Topic: Politics
You're Fired! Part Two on reasons to vote out the incumbents regardless of their party affiliationby EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
"You're Fired!"- that is what I want to see the American people tell the 25 Senators seeking reelection this Fall. If these 25 individuals were CEOs of companies they would have already been terminated by their shareholders and boards of directors.
Is there anyone out there that thinks the Senate has been doing an admirable job? How would you compare that group of leaders to the group of CEOs that run the thirty companies that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average?
I have done a bit of homework and here are a few statistics I came up with. The thirty companies made a combined profit of:
$277,063,500,000.00
(Most Recent Full Year Profits)
How did the Government do?
- $158,000,000,000.00
2007 Estimated Budget Deficit
Quite a difference in performance, wouldn't you agree?
I looked up how long the CEOs of the thirty companies with such a profit had been in their jobs. After all, that is why we return the same senators to office year after year-to get the job done. Averaging the start dates of all CEOs gave me an average approximate starting date of:
August 2002
What about the 26 US Senators that are seeking reelection? Averaging their time in office yielded an average start date of:
April 1993
It is obvious to me that a greater length of time in the positions of authority they have been elected to is not yielding the results we need.
We also seem to react quickly to companies that are not headed in the right direction. So why is it we are so willing to keep the same people in the Senate that we all generally agree is not headed in the right direction? There is a disconnect here.
There are four Senators that were elected in the 1970's: Joe Biden, Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Thad Cochran.
There are five Senators first elected 1980's: Frank Lautenberg, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, Mitch McConnell, and Jay Rockefeller.
There are nine Senators first elected in the 1990's: Jim Inhofe, Dick Durbin, Mary Landrieu, Jack Reed, Tim Johnson, Jeff Sessions, Pat Roberts, Susan Collins, and Gordon Smith.
All of the above Senators have been serving longer than the average CEO of the thirty companies comprising the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If these people were running companies they would have been fired years ago. If these people were going to be successful, we would have seen results by now.
I was told yesterday that a politician's main job once is elected is to get re-elected. How true that is.
Isn't it time to give them the message and send them home? What better way than to vote against the incumbents this fall, and say
You're Fired!
What are your thoughts? Will you continue to vote for your incumbent even if they are part of the problem?
Party
Democrats
D
Joe Biden (Delaware) 1972
D
Carl Levin (Michigan) 1978
D
Max Baucus (Montana) 1978
R
Thad Cochran (Mississippi) 1978
D
Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) 1982
D
Tom Harkin (Iowa) 1984
D
John Kerry (Massachusetts) 1984
R
Mitch McConnell(Kentucky) 1984
D
Jay Rockefeller (West Virginia) 1985
R
Jim Inhofe (Oklahoma) 1994
D
Dick Durbin (Illinois) 1996
D
Mary Landrieu(Louisiana) 1996
D
Jack Reed (Rhode Island) 1996
D
Tim Johnson (South Dakota) 1996
R
Jeff Sessions (Alabama) 1996
R
Pat Roberts (Kansas) 1996
R
Susan Collins (Maine) 1996
R
Gordon Smith (Oregon) 1996
D
Mark Pryor(Arkansas) 2002
R
Saxby Chambliss (Georgia) 2002
R
Norm Coleman (Minnesota) 2002
R
John Sununu (New Hampshire) 2002
R
Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina) 2002
R
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) 2002
R
Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) 2002
R
John Cornyn (Texas) 2002
Company
CEO Started
Profit(source Yahoo Financials)
Alcoa
2001
$2,248,000,000.00
American Expres
2001
$3,707,000,000.00
AIG
2006
$14,048,000,000.00
AT&T
2007
$7,356,000,000.00
Bank of America
2001
$21,133,000,000.00
Boeing
2005
$4,084,000,000.00
Caterpillar
2006
$3,537,000,000.00
Chevron
2000
$17,138,000,000.00
Citigroup
2007
$2,212,000,000.00
Coca Cola
2004
$5,080,000,000.00
Dupont
1998
$3,148,000,000.00
Exxon Mobil
2001
$39,500,000,000.00
General Electric
2000
$20,829,000,000.00
General Motors
2000
-$1,978,000,000.00
Hewlett Packard
2005
$7,264,000,000.00
Home Depot
2007
$5,761,000,000.00
IBM
2003
$9,492,000,000.00
Intel
2002
$5,044,000,000.00
Johnson & Johnson
2002
$11,053,000,000.00
JP Morgan
2006
$14,444,500,000.00
MMM
2005
$3,851,000,000.00
McDonald's
2004
$3,544,200,000.00
Merck
2005
$4,433,800,000.00
Microsoft
2000
$14,065,000,000.00
Pfizer
2006
$19,337,000,000.00
Procter & Gamble
2000
$10,340,000,000.00
United Technologies
1994
$4,224,000,000.00
Verizon
2000
$6,197,000,000.00
Wal-mart
2000
$11,284,000,000.00
Walt Disney
2005
$4,687,000,000.00
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I would argue that a CEO has more influence over the affairs of a company by virtue of being one of very few executives at the top of the decision chain. A senator - while powerful - makes up only 1% of the vote needed to pass any one bill.
Also, asking people to not re-elect their established senators based on your flawed premise - without taking into account the senators voting histories or stances on issues of importance to the individual just seems wrong. You might want to rescind that request...
I do not think my premise is flawed. Rather I think the voter is flawed. We say the Senate is not working. Yet we re-elect the people to those positions at a rate at 90% or above?
If everyone else's Senator is part of the problem yet mine is part of the solution, and the majority of us believe that, then who is wrong?
Even if I accept your premise of taking into account the voting history and stances of the senators, they have not shown that they can make the system work. They have not been able to get the job done regardless of their stance or position. Perhaps it is not just the belief in a stance or position that enables them to be effective.
The most powerful senators are the ones that have been there the longest. That is why they are the ones that need to go first. You are correct that a senator represents 1% of the vote. But that does not represent their power within the senate. That is what must be changed.
Perhaps it is the system itself that is flawed. The system rewards expansion of spending for both entitlements and pet local projects by rewarding those politicians who "bring home the bacon". My main point is that yes, some of those senators may be a large part of the problem - probably most of them - but what proof do you have that the alternative is any better?
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.