Should There Be More Stringent Qualifications For Office?

This last Presidential election has brought about many interesting questions, including one that has been asked in many ways, “Who is qualified for office, and what should those qualifications be?” The questions continue to be asked as the whole nation appears to be in debate over the qualification of Caroline Kennedy to serve in the Senate as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.
The Constitution itself only has minimal qualifications listed for any national office. For President:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

As for qualification to serve in Congress:

“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”

Critics of both President Elect Obama and potential Senate appointee Kennedy have argued that neither has the experience for the office they aspire to. However, as evidenced by the Constitution, there are no experience requirements for either position. States do not make any additional requirements to serve in national offices, but the voters do, and these requirements have a huge range.

For those seeking national office, or a higher office in the event the candidate is already serving in some legislative capacity, or has been in an office previously, it is relatively easy for one to discover and review the candidate’s history. Depending on the ideology of the voter, this record will either qualify or disqualify the candidate.

But voters can never really be put into a box. You can never depend on them to vote certain ways. While most have certain qualifications in mind for their candidate, they often rationalize points to legitimize their selection. There will always be those who vote according to party once the primaries are over and the final selection is on us. Others are pretty much one issue voters. The primary issues for these voters tend to be abortion, war or immigration… more specifically, illegal immigration.

This last Presidential election brought about a couple new categories for one issue voters, race and gender. Many voters cast their ballot for either Obama or Hillary because of these. This is only wrong if you are among those who do not believe race or gender is or should be a qualification to hold office. To those whom this matters, it is right and they will argue all day long about why it is important, why it matters.

Obama’s resume, while rather thin, did not matter to those who voted for him, but experience did matter when it came to the Republican nominee for Vice-President. Obama supporters stated that Sara Palin’s short time in the Alaskan Governor’s office was not long enough to qualify her to back up John McCain while Palin supporters pointed out that she had more experience than did Obama who was seeking the higher office.

Some have argued that we should revamp the Constitutional requirements for public office to outline minimal qualifications for candidates for various offices. There is some merit to this, and it would surly distract the legislators for quite a while as they debate what those qualifications should be, but I would make the argument against this. The debate has already been heard at least once, when our founding fathers were setting the requirements in the first place. I have come to the same conclusions.

The voters are the ones who need to make the decision as to who will represent them. One voter’s requirements are not the same as another’s. In fact, if you polled 1000 voters as to what their requirements for office might be, I would be willing to bet you get almost a thousand different answers. In other words, you will never get the voters to agree to a short list of minimum qualifications, and since they are the ultimate authority as to who serves in most cases, any laws limiting the voter’s choice of candidate would undermine the very freedoms this country is founded on and would be unconstitutional.

Who Is Better For The Economy?

This is a question we are now hearing, and will be hearing much more of once the Democrats finally decide who is going to be their nominee. Like Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos, I could care less who it is. The Republican nominee has already been chosen by the Democrats, so one might suspect, and they would at least be partially correct, that there is some amount delight stemming from revenge as we watch the democratic party self destruct.

Be that as it may, many at this point have crowned Obama as the nominee, so the question of who would be better for the economy is aimed at Obama and McCain. For the point of this commentary, it would not matter much if Clinton was the nominee.

For some time now people have been recirculating a quote from McCain stating that he knows nothing about economics. By the time this circulated down to the average person on the streets, this now means that McCain is an idiot who cannot even add two plus two.

As for Obama, he claims to care about people and wants to provide for them. This translated to the streets as Obama will give you money! This, of course, makes him some sort of economic guru!

Of course both of these conclusions are wrong. McCain is not a genius when it comes to economics, but then, neither is Obama. Obama in fact, has little to no experience in economic matters, except maybe when it comes to use people for personal gain. This does not translate into national economic gain.

But while McCain is not now, nor ever will be an economics major, he at least understands some of the basics. Lower taxes has always translated into economic growth and increased revenues in the government coffers. Allowing more people, including businesses, to keep more of their own money spurs investments that grows the economy. Individuals tend to spend more when they can keep more. This grows the retail and service sectors of the economy. Increases in both of these sectors increases the wholesale sector which in turn spurs growth in manufacturing, all of which grows the transportation sector. This all translates into jobs.

Obama on the other hand, wants to give more, but in order to do so, he has to take more. The only place to take more money is from those who pay taxes. This decreases the money supply, which usually tends to make people like Obama demand more money be put into the economy which always reduces the value of the dollar and creates inflation. Inflation in turn causes people to have to spend more on basic staples of life so they lose confidence in the economy and they stop spending on other goods that they do not really need.

When people stop buying, warehouses back up with goods and the warehouses stop ordering replacement stock. When this happens, manufacturers stop producing and they lay people off. This tends to domino and the economy starts into a downward spiral that is difficult to turn around.

But, Obama cares, and this seems to be all that matters.

So, while neither is really qualified to run an economy, McCain gets the fact that we need to get the government out of the way so people can produce and grow the economy, because after all, the government does a very poor job of this. Just ask Jimmy Carter! McCain also understands that one of the biggest problems we had over the last eight years is that while we had record revenues pouring into the government thanks to the Bush tax cuts, there was also a huge increase in government spending and he knows this must stop.

Now if we could get him to understand that his stance on immigration and global warming will harm the economy much more than all of the earmarks combined, and the economy will do just fine under him, even with a lack of specific economic knowledge!