To the editor,

The Constitution requires the president to be at least 35 years old. Members of the House must be at least 25 and the Senate 30. Too bad the Founders hadn’t thought to stipulate a minimum level of maturity for holders of these offices. Name calling, finger pointing, and lying are likely to limit one’s prospects in other settings, but behavior like this is no impediment to success in politics. 

And this same level of immaturity plagues our policy debates, which are devoid of thoughtful discussion on policy trade offs. It’s simply infantile to believe in a world without limits, where one choice doesn’t constrain other choices. Yet, when was the last time you heard a candidate articulate a serious proposal for tackling federal debt, which has reached a staggering $35 trillion and comes to about 1/4 of a million dollars per household? Interest payments on this monstrosity now exceed expenditures for defense. And Social Security will be unable to keep all its promises in about a decade. 

But instead of thoughtful proposals to address these urgent problems, we hear candidates insult one another, demonize plausible alternatives, and promote reckless plans to make matters worse. They glibly talk of cutting taxes on tips, exempting Social Security payments from taxation, subsidizing first mortgages, picking up the tab for in vitro fertilization, and forgiving student loans—all without mentioning plausible plans to pay the bills.

This is madness, and a bipartisan madness at that! Where are the grownups? Is a mature, thoughtful disposition now an impediment to elected office? It sure seems so. 

Ed Mertz

Prescott