Each year we hear promises from those seeking our vote for their election to public office.  Most are running for local election to city council, school board, district judge, sheriff and various local and county offices.  These folks are generally motivated to run for public office because they believe in their ability to make a positive change in their community.  Their promises to us have to do with solving local problems or improving public safety and we choose to vote for them based on our belief in their ability to make good on their promise.  This belief may derive from our personal knowledge of them or the knowledge of our friends within the community whose opinion we value.  No matter the source of our belief, we vote and then observe the elected official and readily make judgements about their fitness for office based on promises kept.  Should these local candidates start promising to secure our jobs, insure our health care, buy us a home, give a college education to our children, guarantee our retirement income or any other number of paternalistic promises we would seriously doubt their veracity and not vote for them.  On the other hand, if they say they will protect our neighborhoods, keep our taxes low, fairly enforce the law and create a stable environment which offers all citizens the opportunity to pursue happiness,  they probably get get our attention and if they are credible, our vote.   The difference between these two hypothetical candidates for local office is one is offering what we know to be unrealistic and overly intrusive government interference with our personal choice and the other starts with the assumption that we will accept our personal responsibility for pursuing happiness if given opportunity to do so. 

This is a year for election of a candidate to the office of President of the United States.  By virtue of that election, this candidate is not imbued with super powers to make us all happy.  It is their job to create a safe environment for all citizens to be able to pursue happiness without unduly infringing on the opportunity of others.  To believe that any candidate will "PROVIDE" for our general welfare suggests we have abdicated our personal responsibility for providing for our own general welfare and surrendered our freedom for some elusive promise that the government will solve our problems for us.

As you consider the presidential candidates and their promises, remember that our republic reasonably expects the President to guide our nation's defense and secure the rule of law.  Our republic expects its citizens  to exercise personal responsibility for their personal welfare and that of their family while all of us work together to secure the blesssings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.  As you listen to the promises of "change" all these candidates make, beware of changes which sound too good to be true.  Those promises will offer paternalistic solutions that erode personal freedom under the attractive guise of "taking care of us", something no candidate for public office locally or nationally can achieve.  Knowing these promises cannot be achieved and voting for the candidate anyway makes no more sense at the national level then it does at the local level.  Vote for the candidate who clearly expects you to exercise your personal responsibility for change and credibly promises to do the same thing.