I first met Darren Parker about 10 years ago.

I was impressed by this soft-spoken, thoughtful, down-to-earth gentleman. Back then, Parker was a citizen-volunteer, contributing to better educating our youth and improving understanding among members of our diverse community.  

Since that time, I have had no fewer than a dozen more opportunities to sit down with Parker, either to formulate ways to contribute to a better community or to organize action teams to bring about needed change.

I have learned that Parker is one of those guys who does everything in his power to elevate the lives of others — not for pay, recognition or political position.

Parker is clearly motivated by serving others for the sake of service alone.

Parker and Sharon Runner appear on the special election ballot Feb. 15 as our choices for the 17th District of the California state Senate.

In contrast, among the thousands of community service hours I have spent working for the betterment of the Santa Clarita and the Antelope valleys over the last 10 years, I never had the privilege to meet Runner. 

Runner served the 36th Assembly District from 2002 until 2008. Maybe she was busy in Sacramento.

Yes, we know Runner was busy in Sacramento. While in the Assembly, she held key fiscal leadership and senior roles.

As a member of the Budget Committee and Budget Subcommittee on Education and as vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, Sharon was, in fact, one of the few in Sacramento who had a unique opportunity to help avert the very disaster we in California are experiencing.

To contrast the thought processes of our two Senate candidates, one needs only to look at the televised debate hosted by The Signal on Feb. 2.

At the beginning of the debate, Runner said her “No. 1 priority is getting people back to work. We have lost a half a million jobs. This governor wants to raise more taxes. This means less jobs.” Later in the debate, Runner stated: “Over-regulations — people cannot hire because of the burden of regulations. I would stop new regulation on business — and put a moratorium on ones that are in place that stop jobs.”

Obviously, these are the kinds of statements one has to make to win votes. But let’s take a closer look.

First, our job losses are directly connected to the national economy, deregulation and the Wall Street and housing meltdown. Poor Republican leadership led to the recession, which has hit every state hard. 

Second, higher tax rates, which all of us are paying right now, seems completely unrelated to hiring new employees. New employees come from accommodating new growth opportunities in the economic climate, not from minor tax-rate adjustments, up or down.

Finally, suspending laws that protect our health and welfare is nothing but misguided. One example Runner cited was rescinding the law that bans deadly lead from water pipes. Is Runner saying that allowing lead into our water supply is good for businesses, although it will kill our children?

Furthermore, it seems that part of Runner’s plan to get spending under control is on the backs of welfare recipients. She said, “California has 12 percent of the nation’s population and 32 percent of welfare population — we are (a) magnet to those who want to not work but to live off the government.”

It is true that government programs often encourage less productive lives. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office said shaving $1 billion a year could be realized by moving welfare responsibilities away from the state.

But this move would have no real effect on our true budgetary problems and simply shift the burden down to the counties. In May 2010, the California State Association of Counties estimated that the cost of picking up the state welfare tab could go as high as $2 billion a year.

Parker’s proposed solutions are a lot more sensible: “Getting people off the freeway and keep them working here. I would focus on solar energy and starting new businesses locally.” Parker continued: “Getting away from the partisan attitude. My opponent was in the caucus and in the Legislature while these problems were being created.”

Parker would reopen the 2004 California Performance Review, which laid out a plan to save $32 billion over five years. Where were you on this back then, Runner?

When asked why politicians have failed in the past Runner said, “The problem — they don’t spend enough time in the districts, talking to the people.”

Runner is so right about that.

Parker has my vote.

Jonathan Kraut is a Fair Oaks Ranch resident and serves in the Democratic Party of the Santa Clarita Valley, on the SCV Human Relations Forum and the SCV Interfaith Council. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of The Signal or other organizations.