Here is the ultimate guide to Starbucks’ secret menus, including the delicious looking Affogato-Style Frappucinos you see above. But that’s not all that made the news today. In fact the bigger splash may have been CEO Howard Schultz’s public political suggestion. As reported by the Huffington Post, in effect, Schultz thinks the country should go on strike against its politicians. “The fundamental problem,” he said, “is that the lens through which Congress approaches issues is re-election. The lifeblood of their re-election campaigns is political contributions.”
I like Schultzie’s moxie. I hope fellow CEOs join in his effort to hold politicians more accountable, and to not wait for the government to act before creating more jobs and stimulatlng the economy. But Schultz seems naive here. Freezing campaign contributions isn’t good enough alter to the way business is done in Washington. Boomers are the largest growing sector of the electorate, yet where is the bi-partisan cry to safeguard Medicare and Social Security? Endlessly taxing the rich more and more to bail out the poor who are willingly not working makes a mockery of the meritocracy that has fueled this country.
As Schultz implores his fellow CEOs to create more jobs, let political aspirants campaign for initiatives that incentivize people who work. The flip side of that coin is to reduce handouts for the employable who elect not to work. It’s ludicrous for someone who is employable, but out of work for whatever reasons, to be making more than someone with an equal skill set who goes to work every day.
It really is that basic. I’m fine with people who can afford it, and Lord knows that includes every CEO in the country, paying more taxes conditionally. But just like throwing good money after bad was a travesty for the bailout of banks and corporations who were corrupt from the inside out, simply taxing “the rich” (however we define that) won’t repair the crumbling socio-economic infrastructure that erodes small businesses and their communities from within. A good place to start might be, for example, cutting down on welfare fraud so that we safeguard government funds for the unemployable who truly need it.
- Unreported Income: By and far the most common form of welfare fraud. The individual collects a welfare check, and also receives income from other sources that they don’t report to the Government. The income may come from working “under the table”, or from illegal activities.
- Absent Parent In The Home: Another very common form of welfare fraud. This is when an individual applies for welfare as a single parent, when the other parent does in fact live in the home.
- Ineligible Child Or Children: This type of welfare fraud occurs when a parent reports children who aren’t in their custody, don’t live in the home, or in some cases, don’t even exist.
- False Aliases: Some people take extreme measures, going as far as creating false identities in order to make one or even multiple welfare claims.
Perhaps the laxity of politicians in overseeing systems is what leads to the call for “boycotting support for politicians” in the first place. Yet boycotting politicians’ campaign funds without a fundamentally different way of doing business would simply insure a system where our elected leaders are those who can afford to run for election independent of campaign contributions. In other word, the Howard Schultz’s of the world. Hey – it just hit me – do you think Howard is jockeying for position to run as an independent?
As for me, I hope to continue making enough money after taxes so that I can pay the outrageous prices they charge at Starbucks for Affogato-Style Frappucinos. Hmm …. do you think if we boycotted Starbucks, Schultz would bring the prices down?