All
other applicants for that same job, those who lost, paid similar quantities of
money.
This
year, that job is becoming open again.
It opens every four years, but the person holding it can be rehired
after having it for four years.
President Obama wants to keep his job for the full two terms. However, this time, he's running against a man
who is said to be worth over
$200 million . Mitt Romney asked
people, most of whom are going to either hire him or not hire him, for money to
help him get his job. Romney has asked
his future bosses for money to help him wrestle the job from Obama and they've
obliged him by giving him $87
million thus far . Let's review. A man worth $200 million asked his potential
bosses for money and they gave him $87 million to facilitate his getting a job
that pays $400,000 a year.
Obama,
who already has the job because, in 2008, he paid - someone - $700 million for the
job that pays $400,000 per year, has asked his bosses, yes, those who are
already his bosses, for more money to keep his job and they've come through so
far with $87
million , as well.
There's
no doubt in my mind that I could have gotten any job I wanted with the Dow
Chemical Company in 1972 if I gave them $87 million dollars up front. However, first of all, they, my future
bosses, would not have given me the $87 million to give back to them. Secondly, I'm not sure that anyone, college
grad or not, would even make $87 million working for Dow or any other company
during the span of his or her career.
Of
course, here's a reality check. What I,
or anyone else who applied for a job with Dow, could do for the entire nation
would be almost nothing. These two men
are competing so that when we, the hiring team, meet in November, we hire the
right person, the person who can do the most for the nation. In an article I wrote some time ago entitle "Fighting
for their Country?" , I tried to make it clear that a nation or a country is
simply an autonomous piece of land and those who inhabit it. That's what a country is as far as I'm
concerned. I even gave some examples of
what Dictionary.com
considered a "country". Yes, being
president of The Formerly United States of America can be a daunting job. However, anyone who wants the job still has
to convince those of us who are doing the hiring that he or she will help
protect and defend The Constitution of the country - the land and those - all
of those - who occupy that land.
And, admittedly, it is through the media that the applicants share their
"resumes" with us and, through those "resumes", we should be able to determine
which of the two candidates is most qualified.
Herein
lies another sticking point. I don't
know of anyone who filled out an application or handed in a resume who asked
those doing the hiring for a little extra time to research and learn all of the
mistakes, sins, controversies, etc., in which their competitors were involved
and which, in the researching candidates' opinion, would disqualify the competitors. The applications and/or resumes contained
information about the applicants by which those applicants spoke about
themselves and the reason they were qualified for the job. No, I was not given time to research one of
my competitors so that I could write on my application, "John Doe beats his
wife regularly." I was hired based upon
my qualifications, not the disqualifications of others that I could bring to
the attention of the hiring team. I was
not, and I believe most others were not, able to write about our competitors
and obfuscate the entire process. If I
lied about what I did or where I worked, those doing the hiring were
responsible for finding that out.
To
compare applying for a job to running for president of The FUSA may be a
stretch, but I don't believe it's really that much of a stretch.
Candidates
should not have to raise billions of dollars to place ads on television which
talk more about their opponents' faults than about their own
qualifications. In that way, applying
for any job should be similar. "Why
should I hire you?" should be the question that is answered, not "Why shouldn't
I hire your competitor?"
We
all blame the ridiculous Citizens United v The FEC decision made in 2010 for
this outrageous process and, yes, it was a Corporatocratic driven, bought and
paid for decision which was the natural culmination of similar decisions made
throughout the years since The Southern Pacific Railroad v Santa Clara County
in 1886. However, just because someone
is given an unethical tool with which to work doesn't mean that she or he has
to use it. It would show character and
courage to, not only speak out against the decision as Obama did during one of
his State of the Union speeches, but it would show true courage and character
if Obama and Romney, and other presidential candidates - there are others, you know - all agreed to
turn their backs on this buying of the job of president and run on their own
records, not sling mud at their opponents.
Finally,
this has all been about the presidential election. However, the buying of jobs has infested all
of politics. If one is running for a
national seat, one is raising and spending money and speaking more against her
or his opponent than trying to convince the hiring team - us - that he or she
is the most qualified for the job. It's
even happening at the state level. Just
take a look at the Wisconsin recall fiasco.
Ultimately,
running for office is asking voters, the hiring team, as it were, to hire you
because you would do the things that would make their lives better and make the
town, the city, the county, the state or the country better. Running for office shouldn't be much different
than applying for any other job.
There
are some solutions, of course.
1.
Overturn Citizens United and any other previous rulings that led us to this
buying of jobs.
2.
Force all candidates to get whatever money they will need to run for office
from a public supply. I know, I know,
there's that terrible Socialism again because it may cost some money, otherwise
known as revenue, anathema to Grover Norquist.
We must not forget that Grover Norquist was never crowned king of
America. Besides, some socialist
activities aren't terrible and, if you look at the word, those activities are
done with the betterment of society in mind.
3.
Severely shorten the time for campaigning.
The campaign is not the time for candidates to build name
recognition. If no one knows who they
are before a six month campaign starts, then they're not qualified. Empower the FEC to disqualify anyone who
tries to weasel more time for his or her campaign than is legally allowed.
4.
I know some will say this is merely more government bureaucracy, but create a
government, non-partisan (if that's even possible anymore) FactCheck.org type department. If a candidate is engaging in blatant,
outright lying, either about his or her opponent or even about himself or
herself, disqualify that candidate.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
