To the editor:
Recently in The Item, there have been several opinions bemoaning thefact that many people choose not to vote.
They reminded me of a quote attributed to the late Emma Goldman, an outspoken critic of government. “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”
The reason why I did not vote in the recent Lynn election and many other elections is because I could not find anyone to vote for. All of the candidates had the same basic positions.
They all defended the status quo of more government, more free stuff, and more taxes to pay for all of it even though they don’t say so in plain words.
For example, they all claim to be in favor of “affordable” housing, but none of them ever mentions the central fact that taxes and regulations have quadrupled the cost of housing.
All of their “solutions” are some form of subsidized housing, but they never specify who is going to pay for all of those subsidies. No one ever advocates for a reduction of taxes and regulations. Politicians prefer smoke and mirrors over real change. Their top priority is to get elected and reelected, not affordable housing.
What about the non-candidates who go along with this deception? They are either unable or unwilling to think outside the tiny box of approved solutions.
Although the Lynn mayor and councilors all say that they want to ease the burden on taxpayers, their actions say the opposite because they keep hiring more city employees whose salaries, benefits, and pensions are paid by the taxpayers.
This gigantic expense is never mentioned. I have never heard any Lynn mayor or councilor speak the plain truth that Lynn needs more city employees like a drowning person needs a pair of cement shoes.
I have never heard any Lynn politician advocate for a hiring freeze or reducing the number of employees by attrition which, by the way, wouldn’t harm anyone. They love the power derived from spending other people’s money and having more people owing them votes and loyalty.
I have never heard any Lynn politician tell the wealthy and elite residents who want to hire more city workers such as a “director of diversity” that they should use their own money.
Likewise, I have never heard any of them advocate for a salary cap of $50,000, which most people would consider to be generous. Likewise, I have never heard any politician question the need for government pensions. If Social Security pensions are good enough for the public, they should be good enough for their public servants.
I recently read in The Item that the newly-created diversity director wants the city (taxpayers) to hire five more employees to act as interpreters. I have a better idea. If a person or family moves to another country that uses an unfamiliar language, the first thing they should do is learn that language.
Why would they want to burden their hosts who have given them a place to live and work? By the way, only one person in a newly-arrived family needs to learn the new language because they can interpret for the whole family or several families. It’s no big deal. And anyone would still be free to volunteer their services.
There is no need for a new government program.
It is standard practice for all the candidates to offer “leadership.” What’s wrong with that? It ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of humans do not want to be led. They just want to be free to lead and live their own lives according to their own values and goals. And, they want to be free to peacefully cooperate with others who have similar values and goals.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing.
Richard G. Eramian
Lynn
