A Possibly Treasonous, Yet Reasonable, Proposal

Imagine being a manager at McDonald's. You have the unfortunate task of seeing which illiterate applicant will cause the least damage behind the counter either money or fire-on-the-grill-wise. You interview several people, none of whom seem to be able to tell the difference between fries and a cherry pie. Also, a few of these people applied so they could work with their friends who somehow managed to get a job there. Finally, you come to the last applicant and have a wonderful surprise: she can read, has had previous customer service experience, and comes recommended from a previous employer. This is the person you hire.

Note the procedure: the manager goes through SEVERAL people before finding the right person for the job. He didn't select someone based on an employee's recommendation("Yeah, he's cool!" "I promise you she'll be in on time." "Oh yeah, she can talk with the two tongue studs.") In other words, there was no "party system" here.

All right, let's move down the road, say, four months. The manager is now reviewing each employee's performance. There are three employees that have been consistently late, rude to customers, been short on the register, and/or damaging the french fry fryer numerous times. There are other applicants ready to interview. Do you give them a second try and apply some re-training or do you decide to interview new people and cut your losses? This is a tough one. If it is their first negative review, some help would be the best way to go, since they may show some promise with assistance (take it from me, positive support is effective!). However, with a 2nd or 3rd negative review, it is time for new blood, right?

OK, now let's move from the McWorld of slightly-above minimum wage employment and into the realm of the Amercan Presidency. In our history, we've gone through over 50% of them without really checking their backgrounds, and DEFINITELY have not applied regular review with possible consequences for regular negativity.

This year, we are going to decide whether we have 4 more years of certain stress or 4 years of uncertain stress. Instead of dealing with debates and a lot of wishy-washy hemming around important issues, let's set some goals for these people (and i don't mean just the 2 we're usually forced to decide between, let's make it an open forum for ANYONE WHO CAN DO THE JOB!). Here are a few to start with.

1. A solid plan to make every public school student literate (and reaonable for teachers to implement)
2. A solid plan to balance the budget.
3. A solid plan to make America a quality-product producing nation (therefore economically strong and job-rich).
4. A solid plan to bring peace to the world (just kidding, I do not expect the impossible)
5 Most importantly: a solid plan to BRING GAS BELOW $2 A GALLON permanently!

All right, these 2 candidates present these plans to the American people. We're on solid footing already. There is no "secret plan" to be unleashed only upon election. That's like the McDonald's applicant saying they may or may not be able to work when scheduled if hired. Nobody without those plans is able to run for office. These 4 plans will be made available during the primaries. The next few months will be made open for plan analysis, background checks, waiting for the Fall TV season, etc.

Next, the election occurs. The candidate is inaugurated THE DAY AFTER HE/SHE IS ELECTED! There is no 2 months of lame duck, felon-pardoning crap. The winner moves in immediately...well, ok, let's give it a week. What fun is there if the previous tenant can't trash the place before moving out?

Let's move three months into the future. The candidate has had time to meet his/her next goal: meeting with advisors to begin implementing ONE plan, any of them. If they were successful and did not spend those months hiring high school or college buddies famous for making fake IDs, they get a positive review. If not, they are put on probation for the next few months. If the goal is STILL not met, a new election is in order, or the candidate with the 2nd-highest number of votes from November should given a chance.

Who does these reviews? Hint: it rhymes with FEEPLE, not MONGRESS, the BENNETT, or the KUPREME SORT. That's right, no politicians here. We want regular people with regular jobs and problems reviewing the President (the average McDonald's manager is a good example). The best question to start with is: what are you doing for us?

OK, that is my proposal for the overhaul of the election process. Yes, I understand this is possibly treasonous to the American way of life. But, hey, the system isn't working, people are scared as it is...and I can't understand the cashier with the 2 tongue studs!