Is there nothing that Barack Obama will not opine about?
From the behavior of Cambridge cops to the pay packages of investment bankers to West Virginia mine safety and now to a piece of state legislation in Arizona (on immigration). Barack thinks he gets a say in EVERYTHING that happens in this country.
By the way, it is quite unusual for a sitting President to take a Governor and state legislature to task for passing a law he disagrees with. It is kind of Un-Presidential, in fact, to do that. Not the least of reasons is that he is supposed to be leading a country of States (maybe Cass Sunstein can remind him of some of the finer points over lunch one day). And, then there's this whole subject of seeming to be rather reactive, but that may have to wait for another blog posting.
The reason the Arizona state legislature acted is because the U.S. Congress hasn't acted. No, that is not really correct. Congress won't act because they are scared to (scared to piss more people off). But the problem is not going away. And as a front-line state, immigration matters to Arizonians. Right or wrong, their elected state officials felt the need to act, and did act. Now, having acted, The President decides that they did the wrong thing. The President. And, he bashes the Governor and the state legislature for taking the action they did.
Barack should be directing his ire at the Congress. Oh, and by the way, himself, for insisting the Congress take up health insurance legislation rather than other pressing matters of state. But, it is much more politically expedient for him to bash some Republican Governor. Hits the "right" note with his supporters.
Now I am not suggesting that The President should not exercise the bully pulpit to affect public policy. That is his right. He can say whatever he wants. He is The President. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us), he has exercised this right rather too aggressively in his short time in office. He basically can't help himself from speaking out.
Here is a serious question, not a joke: Does Barack think he is a Monarch or the leader of a Democracy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just wondering, but isn't he supposed to have a say about these issues?
ReplyDeleteAs the president, I had always assumed that his job was part pr, and the cambridge professor was 100% pr, but it also solved some racial tensions.
I know that you're in industry and would be on the side of the wall street investment bankers, but the truth is that it's difficult to see their legitimacy in bonuses when there's such a $$ gap between them and the average american worker. Not to be the devil's advocate, but when a worker's low-wage job is cut to make the stock holders happy, it's hard for that worker not to have resentment at brokers who directly benefit from it financially.
My other question is what president hasn't spoken out on national issues?
However, I agree with you in terms of Arizona. They should have the right to profit from immigration as most states in America aren't on the border with mexico or canada and wouldn't understand their troubles.
Thank you for your comment. My feelings on Goldman are mixed, as you will see if you look back through my old postings. I am not "on their side" because I am in business. However, I do feel strongly that what is going on now in Washington is a farce designed to help them pass a law and score poltiical points with their base. Goldman is the cannon fodder they happen to be using (might be you or me next time). To me, this is unfair on top of being completely hypocritical. Who created the conditions that led to the Great Recession? Congress did, that's who. They de-regulated and refused to closely oversee Fannie and Freddie (even St. Barack voted against that). They pushed legislation to get every American into a home (whether, or not they could afford it). And now that the proverbial stuff has hit the fan, they want anybody to blame it on, but themselves. So, why not choose someone who everyone can agree they hate: Goldman Sachs. Much better than holding hearings to grill each other about why they accepted campaign donations from Fannie's lobbyists and looked the other way while WaMu wrote no-doc mortgages.
ReplyDeleteThis bothers me.
Also, despite what Congress would like us to think, Goldman being is in the private industry. It is an investment company, and asset manager. They are supposed to make investments that make money. And how they split up their profits is pretty much up to them. If you object, you shouldn't own Goldman stock. So, they did what they were supposed to do (i.e. made money) and their shareholders and employees made a lot of money along the way. And, now, that is a BAD thing? I just don't understand that, sorry.