[Prudence]

I don't think most regular people consider any net result - whether positive or negative. I think most people consider only how certain actions will immediately affect them. Those at the top may, in fact, make decisions based on what they think is best for the whole, but they're put into place by the "what's in it for me?" contingent, and I don't think that provides the best leaders. How can anyone make the toughest of decisions knowing that any immediate drawbacks will mean hell to pay with the constituency, regardless of the net benefit?

That makes political debate even more personal, because if I support something that has any sort of negative impact on you it must be a personal attack. I mean, what kind of person am I that would want to do that to you? If I want to raise or add a tax for some vital service, why, I'm taking medicine from the sick, candy from babies, homes from the elderly. Doesn't matter if the end result would benefit everyone - I'm clearly out to get you.

(Generic you, of course. I assume that folks here are capable of considering consequences further out than the next 5 minutes.)

That's certainly how it looks up here with local issues. Easier/cheaper to fix/replace crumbling infrastructure now, rather than in 10 years? So what? Let the taxpayers 10 years hence pay for that. I want my $30 car tabs!

But altruism is apparently un-American.