This election season, I’m endorsing ideas about governing and the qualities we should demand from elected officials. Readers can decide which candidates meet those standards.
At the town board level, transparency and access are essential. Going along to get along is a poor qualification, and any “good ol’ boy or girl network” is toxic for the town. Residents should be able to reach their elected officials, understand what’s being considered and have meaningful opportunities to weigh in before decisions are made. Making residents part of the process should be a basic expectation of town government. Board deliberations should take place in the open, with closed-door discussions limited to circumstances permitted by New York’s Open Meetings Law.
Speaking up when it’s unpopular, including against your own party, requires moral courage. That courage should be matched by the humility to listen, reconsider and compromise without abandoning core convictions. Voters should understand what candidates believe and why.
For municipalities, the first obligation is delivering essential services efficiently: roads, public safety, clean water and functioning sewers. Environmental stewardship matters, but a town should prioritize measurable local needs over sweeping promises to solve climate change, an amorphous problem for which the most vocal alarmists always seem to prescribe more government regulation. Financial sustainability comes first. Environmental projects need clear costs and benefits. If they’ll save money, show the calculation.
For supervisors, competence is paramount. Have they managed an organization, employees or a substantial budget? Can they follow through? Nobody understands every engineering, environmental or financial issue a town faces, but a supervisor should recognize problems and know when to consult experts.
That responsibility extends to personnel decisions. As a business owner, I’ve sometimes let concern for someone’s feelings interfere with a sound decision. My decisions affect my family and employees; public officials answer to an entire community. Employees deserve fair treatment, but avoiding uncomfortable conversations cannot take priority over competent governance.
I also want officials willing to modernize outdated processes and use technology where it improves service or reduces costs, with clear ways to measure the results. Businesses are exploring ways to use AI to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Government should be doing the same.
I would apply similar standards to county executives and legislators.
At every level, voters should understand who controls their taxes. School taxes generally constitute the largest share of local property taxes, and town boards cannot cut school budgets. State and federal officials control income taxes and set laws affecting public safety. Candidates should be judged against their office’s actual authority.
That brings me to sanctuary policies, which I oppose. Their supporters, however, make an important point: immigrants should feel safe reporting crimes and seeking police protection. We need a middle ground that preserves that trust while permitting coordination among local, state and federal authorities.
Some officials condemning dangerous ICE encounters should also ask whether their own restrictions on cooperation may be contributing to worse outcomes. Where a lawful jail transfer is possible, blocking coordination may push enforcement into streets and neighborhoods, creating risks for officers and bystanders. Those concerned about recent headlines should help make safer arrests possible.
On energy, I favor an all-of-the-above approach, including nuclear. Locations, costs and timetables deserve debate, but the goal should be dependable power at affordable prices, accounting for generation and delivery infrastructure. Subsidies and mandates need scrutiny. Good intentions don’t pay utility bills.
At the congressional level, we need to correct the misconception that foreign wars consume the largest share of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid together cost far more than the entire national defense budget. Not enough Americans are alarmed by our mounting interest payments and ballooning national debt.
Both parties helped create our debt problem. Neither deserves a pass for promising benefits or tax reductions without explaining how to pay for them. Pursue “waste, fraud and abuse” aggressively, but stop presenting that phrase as a complete fiscal plan. Show how much can realistically be saved and address the pressures that remain.
Reforming benefits deserves debate, and those advocating reform shouldn’t be vilified for trying to shore up a program.
I reject rhetoric that treats financial success as evidence someone isn’t contributing. We can debate tax rates and loopholes without making affluent people villains. Invoking “fair share” doesn’t define a fair system.
Still, should someone with millions in assets receive the same taxpayer support as a retiree dependent on every payment? We should examine whether adjusting benefits or subsidies could preserve these programs and reduce borrowing. People who contributed throughout their careers have a legitimate fairness argument, which deserves acknowledgment as we discuss protecting those who need these programs most.
Economic literacy matters throughout these debates. Officials should examine whether mandates and subsidies inflate prices. Why can innovation and competition make a large-screen television so affordable while health care remains extraordinarily expensive?
As my dad likes to say, the horse is out of the barn. We’ve made a social commitment to helping sick people obtain care.
But purchasing health insurance feels like a tragic joke. Homeowners’ insurance would be exorbitant if insurers had to cover a house already on fire. Health insurance must accommodate people who are already sick, and we need to acknowledge how that changes the economics.
Opponents of a public option warn about government rationing, but whoever pays sets limits on what they will fund. Insurers do it. Self-payers do it. Many pet owners know the anguish of weighing treatment costs, especially near the end of life. Human health care involves difficult choices, too. Changing who pays doesn’t eliminate them. If a public option can lower costs for individuals without increasing the national debt, we should consider it.
We should also consider some outside-the-box ideas. Obesity treatments such as semaglutide and tirzepatide offer opportunities to address a condition that contributes to other illnesses. If making effective treatment affordable can prevent serious disease, we should consider a public role.
That is the creativity I want from candidates. Health care is too expensive and consequential for us to accept endless tinkering without considering larger changes.
For readers who think my columns are too conservative, I bet that last topic surprised you!
Don't forget to vote on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here