Making sense of dollars

ONE

thing that should never be for sale is public office. So with the bombastic spending bonanza by recent Democratic entrant Michael Bloomberg, isn’t it time weput a reasonable limit on political spending?

One of the more compelling things about both Bloomberg and President Trump is that they were both very successful in business. Trump put $50 million into his own campaign, and ran a lean but mighty one — spending only $300 million, including donations, compared with Hillary Clinton, who spent a reported $600 million and lost.

The ability to do the most with the least is an admirable trait in business, in life and even in politics. With spending limits, we’d learn how well a candidate is equipped to manage an economy.

Bloomberg has spent $275 million since November and it’s only February. And it’s just the primaries. Yet he’s still in third or fourth place (depending on the poll).

The second-highest spender on the Democratic primary stage is Tom Steyer, who has shelled out $140 million with nothing to show for it.

I was initially happy that Bloomberg, a moderate with business skills galore, had entered the race — a hedge of sorts in case Trump lost. At least if Bloomberg won, we wouldn’t have an unaccomplished socialist driving our economy off a cliff.

Bloomberg could be doing a lot of good with all the money he’s spending on his campaign and still be credible to run for office.

He could try to fix the city’s homeless crisis. He could spend more to fight cancer and help underprivileged kids go to college. He could build charter schools and help veterans and first responders.

America should always be like a well-run business — and a meritocracy. In business there are budgets and spending limits. It’s time to adopt them in elections for the good of the country.