Tom Ferrick Jr. | The problem in digging up the root causes

In my role as a full-service columnist, I recently read through the mayoral candidates' issue papers, as posted on their Web sites, and I bring you good news:

All of our troubles are over.

Beginning in January, when the new mayor takes office, city government will be run more efficiently and responsively than ever. We are going to wrestle this whole crime thing to the ground. We're going to have more cops on the beat, more kids in good schools, cleaner streets, and thriving neighborhoods. Also, you should know that the city's economy will be revived and that taxes will be cut.

But wait: There's more.

We are going to eradicate poverty.

How? By going after root causes.

In fact, I hereby declare this The Year of Root Causes in Philadelphia politics.

We media types are to blame for this.

For years, those of us in the chattering classes have complained about candidates running superficial campaigns that fail to deal with the root causes of our problems.

Well, the candidates and their staffs have been out there digging and have unearthed bushels of root causes.

As a rule of thumb, dealing with root causes is far more expensive than dealing with their manifestations.

Take crime. It's easy to lock some guy up because he stole your mother's pocketbook. But dealing with the root causes of that behavior - poverty, broken families, lousy schools, drug addiction, and the lack of jobs, just to mention a few - takes more.

It takes the mayor of Philadelphia.

Let me put down my broad brush for a moment and try to put a finer point on these statements.

First, the politics of over-promise is nothing new. Not many people have gotten elected by promising only blood, toil, tears and sweat.

Second, there is a reason you hear more of this expansionist rhetoric than candidates talking about making government more efficient, effective and responsive. That efficiency stuff is just not as sexy.

Let's take a vote: Would you rather hear about my plan to end crime in Philly or about my proposal to deal with the accrued unfunded liability of the city's pension fund?

Finally, there's the politics of the city. Roughly speaking, Philadelphia is a city divided into two camps.

No, not black and white.

The city's median household income is about $32,000 a year. Half our households earn more, half earn less.

Let's call them the Haves and Have Nots.

The Haves are growth-oriented. They have bought into the need to cut city taxes in order to stimulate job growth. They hate this Pay-to-Play stuff. They want a City Hall that is lean but customer friendly.

The Have Nots are service-oriented. Government should be out there revitalizing neighborhoods, fighting crime, making the schools work. They'd vote for more cops over some incremental tax cut.

Of course, this oversimplifies. After all, who wouldn't want their taxes cut and a more efficient city government?

The tension in running for office in Philadelphia is in crafting messages that can attract both groups. Or, if you choose to have your foot planted in one camp, to say enough to soothe the other - or at least not alarm them.

This explains why we have candidates calling for tax reductions and expansion of services.

There are gradations among the Democratic candidates when it comes to the tilt of their message.

At one end, we have Chaka Fattah, who seems intent on having the equivalent of the New Deal in Philly. Read through his position papers and you have to ask yourself: Is he running for mayor of Philly or president of the United States? Spend all those years in Washington and I guess you emerge with a federal state of mind.

At the other end, you have Michael Nutter, who is Rendellian when it comes to economic growth and taxes. Maybe it's his years on City Council, but with Nutter, the nuts-and-bolts problems of city government (like, how do we pay for it?) are what seem to energize him the most.

I'm not going to do a laundry list of the other candidates, other than to note they each have to walk the tightrope of appealing to the two camps.

It is also time for a reality check.

As John Street and Ed Rendell can tell you, a mayor can't make everyone happy. Governance is about making tough choices.

And as anyone who has even a fleeting grasp of city finances can tell you, this city doesn't have the resources to expand services, cut taxes and treat those nasty root causes.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is living in a fool's paradise.