By Ken Hamilton
Niagara Gazette — If we truly desire to rebuild an economy and to create jobs, then why are we so seemingly opposed to those who have already created jobs and have built an economy? We vote for who you want to vote for, and that’s fine; but we subsequently get what we vote for. But that’s not the point. What gets to me the most are the political ads, whereas they blast people who have actually built both businesses that employ other people and build tremendous personal economies for others and themselves; all at the same time that we praise people for merely being able to connect with us because they, like us, have had no success at either of those things that we want. Isn't that as crazy as taking wealth advice from a lottery winner who is, or was, just like us; and we know that they were just like us because we saw them in the lottery lines with us? But, we connect. Colleges hire Ph.D.s as professors to teach master degree courses; master degreed individuals to teach bachelor courses; and even the high schools hire people with bachelors and master's degrees to teach ninth graders who are simply looking for a high school diploma. Why then do we look for and expect people to create the jobs that we desperately need who, themselves, have done nothing more than smooth talk their way into an elected office? I don't have a dog in the fight in the congressional race between a former Erie County executive, and a former Erie County clerk and current congresswoman. They are not in my district and neither one of them is likely to read this column anyway. But given the condition of Western New York – where we live -- and the dire needs of less government and more privately developed jobs, then why would there be a dead heat between the two of them? Whereas one is criticized for developing and saving jobs -- even if he had to reduce salaries to save some of those businesses that he purchased, while the other distances herself from the jobs that her father created some 20 years ago; as if what both her father and competitor did was a bad thing. Both the congresswoman’s father and the candidate operated under the laws that past and current congresses and administrations have upheld. And it is likely that no one understands the nuances of those laws better than the people who have somehow prospered from them – including the public and private lobbyists who are paying for the political ads to keep things exactly the way that they are for incumbents; and, consequentially, you exactly where you are as constituents. But if one of them is running with an understanding of those laws and a desire to change them, well don't the choices become a bit clearer? I do have a dog in the fight for the presidency; however, my poodle, an underdog, doesn't stand much of a chance in New York state against the pit bull Democrat that he is up against. That is, unless the pit bull chokes on him. But the same thing holds true as with the aforementioned candidates. For some bizarre reason, we see people that are most like us as being able to help us most. Would we want a doctor, a mechanic, a pilot or even a spouse who is just like us? Not likely. Instead, we'd want someone who has proven themselves better than ourselves at what they do, wouldn't we? So then, wouldn't it stand to reason that if we want jobs, then shouldn't we favor the persons who have actually created jobs over the persons who have not – whether we like those persons or not? Or is it that we just really hate success? And, Lord knows, we have sufficient failures to prove it!Contact Ken Hamilton at firstname.lastname@example.org.