It is always helpful to hear from our politicians what they propose doing to make our lives better. Instead, all too common is reporting on the terrible ideas of the “other side.” It seems as if they want to scare us into voting against bad ideas. Isn’t it better to vote for good ideas rather than against bad ideas? Often, claims about the opposition are not accurate, with things exaggerated, taken out of context, or otherwise simply misleading or wrong. It’s important to keep in mind that almost everyone wants the same things – good schools, low taxes, economic well-being, safe communities – nice places to live and work. Of course, there are different ideas on how best to get there.
Reading last week in this local newspaper an editorial about how horrible the state Democratic candidates are really served very little purpose. If our local politicians find a need to use a local newspaper to advocate for themselves or their political colleagues – okay. But it is frustrating to read distorted views of the competition. As this election season progresses, let’s hope we get less of that. In this local newspaper, more information would be helpful about our community and how the legislative process is affecting us, rather than inaccurate versions of political records and positions.
For example, we read how we should be concerned because the Democrats would raise energy prices. Democrats do not want to spend more for energy! No one wants energy to be more expensive (except perhaps the energy companies and their stockholders). It’s only common sense. It is reasonable to have different points-of-view on the best ways to control energy costs, but not to imply that one side or the other actually wants to raise rates. For example, look at the recent APCO Rate Reduction Act, being proudly promoted as effective in reducing energy costs. This Act will do just the opposite in the long-term. Its benefit is in helping control costs over the next couple of years, but then rates will have to increase. This Act allowed the utility to borrow money to defer paying all its expenses. This debt will need to be repaid in a few short years -with interest! Future costs will be higher in the long-term. Similarly, if the national government’s “big beautiful bill” is passed, it also will raise costs long-term. Things to remember in a few years when those higher bills become due.
A different approach was taken with the earlier Virginia Clean Energy Act as it will reduce energy costs in the future, while potentially adding some costs now during a transition period. It is much the same thing as if you had an oil burner furnace in your home – modern technology 100 years ago. Fuel oil is now quite expensive, and it would likely cost you less to use for one more year than taking the furnace out and replacing it with a modern heat pump. Of course, that heat pump would save you a tremendous amount of money over its lifetime. In making this transition, rebates have been available to lower the cost of buying a heat pump – a useful example of how government actions can help reduce future costs.
Different politicians have different priorities about things that help their communities. Do we think a priority is to lower taxes rather than provide more school funding? Do we want to pass legislation to lower energy costs now, with higher costs in a few years? Would it be better to invest now in energy systems that will lower future costs? Reasonable people can have different views on these types of issues – often they boil down to how much do we want to live for today versus investing for tomorrow. Great would be to have candidates represent themselves on these types of issues, rather than demonizing the opposition. Everyone would benefit, and our choices would be much clearer.
