Mitt Romney is always saying that Barack Obama is unqualified to be President because he never ran a business or met a payroll. And Mitt did.
Let’s examine that statement in greater detail. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the Republican Party, never ran a business or met a payroll. If Barack Obama is unqualified to remain President, Reagan was NEVER qualified to be President. Reagan held only two administrative posts in his life before being elected president: President of the Screen Actors Guild and Governor of California. As Governor, he signed budgets which paid the salaries of state employees but he never personally made any fiscal decisions of or on his own. Yet Republicans joyously elected him President twice and regard him as their greatest modern-day President ever, despite the huge budget deficits he ran up as both governor and President. So, Reagan is exhibit A in proving Romney’s hypothesis wrong.
Exhibit B: George W. Bush. Here’s a guy who never met a company he didn’t run into the ground. He bought an oil company which was unable to find any oil in Texas. In TEXAS. He headed a group of his daddy’s friends who bought the Texas Rangers in 1989. He was named one of two general owners after he had ponyed up a mere 1% stake, or $600,000—none of which was his own money. His most valuable resource was his family name and business contacts. His greatest accomplishments in that position were raising the state sales tax to pay for a new publicly-funded ballpark for the Rangers, and stealing 13 acres of privately-owned land under eminent domain for the new ballpark his group was building. In the ensuing lawsuits, the courts found for the robbed landowners to the tune of $22.2 million, which the Texas Rangers failed to pay. Oh, he also traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago Cubs. In 1994, Bush serendipitously was elected Governor of Texas and ejected himself from the entire situation, having made quite a bit of money off his 1% stake: $15 million, which he made while as Governor, selling his shares in the team to a multimillionaire who had a lot of his businesses regulated by the state of Texas.
After being placed in the Governor’s office by his dad’s friends, Bush was appointed President of the United States in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Again, Republicans embraced this guy who never personally ran a business and never met a payroll. His handlers stole the 2004 election and Bush went on in his second term to create the largest budget deficit the country had ever seen. 750,000 jobs a month were lost during his last term.
Exhibit C: Obama is ridiculed by Romney and the Republicans for having been a “community organizer” which Romney was busy running Bain Capital. OK, Romney has a point there. As a community organizer, Obama was working to make the lives of people in the community better. As head of Bain Capital, Romney made their lives worse by firing them and eliminating their jobs or shipping them to China. But Romney still wasn’t personally meeting any payrolls outside of the employees of Bain Capital. Yes, he was elected Governor of Massachusetts but then we’re back to the point that a governor doesn’t personally run a state; he has agencies and secretaries of state departments to do it for him. But what we have seen is that former Republican state governors who are put into the presidency has one thing in common: they run up the largest budget deficits in American history. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility.
So what is the major advantage Obama has over Romney in the presidential race? To be an effective president, one indicator is that unemployment was lowered while jobs were created. Under Obama, there has been a modest decrease in unemployment from a fictitious 8.5% to a fictitious 8.3%, which is still lower. Over a total 2.3 million jobs have been created while Obama has been in the White House. Romney claims that during his entire tenure as head of Bain Capital he created at most 100,000 jobs, but has offered no verification of this.
So, the Romney’s contention that one has to have run a business in order to run a company is fallacious at best. In fact, if you look at our past history during the 20th Century, ex-governors didn’t fare so good as president, despite the popular media-driven folklore. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr. There alone is over 30 years of decline in the quality of life for America’s poor and middle class (helped along by four year’s of Bush Jr’s daddy, who was never a governor). Clinton’s “prosperity” resided on top of the dotcom bubble, which burst as predicted during Bush Jr.’s presidency, which really didn’t need any help from Clinton to go down as the worst presidency in history.
Nope, when it comes to re-election time, it helps to have done a good job of running the country to continue doing a good job of running the country. Romney eschews any credit for having done a good job running Massachusetts as governor lest he be labeled an un-conservative by Republicans. From this past track record, we could assume he would also avoid doing anything good for America that he would later have to take credit for when running for re-election.