Do the Obamas Really Need TWO “Essential” Chefs?

0

In the discussion of the “keepers” and “throw-aways,” or what the government calls “essentials” versus “non-essentials,” I got curious.

Aside from the notion that government has any idea what’s essential or non-essential, this is a bad way to look at people.

Imagine you are told that your job is non-essential. The government pronounces to the general public that you must treat everybody equally and fairly. However, they have a program to determine who to keep and who to throw away. Who gets paid and who doesn’t.

The people who make that determination? The ESSENTIAL.

Why doesn’t government cut jobs like a lottery? One could argue that the way government runs, a congress of baboons could do a better job.

As I delved further into this issue, I found somebody who asked a good question: Are White House Chefs “non-essential?”

I did say chefs…plural. The WH has more than ONE chef, I learned.
Read the rest at Blacksphere.net

Send this to friend