MUTH’S TRUTHS

In campaign training seminars I’ve conducted for candidates over the years, I’ve included a particular communications workshop in which I caution against sending out “I” letters. You see, if you’re asking for votes, your message should be about the VOTERS, not you. THEY should be more important, than you. The message should be about what’s in it for THEM, not the candidate.

To demonstrate this concept and what NOT to do, I’ve used an old fundraising letter from now-Rep. Jon Porter which dates back to his first run for Congress in 2002. I now have a new example, which I’ll share in just a sec.

To determine if a letter is a self-serving tome about stroking a politician’s ego, or a genuinely concerned letter about his/her constituents, here’s what you do: Take the letter, press release or other written document and with a red pen circle every “I,” “me” or “my” you find therein. Then take a blue pen and circle every “you” or “your.” At the end of the exercise, if you’re seeing red then the letter is all about the politician, not you, the voter.

OK, class. Grab a red and blue pen and then go through the following press statement released by Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons earlier this week:

When I announced my intention to call the Legislature into a Special Session to address an additional state budget shortfall of nearly $275 million, I said I would keep an open mind and give lawmakers all available options when considering how to meet that shortfall. The Proclamation I signed calling the Special Session did just that, and I’m pleased that lawmakers came together to balance this shortfall without increasing taxes.

In the end, the agreement lawmakers reached was very similar to my recommendations. With the discretion I gave them, though, they included some measures that I would have preferred been excluded, particularly reducing the funding for textbooks for our school children. I believe it would be more prudent to have targeted reductions to operating budgets of state agencies and protect these valuable resources. Still, I commend the Legislature for their willingness to make these difficult choices in these tough economic times.

I also believe it would have been appropriate for the Legislature to examine the possibility of bonding the revenue the state receives from the tobacco companies as part of the Master Settlement Agreement. By simply providing the permissive language to sell bonds based on this money, the Legislature would allow further consideration of this concept moving forward, should it be deemed necessary. I believe this option must be kept in mind if our General Fund revenue continues to decline.

I am also committed to getting a handle on our spending practices in this state. During the 2007 Legislative Session, the Legislature and I created a budget, which I signed, that was, in hindsight, simply too large. We have to share the responsibility for this. However, I believe it’s important that we create a stronger cap on state spending that will help us avoid these shortfalls in the future, and that will be a component of my agenda moving into 2009.

Despite the fact that not all my recommendations were adopted, I applaud the seriousness with which lawmakers have taken on the challenge of balancing our budget. Many components of this compromise were only possible by convening the Legislature as a whole, and I thank everyone for taking the time to be a part of the discussion.

At the end of the day, I understand that this is a process that requires compromise. In many ways, the Legislature’s compromise is very similar to the proposal I outlined, and it is in this spirit of compromise that I am signing these bills to balance the state budget for the remainder of the current biennium. These are not easy reductions to state spending, and I appreciate all of those who have worked diligently to ensure a consensus could be reached.

I would also issue a word of caution that this may not be the end of our fiscal struggles. Should additional reductions to state spending be necessary, I commit to continue working with Legislators to find fiscally responsible solutions for the citizens of the State of Nevada.

Folks, this is a classic “I” letter. It’s one of the best examples of one of the worst practices in politics. I counted 27 “I’s” and “my’s” and not one “you” or “your.” Candidates, take heed.

Posted on July 3rd, 2008 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National, Nevada