Why would any sane person run for President?
"For power," you say.
"Or, for fame."
The candidates themselves, of course, would never admit to either motive. They always insist that they are simply engaged in "public service."
But what if none of of these are the reasons they run?
What if they just want to get rich?
At the close of last week's news cycle, in an attempt to limit news coverage, the Clinton campaign finally released Bill & Hillary's tax returns for the seven years since he left and she entered public office.
The documents reveal that the former (and once again would-be) First Couple has pulled down a cool $109 million during that time.
Could it be this is the other side of that "Bridge to the 21st Century," about which Bill used to wax so eloquently? No wonder his eyes always got big at the prospect. The couple now earns more than all but the tiny tip top of American taxpayers -- they're in the top one half of one percent!
Of course, it's expensive running for President, so politicians get used to managing huge amounts of cash. Barack Obama's campaign, for example, raised $40 million last month! At this rate, his candidacy will have cost over a half billion dollars!
The Obamas released their tax returns a long time ago, but since they only earned a little over $1 million, I guess they are relegated to being just upper-middle-class folks (for now.)
But the amazing part of how turning yourself into a major brand as a potential President helps even the losers get rich.
Case in point: Al Gore. The self-appointed inventor of the Internet recently turned $35 million of his personal wealth over to an investment group that specializes in green investments. Since Gore was only worth $2 million in 2000, the year he won the election but the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush to be President, his wealth has virtually all come since his retirement from politics.
In addition, Gore has just been awarded 10,000 shares of Apple stock for serving as a director of that company. With Apple's stock this spring off 25-40% from its high late last year, Gore can easily expect that his piece of the fruit will yield at least another half to three-quarters of a million dollars in value, once the stock market resumes its historical climb.
The key part of this fabulous money equation that shouldn't be overlooked by liberal advocates of the poor and working classes is that these are not Republicans we are talking about.
These are the leading Democrats of our time.
Just like the GOP elite, they are becoming very wealthy after "serving" all of us.
Why then, I ask, do all the rest of us seem to be getting poorer these days?
What's that, you say? I don't sound like a good, true-blue liberal?
Well, given this debilitating, week-long dental pain, which is scheduled to be root-canaled away (finally) tomorrow afternoon, maybe it's just my medicine that's talking...
Or, maybe I'm on to something.
Weir for President in 2012. Has a nice ring to it, or should I say, ching, ching to it, no?
-30-
2 comments:
David,
Your drugs are just fine. At least, in this issue I had occasion to agree to an extent. Posted on my Saturday blog:
The American Story?
Following the release of Bill and Hillary's financial disclosure, long resisted by them (for reasons extraordinarily clear now), long time aid and confidant Leon Ponetta stated, “We've come a long way since Harry Truman. In many ways, it is becoming the American story. A lot of people who have devoted their lives to public service, who lived hand-to-mouth during months of public service, are suddenly able, after public life, to find some rewards.”
There is today no better illustration of what has happened to our government institutions; public opinion of the presidency and of congress have never been so low. Public confidence has eroded to cynicism at every level. Practically no one believes government reflects the interests of the citizen; practically everyone understands that money and special interest groups are the prime movers in shaping the direction of the United States at all levels of government. With now the rare exception, we do not have public servants, we have self serving, cowardly people whose motives are rooted in the acquisition of money and power. I extend this description to all three front runners in the two party races unfolding now. Cynicism is now devolving to disgust, with public anger rising ever more quickly with each passing week.
I would like to see John or Jane Smith for president. Name recognition would not cost billions of dollars. More importantly, I want the John or Jane to be selected from the millions of Americans who still have stable core values – unimpeachable, long demonstrated devotion to family and community with no “political” aspirations. The John or Jane I'm describing would come from modest means at best, who have never sought more than providing support for themselves and their loved ones. They would be almost impossibly difficult to convince to take on the office. They would have to be frightened by the prospect of impacting countless multitudes of people today and for generations to come. They would have to have the courage to face those fears without flinching, with a passionate desire to move this great nation to rediscover its greatness. Race, religion, ethnicity would be of little concern, as long as their demonstrated passion for the interests of all Americans today, and those of tomorrow is clear. Their commitment would fundamentally deny any accumulation of wealth or power after service to the country. They would be perfectly content to return to the private lives they left with dignity and peace, at ease in the knowledge that their profound sacrifice of real service made a positive difference.
The core of their platform would be simplicity; special interests shut up and sit down. Their cabinet would be made up of people of the same ilk, with the determination to begin systematically removing appointed positions currently occupied by the self serving. In short, the highest office would remain focused on the future of this American dream.
I would like to see that template proven at every level of elected government. If you have held office in the past, you are branded in the sense that you've already had to work in a failing system and your ability to overcome the paradigms which feed that failure is suspect. “New blood” would have to meet essentially the same criteria as described; a binding commitment to serve and then leave quietly, with no possibility of accumulating great wealth or exerting unusual influence thereafter.
“We've come a long way since Harry Truman.”? Well, Leon, by any standard of honesty and decency, we have come a long way in the wrong direction.
Insanely naive, yes. But you know, if we focused our politics on promoting the John and Jane Smiths of this country, the insanely naive visions of our founders may once again flourish.
This topic of candidacy character has been much on my mind recently. Another of my posts, this one from March 23:
The Politics Of Hocus-Pocus
To be a leader requires a cause. When you sit in a crowded doctor's waiting room for any length of time, you usually won't find any of the patients trying to lead others around. Even some of the more assertive personalities who might be present won't be wasting energy attempting to alter the behavior of others in the room. No reason to, they have nothing to gain by it.
What if a nurse stepped into the room to announce, “We're tired of dictating who's next all the time, so you guys decide and let us know. The Doctor will see each of you in the order that you decide.” I don't like having to wait like that, and I don't think most other people do either. I think the dynamics would change dramatically. I think some of those patients would try very hard to get “elected” as first on the list. You might hear all kinds of arguments like, “I haven't been able to sleep for three days because of this bunion, I think I should go first” or “I feel like I'm going to throw up, I think you'd better let me go first”. Others might remain silent, content to avoid the conflict. Mostly, it would be a chaotic mess trying to elect someone to go first.
But what if one of those patients stood up and announced, “Look folks, if you elect me to be first, I've got a plan that will let everyone in within the next 5 minutes and end ALL of this waiting”. If he was convincing enough, he'd probably be elected by a landslide. No matter that the notion of his cause was so improbable it was silly. He argued an invented cause so appealing to the electorate that they ignored the improbability and voted for him. Chances are, someone that bold (and dishonest) will emerge having done nothing for the others and smile as he leaves.
Most us don't expect to always be first to see a doctor. Most of us understand, too, that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But it does seem like it's getting easier all the time to convince us of stuff just like that. Somehow we've grown ever more convinced that our government is the best solution for all of our problems. And somehow we feel these problems are getting much worse. I think there's a connection here.
George Washington did have a good deal of property when he died. But none of it came from his government jobs... mostly it was inherited or that which his wife possessed when they married. In fact, when elected as our first president, he tried to refuse the salary that congress insisted he have. He lost the argument (for pretty good reason). Others that followed, notably Jefferson and Adams for example, died owing money. For a very long time most presidents didn't get wealthy during or after serving. That has all changed.
The average personal wealth of a U. S. senator today is about $2,000,000.00. The average for a congressman is between $600,000.00 and $700,000.00. And many seem to capitalize big time after leaving office.
Our presidential campaigns are now spending billions (big 'B', lots of little 'o's) cumulatively, vying for that office. What are we doing?
With all of the obvious wealth to be gained, and even worse, with the ever expanding power we confer on these positions, it's little wonder that we're seeing a major growth in the field of magic. If you really take time to consider the dialog you're hearing from candidates today, a lot of the causes being championed by them would require some astounding hocus-pocus to fix, especially by them.
Post a Comment