There is a very important election coming up on Nov. 7.

And not just because it happens to be a presidential election year.

There are several local races to be determined in this year's election.

And voting in those races is very important. Many times, those races are decided by just a handful of votes.

Sometimes those races are decided by one or two votes.

So the old "what difference can one vote make" excuse just doesn't hold water.

Your vote counts.

If you're not registered, it's too late for this election, so make sure you get registered for the next election.

If you are registered, get to the polls and vote. It really is important. It's important at all levels - local, state and national. But it is especially important at the local level.

There are several local offices up for grabs. Offices that will be held by elected officials who will have the potential to affect our lives. They will make decisions regarding services and facilities and the taxes that need to be raised to pay for them.

There are several school board seats to be filled. Those officeholders will make decisions regarding the education of our children.

Why wouldn't a local resident want have a hand in deciding who will be making those decisions?

In the week prior to the election, this newspaper will publish information on the local candidates.

The candidates will state their views and tell a little bit about themselves.

Read this information.

Learn about the candidates and then vote.

I think if you take the time - and it really isn't all that much time - to read a little bit, you will find that there are qualified candidates on the ballot in all three parties.

At the national level, I believe politics is a lot more partisan than it is at the local level.

And I think the ideological battle lines are more clearly drawn.

There are debates about the size and scope of government. Generally, Republicans want fewer government programs and Democrats want more.

But at the local level, I think those party lines are blurred. I don't believe candidates in either party are intent on raising taxes and expanding the scope of local government.

I think most all the candidates running for office would like to keep the best interests of the local taxpayers at heart.

After all, they are all local taxpayers themselves. Their decisions will directly affect their own wallets.

So when you vote in the local election, don't just punch the straight ticket option.

Read your local newspaper. Learn about the candidates and their views and make informed choices.

Vote for the person you believe to be best suited for the job, regardless of party.

Local government can only improve if you do.

*****

You know, I would like to debate Al Gore.

Every time there's a debate between Gore and George W. Bush, I get frustrated because I would like to see George W. call Gore out on some of the stuff Gore says.

Like the other night when Gore was claiming credit for deficit reduction and a balanced budget.

If I was George W., I would have really laid into him.

I would have said: "What my worthy opponent seems to forget, ( I just love it when candidates say 'worthy opponent,' don't you?) is that balancing the federal budget was the linchpin of the Contract With America.

"Does anyone remember the Contract With America? The brainchild of Newt Gingrich? The outgrowth of the 1993 takeover of Congress by the Republicans?

"And while we're remembering, does anyone remember what President William Jefferson Clinton and my worthy opponent (there it is again) said about it?

"They called it the 'Contract On America' and roundly denounced it.

"In fact, Clinton and my worthy opponent (last time, I promise) had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget agreement.

"Remember the government shutdowns? That was about a Republican Congress reducing spending and a Democrat president unwilling to go along with the reductions.

"It was conservative spending proposals from Congress that balanced the budget and conservative tax policy that got the economy rolling along.

"If Clinton and the vice president (see, I told you) had it their way, we would have had a massive new health care plan, higher taxes, more deficits and a slower economy.

"Everybody knows that Congress determines spending, not the president.

"Remember what happened when liberals ran Congress during Reagan/Bush? Huge deficits.

"Remember what happened when liberals ran Congress and the White House during the Carter years? Huge deficits. High inflation. High interest. High unemployment.

"But look what has happened since 1993 when the conservatives took over Congress.

"Imagine what would happen with a conservative in Congress and a conservative in the White House.

"And by the way, why does the vice president keep harping on me for wanting to give $1.7 trillion back to the taxpayers over 10 years while at the same time he wants to spend $2.7 trillion tax dollars over the same 10 years?

"And furthermore, why does he keep saying that under my plan Social Security will be bankrupt in 20 years?

"He knows that isn't true. He knows that the Social Security 'trust fund' he keeps talking about is an accounting trick that contains no current assets. He knows that by his own administration's estimates the payroll tax won't cover disbursements by 2015 and that partial privatization may be the only way to save the Social Security system.

"I guess he's just trying to scare people into voting for him.

"Don't listen to my worthy opponent (I couldn't help myself). Vote for me."

There, that's what I would have said. [[In-content Ad]]