Sunday, July 15, 2018

A Little Politics

I have a friend who has considered running for a political position, but he is worried some of his "secrets" from the past will be raised and he'd rather not have them see the light of day.  Personally, I think he would be great for the job, and having known him since our school days, his past should be his past and left alone.

Of course, if he had been part of some subversive group back in his college years, I'd question that, but, then again, that was forty years ago and if he hasn't been "actively" involved with that group during the last forty years, I'm pretty sure he's clean.

Did he smoke pot?  Take drugs?  I don't know and I don't really care.  Is he or has he been taking them in the last 10 weeks? 10 days? 10 minutes?  Even 10 seconds ago? Now, that would be my question.

What I think is his basic problem is a little unknown secret of exploration during the sixties. [I know he hasn't smoked pot or been involved with a subversive group, so I'm guessing at this.] Everyone slept around.  So what if you woke up in a stranger's bed and the person happen to be a hooker or, even as a worst case scenario, the same sex as you.  You're not sleeping around now and have been true to your wife for the last almost fifty years.

For some strange reason we, Joe Public, feel a person in politics should be squeaky clean. We place them on a pedestal, and they should shine. Even my pastor confided to me, he is a man, not a saint, and if pushed, he can get angry and cuss with the best of them. He asks forgiveness, but, as he said, he is a man. But, I digress. Should our politicians be squeaky clean?


No one man could ... not even Jesus could stand up to that type of scrutiny. Think about it. Jesus had "hoes" and men of questionable reputations, such as a tax collector, as his buddies and sidekicks. Today, over 2.2 billion people claim this same man, Jesus, as their Savior. Nobody would have voted him "Man to Succeed" back then!

So, the bottom line is simple.  Can the person do the job?  Is the fact that he took a "toke" on a joint back in 1968 or woke up with another guy who claims it was one of the best nights or paid $20 for a quickie at some dive while attending college - is that critical to his position?

Now, if this person has been in a political position and has been pocketing money from special interest groups for votes and/or taking drugs and/or sleeping around - yeah, time to evaluate your choice. If the person is already a political figure, I expect them to represent ME and put forth their best effort to be a figure to look up to.

My buddy seems to me to be a good choice from what I know of him.

At the present time, as I see it, most of Congress should consider themselves eligible for deployment elsewhere.  Being a Senator or House Rep is a position of honor, it is NOT a career opportunity.  Too many of them are there, and been there, for way too long.

I would love to see a bill passed that had the following articles of conditions for members of Congress:

  1. Service not to exceed 2 terms, once filled, cannot serve again
  2. Salary will be voted by the public, and only the public - you are a servant of the public
  3. Must have served a minimum of 2 years military, this applies to both male and female
  4. If a bill is passed applying to the public, it applies also to Congress - you are not exempt
  5. Money will be set aside, just like the rest of the public, for your retirement - it will NOT be your salary amount - your current salary and retirement fund is our (the public's) taxes.
  6. Any monies discovered taken from special interest groups (lobbyists) will result in swift termination. This is direct or indirect funding by a lobbyist.
  7. Any involvement in sex or drugs brought to attention will be handled swiftly - resignation.
  8. The rest of the world is awake at their jobs, therefore no sleeping in session.
I was a little leery about the "sex and drugs" but I figure, if you're in Congress or any political office, you can keep your zipper up and your nose clean for those few years.  If it happened before and/or after their term of service - I don't care. Of course, if a political member is questioned about monies taken, sex, or drugs, I still see justice being served with a proper hearing.  BUT, the idea of spending $50+ million dollars "in discovery" is ridiculous. A reasonable hearing is all that is needed, not a slack-stick Hollywood production.

Also, all these so-called "junkets" to foreign countries or elsewhere to validate some obscure aspect is a waste of our money. Does the First Lady really need to shop in Paris? Or does the town mayor really need to spend five days at a convention where the rooms cost $275 or more per day? Or have an alcohol tab of an excessive amount? If the political person wants to drink, pay for it yourself! I have to, why not you?

What people seem to forget is one simple fact: Any money the government spends is YOUR money paid in taxes.  The U. S. government, state government, county government, even city government, is not a company making money - they aren't selling anything... well, they sell us a lot of BS, but that's another story. Any money they have is OUR money we've paid in taxes. There is not a PROFIT margin like a corporation or company.

Back to the problem at hand - If a person wants to run for a political office, it should be about that person's ability to handle the position and if there are certain "terms" of that position, the person should be able to meet them or not run.  What I am saying, if you need to be 35 and a U.S. citizen, show them your birth certificate.  The fact that you got arrested for stealing a watch from WalMart when you were 19 years old has nothing to do with your ability, at age 55, to be a County Commissioner or Senator.

Some skeletons should be left in the closet - that's why they're there!!

So what are your thoughts?  Am I wrong?

Until next I ramble on...