Starbucks CEO: America is ‘Drifting Towards Mediocrity’
By Krystle Weeks | Thursday, September 8th, 2011 | PoliticsI have a confession to make: Starbucks rocks! Despite the fact that Starbucks is a liberal bastion for the most part, there are times when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz actually makes sense. Recently, in an ABC News interview, Schultz urged people to boycott campaign contributions through his campaign, UpwardSpiral2011, and for business leaders to help get the country out of its “crisis of confidence” by creating jobs, as well as increasing consumer confidence. Schultz wants the national deficit reduced and said that businesses will not invest in America due to the debt ceiling.
The video can be viewed by clicking here.
I agree with Schultz. It’s time for business leaders to take the initiative to create jobs and not rely on the government to do this for them. In fact, Schultz made another point worth considering that both the Obama Administration and Congress doesn’t understand the urgency of addressing the debt and are forgetting that we are still in a crisis situation, especially when it comes to unemployment.
Cross posted at Crystal Clear Conservative
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Growing up in Maryland typically does not yield a Republican. Fortunately, Krystle Weeks was one of the lucky few booted to the Commonwealth for her staunch conservative views. From an early age, she has been debating politics, and since 2006, she has been involved here in the Commonwealth helping Republican candidates to victory. Aside from politics, Krystle is a runner and a dynamite cook. You can email her here. Krystle also blogs at Crystal Clear Conservative and Charm Offensive Cooking.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
10 Responses to "Starbucks CEO: America is ‘Drifting Towards Mediocrity’"
A mixed metaphor. If you are at the top and going toward the bottom, you are Falling.
“Drifting?” Hardly. Our children are coming out of school with lower technical skills and job habits into an economy that demands higher technical skills and greater individual productivity. Our economy is racing towards a day in the near future when taxes and entitlements spending will equal over two-thirds of the GDP (it is 44% now), and this does not include servicing the national debt that is already equal to the GDP. Our lower income working class voters are addicted to government largess and insist that the 50% who pay income taxes pay even more while they pay little or nothing. We choose our chief executive using the same criteria that we use to choose our favorite TV show host and our national legislature is the exclusive domain of a permanent political class who, both liberal and conservative, are beholden to special interest campaign contributions and the incumbency that they ensure. Political discourse between alternative points of view has largely devolved into name-calling, jingoistic tricks, and outright hatred with win-at-any-cost more important than compromise.
What makes him think that we are “drifting?”
HisRoc,
A scary post but one of your best. I sure hope Bismarck was right about the US.
Why not just flat out ban or severely limit ($100/person) campaign, PAC, and super PAC contributions and have publically financed campaigns?
I don’t see any benefits to our current system and I think the free speech argument is a bold faced manipulation of the Constitution.
val,
Thanks. I should avoid posting when I’ve been drinking.
Tor,
I have an even better idea: term limits. Without unlimited terms and seniority, campaign contributions produce a very low return on investment. I understand the arguments about the Constitutionality of term limits, i.e. curtailing the voters from choosing whomever they wish to have represent them, but those arguments are no more compelling than the argument that any restrictions on campaign contributions limits free speech. Our national legislative has a popular approval rating of less than 20%, and that was before the debt ceiling crisis. And yet, incumbents enjoyed almost a 90% reelection rate even in the watershed elections of 2010 when we had one of the one largest turnovers in the House since World War II. What is wrong with this picture? “Politician” is not a career, any more than “community organizer” is a career. Careers are doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, small business owners and retail managers–people who create and contribute. “Member of Congress” is an entry on a resume of someone who is otherwise contributing tangibly to our society and its economy.
Hisroc,
I disagree with you how term limits will solve the big money problem in politics. Look at thoroughbred horse racing. Race winners are only good for a year or two before they can no longer win a race. This does not prevent the big money from investing in the the next hopeful prospect. Thoroughbred horse racing is term limited by biology and the big money remains. Same thing will happen with politics.
Little David,
I would not use an analogy of thoroughbred horses to describe our professional political class. Either baboons or jackasses would be far more appropriate.
The process that you describe is currently in effect in our Presidential sweepstakes very four years. The similarity is that there are a few candidates for President and even if you pick the winning horse then your influence is limited to a maximum of eight years. If you pick the wrong horse, you lose. In Congress, you don’t have to pick the most promising two-year old. You simply wait until there is a perennial winner and bet on him at 8-5 odds. However, as the Duke Cunningham and John Murtha cases demonstrated, the payoff is much more lucrative. A $50,000 contribution to a proven winner will net you $2-4M in earmarked contracts. Term limits, like all other reforms, is not a perfect solution. But it is a damned better system than what we have now.
@HR,
Term limits are great to, haven’t thought too much about the specifics but I’m confident that over time they’ll improve governance.
Unfortunately neither term limits or campaign finance restrictions are popular amongst the people in power.
Hisroc,
Well, I am against term limits. If we had terms limits in the past, we could not have kept John Warner in the Senate for as long as we did. I do not want limits on my right to vote for the best person for the job just because the person I think is best is the incumbent and who has a proven track record I can examine instead of just a list of promises that may or may not be honored once in office.
I do not understand why, once we have found the right person for the job, we need to fire him or her for being successful and doing a good job for us.
If modern Republicans running for office were more like John Warner, I might still be an independent instead of now being a Blue Dog Democrat.
Little David,
You didn’t understand a thing that I said. Who cares if John Warner couldn’t spend 30 years in the Senate? Are you really trying to tell me that in over 30 years there was not a single Republican in Virginia who couldn’t have done as good or better a job than he did? Really? As for being a Democrat instead of an Independent, does that mean that your have no problems with the Democratic dinosaurs in the Congress? How about Charlie Rangel, whose ethical problems and tax evasion have, so far, not interfered with his 40 years in the House? Or John Murtha, who despite being an unindicted co-conspirator in Abscam in 1978, went on to serve 36 years? And the list goes on and on. Are these the people who are “the right person for the job” and don’t need to be fired?
Tor,
“Unfortunately neither term limits or campaign finance restrictions are popular amongst the people in power.”
Thank you for proving my point. The incumbents are the people in power. Under our Constitution, the people in power are supposed to be “We The People.” Until we demand term limits and refuse to elect anyone who won’t support term limits, then we will continue to relinquish power to the professional political class and the special interests who underwrite them.
Leave your response