should be getting pressed, and the same is true for incumbents. Absolutely. Why are they running? Your county commissioner should tell you why he or she is running. Your county commissioner candidate should tell you why they are running. Your town or city council candidate should tell you why they are running. What are they running for? What are they going to accomplish? One of the problems with incumbents at all levels—especially when you talk about people like Greg Walker or Travis Holdman, who have been there forever—is that they do not have any new ideas. Like in any company, that is why there is changeover in corporate America. You need new blood. You need people to look at things in new ways. After a certain point, you have exhausted what you are capable of, except in very rare cases. So it would be nice to have new ideas and new blood. But I want new blood that is running on something, that is willing to hold themselves accountable to something. I want new blood at all levels—town, city, county—saying, “I am running for this. This is why I am doing it.” When I ran, I certainly did that. I told people three things I was going to do. People laughed and said, “How are you going to do that?” I told them. They said, “No way.” And we did them. It was amazing to me when I ran as a local elected official—this was about 15 years ago now—how the people in government, the people in the connected club in the town, had no idea how to do property tax reform. To me it was like, how could you not know? Shouldn’t that be the goal of everyone, to ensure that everyone pays less? Shouldn’t we be maximizing our dollars to make sure people pay less? That was not the goal. They could not fathom it. When you told them exactly how you were going to do it, they would say, “No way.” And then we did it. Why? Because we had a game plan. We walked in with a plan and said, here are the things we are going to do and here is how we are going to do them. Then you can begin to use the powers and levers of government to accomplish what you want, if you have a clear vision, clear goals, and specific ways to achieve them. The reality is we are not going to lower property taxes until we start electing people willing to run on changing the format by which we levy them, and willing to run on reforming the way local governments operate. Look, there are phenomenal people who serve our state as firefighters, EMTs, and first responders. They are brave and amazing people. I have one who lives next to me—Fireman Scott. He is a great guy. He would run into a burning building in a moment’s notice. Those people are great. But the system many of them operate under—these fire territories—is a complete scam. It came out last year during the property tax hearings how much fire territories are contributing to increased property taxes compared to municipalities that do not have them. The data was released during the hearings. It does not make you anti-firefighter to say firefighters are great and should be fully supported, but the fire territory system is a scam that does not make anyone safer. I just said it right here. Why can’t our candidates say it? If someone is going to tell you they are for lower property taxes—like Paula Copenhaver, who is running an ad about it right now—ask her what her opinion is on fire territories. Pin her down on it. Do not let these candidates get away with vagaries, platitudes, and non-specifics. Abdul went on to write something I thought was very well said. Slogans are easy. Budgets are hard. This is exactly the kind of policy conversation voters deserve to hear. If you are challenging an incumbent senator, tell voters what you would do differently on property tax relief. It is not a gotcha question. You want property tax reform? Great. Now tell me what you are willing to cut. Tell me what you are willing to mandate that schools do with less. Tell voters where you stand on school funding, curriculum fights, data center development, local zoning authority, and the continued debate over school choice. Tell them what your district-specific priorities are and how your community would be better served by you than by the incumbent. Abdul closed by saying that if the campaign message begins and ends with being mad about maps, that may energize a slice of the activist base, but it is a very thin foundation for public service. Perfect. Look, Abdul and I do not agree on a lot of things, but I thought this was very well written and very accurate. Ultimately, if you are a candidate for public office—whether it is town council, city council, county commissioner, county council, state House, state Senate, Congress, or Secretary of State—you should be serving for public service and public betterment. To me, public betterment means people paying less. It means people keeping more of their own money. It means government doing more with less. That is what it means to me. If I were running for one of these Senate seats, I would be giving specific things I would do in the Statehouse to ensure that happens. When it is all said and done, we will see what happens on Election Day. I think some of these challengers are going to win just by default. There are enough of them running. Someone like Michelle Davis running against Greg Walker—she is a known quantity, a state representative with a lot of money behind her—may very well be able to pull it off. But more of these challengers are going to lose than win in all likelihood. And when it is over, the people supporting them may look back and say what a missed opportunity. Not a missed opportunity to win, but a missed opportunity to make public policy better, a missed opportunity to do more for taxpayers, a missed opportunity to get government under control and put more money back in the pockets of the people who pay for it. But it does not seem like many people are going into public service for that reason anymore. It does not seem like many people are running because they want you to be better off. It seems like they are more concerned about the system—and in many cases, just getting elected. That is not going to make anybody better off.