Why aren't we out-sourcing our politicians?

Burt Prelutsky
|
Posted: Jun 15, 2007 12:00 AM
Why aren't we out-sourcing our politicians?

The other day, I had an argument with someone over the out-sourcing of American jobs. It was his contention that anything that promoted capitalism around the globe was a good thing while I contended that even though capitalism was the best economic system ever invented, if only because it didn’t make the fatal error of idealizing human nature, it had its failings. One of its more obvious flaws is that it encourages corporate executives, for the sake of their own stock portfolios, to sacrifice the jobs of decent, hard-working Americans. Where I come from, profits do not trump patriotism.

My wife has suggested that these executives should have every right to send the jobs to India, the Philippines or even China, just so long as the executives have to move there, too.

In this matter, as in most, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored. Because it’s never the jobs of the executives that are being exiled, the only concern of these bottom-feeders is with their own bottom line.

However, when it comes to pure selfishness, irresponsibility and gall, even these brigands of the boardroom can’t hold a candle to our elected officials. Because these weasels all reside in their own little cocoons, free from want or danger, they share few of the concerns of their constituents.

Al Gore, for example, lectures us about global warming while he, himself, jets all over the country spreading carbon emissions every single time he opens his yap. In the meantime, he and Tipper own several over-sized homes, and I haven’t seen either of them bicycling to the supermarket.

John Edwards sheds crocodile tears over poverty in America while he blows $400 on a trim, and of course, being a limousine liberal, campaigns for higher taxes, which would only serve to further impoverish the middle class.

Ted Kennedy, another member of the economically elite, also urges higher taxes, while he pays at a reduced rate because most of his income comes to him through family trusts. At the same time he pretends to be an ecological warrior, he sees to it that windmills won’t be used to generate electrical power anywhere in his neighborhood, lest they interfere with his scenic view.

Politicians of both parties push for amnesty for illegals while dragging their heels when it comes to erecting a wall between us and Mexico. Could it possibly be that they’re more concerned about offending future voters than they are with our national sovereignty? Might that also be the reason that, almost without exception, the Democrats vying for the presidential nomination oppose making English our official language?

When it comes to concern for the good of the American people versus their own selfish interests, politicians are no better than the Mafia. The main difference is that the dons dress a whole lot better. If you think I exaggerate, why do you think that neither the members of the House nor the Senate showed the slightest interest in following up on Bush’s proposals to save Social Security? Could the reason possibly be that, unlike the rest of us, they don’t have to worry about its solvency because they all have very generous, very secure retirement funds? And why is it that you will so often hear liberal politicians, at the behest of the teachers union, singing the praises of public education when they, themselves, without exception, have their own kids in pricey private schools?

Finally, in case you happened to miss it, a recent poll disclosed that more people could tell you how many days Paris Hilton was going to rot in prison than could identify the vice-president of the United States. My first reaction was one of skepticism. Surely there couldn’t be more Americans who knew that Paris was initially sentenced to spend 47 days in the slammer than knew that old what’s-his-name was just a heart beat from the Oval Office. My next reaction was to wonder in which group President Bush wound up.