It's been fascinating to watch and listen to the Presidential candidates talk about "change". Barack Obama is basing his entire campaign on "change". I'm not sure if he's talking about "change" for the sake of "change" or what, because he's never really spelled out what exactly he would do to "change" anything in this country.But, it's equally interesting to read the editorials of several newspapers around Indiana. In Northern Indiana, the newspaper tone has been instructing it's faithful readers to "embrace change" and to vote against Hoosier incumbents in November. Is that "change" for the sake of "change"? As a legislator, I've been involved in helping move Indiana forward in many areas. Indiana now leads the Midwest in job creation, we have our own "Big 3" auto makers, employing thousands of Hoosiers. Our State has gone from bankrupt to having a cash balance on hand. We went from one of the worst child abuse States to one of the best in child protection. These "changes" weren't easy.In fact, many Hoosiers say the "changes" in Indiana have been too many and too quick. Yet, on Tuesday millions of Hoosiers voted for "change" at the national level. If, in Indiana, "change" has meant to make government smaller, create jobs, get tough on child abuse and reform an archaic tax system...and it hasn't been popular...what are Hoosiers voting for that will be popular?The only logical answer is that there is a ground swell of Hoosiers that have decided they want what the Presidential candidates are promising: bigger government with lots of new entitlement programs; higher taxes on hard working, middle class Hoosiers; escalating gas and food prices; socialized medicine which devalues quality care; all delivered with a huge smile that says, "you asked for it...you got it"!
State Representative Jackie Walorski