I've often joked that people end up in politics or media because they can't do math (yours truly included), but at the moment my joke is not looking like such a laughing matter. Though much of the coverage of the debt-ceiling debacle has focused on the political divisions it has reinforced, there appears to be at least one thing that this mess has probably helped Americans agree on: Many of our elected officials know a lot less about finance and economics than those responsible for the financial future of an entire country should. Even more terrifying, many appear to know even less about such matters than we do. (If you have managed to do things like pay your taxes and child support in full and on time, you're already well ahead of a few of them.)
As I noted on The Dylan Ratigan Show, both of the major political parties invest resources training promising candidates on the ins and outs of media interviews, fundraising and general politicking. But instead of investing in these types of classes (and the consultants who teach them), it appears that many of these candidates turned congressmen, would have been better served investing in, and enrolling in freshman level accounting and economics classes.
I have previously written about the irony of elected officials with their own financial woes lecturing the rest of us on fiscal responsibility. (Here's looking at you Rep. Joe "Tea Partier/Deadbeat Dad" Walsh. Click here to see a list of the most financially challenged members of Congress.) So this latest round of political posturing has got me thinking. Maybe we've been asking candidates the wrong questions all of these years. Instead of asking questions like, "Have you ever cheated on your spouse?" or "Have you ever smoked pot?" how about asking "Have you ever bounced a check?"
And instead of just having litmus tests for specific issues like gun control, maybe the time has come for us to administer more practical, real world tests to candidates seeking political office to gauge their knowledge of real world financial issues. I'm not joking. Maybe the test could be administered with a timer during a televised debate, perhaps providing us with some quality reality TV for a change. So what would such a test consist of? Well below are a few suggestions that could possibly help us establish whether or not a candidate for office is qualified to have any say on our financial matters, or at the very least whether or not they are smarter than a fifth grader. (Feel free to add your own additions in the comments section below.)
Candidate Money Matters Pop Quiz
What am I missing? What financial questions do you think elected officials should prove themselves capable of answering before posturing that they know more about fiscal matters than the rest of us? Please share your thoughts.
Keli Goff is the author of The GQ Candidate and a Contributing Editor for TheLoop21.com, where this piece was originally published.
Follow Keli Goff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keligoff
'Super Congress': Debt Ceiling Negotiators Aim To Create New ...
A glint of compromise in Congress's debt limit stalemate ...
Debt ceiling deadline looms - where's Congress? - CBS News
Geithner: 'Congress Will Raise the Debt Ceiling' - FoxNews.com
It is really simple to understand: Companies cannot make a profit without customers to buy their goods & services. But when people are unemployed & don't have money to spend, businesses start cutting expenditures by shedding more of their work force. And everything comes to a screeching halt as a result thereof. In order to get the economy going again, the government has to step-in temporarily.
In contrast Republicans argue, "We cannot spend our way out of debt," "Raising taxes on the job creators will stall the economy," etc. Their solution: more tax cuts & spending cuts. Companies do not want or need tax cuts, they want customers. People want jobs, not government hand-outs. Government needs revenue to operate.
I don't know if those lawmakers are willfully ignorant, blinded by ideology or just plain lazy or all of the above, but I do know they should not be making fiscal policy decisions. If they really wanted to reduce the debt, they would be implementing policies that puts money in the pockets of the real job creators.
That's why their decisions don't make sense. They're no longer representing us - they're working hand-in-glove making deals for themselves and their wealthy campaign donors.
Yes, many lawmakers, not just in Washington, but at the local and state levels, too, are beholding to wealthy donors. The T-partiers (freshmen House Republicans) and other conservatives, willing to do the bidding of billionaires David & Charles Koch, are handsomely rewarded for passing legislation -- mostly copied & pasted from ALEC.
A great deal of the Koch money is also funneled thru PACs, think tanks ($28.4 ml), and foundations such as CATO ($13.6 ml), the Heritage Foundation ($3.4 ml), the Reason Foundation ($2.4 ml) as well as other groups i.e. Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, etc...
According to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt), the Koch brothers ultimate goal is to dismantle the government. I believe that is true, just look at all the millions of dollars they are spending & that does not include the millions of dollars from corporations and other very wealthy donors.
If -- it is still a pretty big if -- they manage to, god forbid, succeed the American people won't know what hit them. We have a lot of work to do between now and the next election. Notwithstanding this is just a small taste of what lies ahead.
Question to a congress member: "Can you balance a check book ?" The answer is either Yes or No. It does not matter as long as he/she acts as a DOG (anther name of Obedience) of 'YES" to the corporate Boss. He/She is qualified to seat in congress. They can be a higher ranking if they can hold HOSTAGE of something to force government to go along. They are called TEA PARTY."To save America" by "Creating more unemployed first". Ones who led Americans to a HUGE MESS claim now "To save America". Hold you breath and wait for what they want, to cut, cut, and cut. How can you survive without fighting back.? .
It's astounding how low the bar has fallen. It does no good for our country to be run by people who know nothing of its history and governmental process.
1. They've promised slimy deals to bigwigs and lobbyists who provide a bunch of campaign money.
2. They play the race card or class war card.
3. They put the most signs on lawns in neighborhoods and most people remember that name.
4. They're rich.
5. Some group puts out an ad stating their opponent wants to kill seniors, children and destroy the planet.
6. They promise a bunch of free stuff to people.
I'm sure you can expand on this list. I've grown too wearisome to continue.
Does a household issue bonds? Print its own currency? Work with foreign governments to borrow, lend or provide foreign aid? Maintain military services and declare war? Manage cash flow in the trillions on a daily basis? Didn't think so.
Considerig all the stupidity and idiocy being displayed this past month I'd have to go with a big resounding NO!!!!! to answer your question.
I'm sure the individual workers who think up these regulations really think they're doing society a favor by protecting us all from ourselves, but the sheer magnitude today and unbridled growth over the last few years makes following regulations a huge time sink for business owners who'd rather be paying attention to business.
Big example: rules in Dodd Frank directly contravene existing SEC rules. Follow one set of rules and you're breaking another. It's out of control, and too many small business owners are ready to throw in the towel. I sure am tired of it.
The worst part: they still think we need more regulations (yesterday's news item: free birth control).
But you must admit that some regulations are needed. For instance, I worked for an environmental engineering firm that made a good living cleaning up chemical spills left behind by polluting companies, big and small. Many people had poisoned wells and suffered from diseases and birth defects because of the pollution. Most companies got away with no penalty whatsoever.
Oppressive and contradictory regulation helps no one. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The incentives for reckless financial behavior could only be conceived by Congressmen as unqualified as the author paints them.
Thanks for the perspective.