Alan H
2010-08-11 06:03:08 UTC
Yet when you look deeper, what we really have is extremely rich corporate types who are infusing record amounts of money into the political system, essentially trying to buy a seat in the Senate, Congress, or the Governor's office. The 17th Amendment- which permitted the direct election of Senators- was partly aimed at preventing corrupt party bigshots from circumventing the democratic process. Most Senators today are millionaires...
Beyond the un-democratic nature of very rich individuals running for public office is the specter of individuals who are associated with corruption, greed, and the dismantling of the American manufacturing sector, and by extension, middle class. Carly Fiorina, for example, made a "name" for herself in helping HP ship thousands of jobs overseas. CEO's today get "bonuses" for helping ship additional jobs overseas, and those CEOs who do not outsource are seen as "old-fashioned" and out of tune with the times (I wonder what Hewlett and Packard would say?). Meanwhile, CEOs get paid more and more every year. At one point, a CEO was paid less than 10 times as much as the lowest paid worker at a company- still a lot, but not so much that a lower paid worker felt s/he couldn't ever make the same. Nowadays, typically a CEO earns hundreds of times more money than the least paid worker, and that doesn't even take into account bonuses, stock plans, golden parachutes, and other "perks".
Republicans and conservative Democrats argue that CEOs are what this country needs, because they have a "proven" track record of making money.
That's correct, technically. CEOs do make money: for themselves and their management. But if the true measure of a CEOs performance is worker compensation and productivity, workplake satisfaction and health, CEOs have failed miserably.
And isn't that the real problem here? A CEO will not care if a husband and father loses his job so that a foreigner can have it. A CEO does not care if workers are underpaid and overstressed, so long as output is increased. A CEO wouldn't even care if a nominally "American" company merely has its headquarters and management in the U.S., while its entire actual workforce is in China or Malaysia.
CEO's don't care who does what, where, how, and why, so long as the company makes money.
Why in the world would we want a CEO as our elected representative? If you think it's because "they create jobs", please tell me what jobs they have created for YOU in this last decade.