I am one to read the newspaper on a daily basis as my work schedule allows. A great deal of ink is devoted to politicians and what they have to say. It is by nature what their jobs entail, they speak out on a variety of issues. Much of that is solely for the purpose of getting elected again. It is what they do, it is who they are.
My family has been in the government business for most of my life. The difference is none has ever been a politician. Beloved Father was at one time in the sixties a Ward Committeeman, whatever that is (was). I'm sure N of 50 or The Mustache will let me know. Others have been the doers of government, the bureaucratic red tape as it were. Politicians are elected to the head office and then get re-elected and mostly move on.
The question that has been gnawing at me is this: what qualifies these elected officials to run the offices they have? One family member having invested many years in state government work has seen countless 'heads' come and go. But again, what qualifies them to run this bureaucracy? Most politicians are relatively intelligent but does that give them the expertise to run a state office? How much training does one need to oversee a state's Treasurer's Office or Secretary of State when three years ago they were on a city council? After two years in a four year stint they normally begin running for their next office which is viewed as a step up and the campaign begins again.
Are they really working in the best interests of us, those that elected them or are they just trying to get the next best job. If we really wanted efficient government agencies they should be run by someone who has experience and not 'rent-a-politician'. If newspapers want more to write about they should look deeper into operations of government and stop covering only the politicians.
By the results we get, it's obvious you really don't have to be qualified to run anything.