Qualified vs. Unqualified

[Martin Hash]

Any State is easily the equivalent in complexity, scope, and product delivery to a major private-sector business. At the highest levels of a business, the management team is certainly upper-echelon quality-wise, and potentially “qualified” people are easy to spot from their CVs. Of the 10,000s of resumes that pass through a personnel department, only a small handful of MBAs, CPAs, attorneys, and other professionals ever even get a chance to interview, let alone receive the job of guiding a major business through the trials and travails of dog-eat-dog capitalism. Simply put, “unqualified” managers are unacceptable to the stockholders. Not so in politics...

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I view our elected officials in the same light as I do upper-level business managers. Apparently few other voters do, even though you would think voters might be the equivalent of stockholders. I ask these simple questions: How many of the people in Washington State’s legislature could even get an interview at a business that requires the equivalent responsibility? How would the stockholders react to a business that hired managers of the quality found in our legislature? Why does no one ever ask these questions?