All The Little Subservient Citizens, All In A Row
Ben Boychuk writes in the Sac Bee that the government is delegitimizing itself with all of these recent scandals (Benghazi, Holder's "I dunno" about the AP phone records sweep, the IRS abuse of power).
Obama picked a particularly bad time, in his OSU commencement address, to make the case for the virtues of collective government action:
"Unfortunately," he said, "you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems; some of these same voices also doing their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner."Talk about bad timing.
"You should reject these voices," the president continued. "Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."
Who is this "we" about whom the president speaks? Is it the elected official or the career bureaucrat? Of course they can't be trusted. They prove it every day, and again this week.
And although our "experiment in self-rule" isn't necessarily a sham, Obama's airy description surely is. Self-rule doesn't mean filling out umpteen forms for Obamacare, or letting a federal bureaucrat dictate how you can use your private property, or acceding to thousands upon thousands of incomprehensible rules and regulations, or getting another pat down at the airport. The proper word for that isn't self-rule, but subservience.
via @walterolson
I am concerned that representative democracy is at its end. The representatives should represent what is best for their district/state, but all they represent is what is best for their own interest. Obi was right in one instance: the federal govt. is far too big to know what is going on. Even state govt. or companies like GE or GM are too big for one person to follow each event. What is the solution? Take away power and give it to local govt?
Stinky the Clown at May 19, 2013 11:06 AM
AZ state reps make $24k per annum. They are part-time. Most people can't live on that. Anyone with a regular job can't take the time off work. So our state legislature is made up of people who don't need to work. Might explain why they're so out of touch.
The Jingoist at May 19, 2013 11:41 AM
What I'd like to see is the House of Representatives actually represent the people. The Apportionment Act of 1911 should be repealed.
If there were 3,100 representatives (310M/100,000) they would more likely hear the people and be less susceptible to corporate interests.
Getting the federal government out of a lot of unconstitutional regulating would also put the importance of the fed where it should be -- equal to the rest of the states.
Jim P. at May 19, 2013 1:42 PM
Jim P had half of it. The other half would be to forbid any campaign funding whatsoever from outside of those 3100 districts. It's hardly representation when it's purchased by Hollywood, or wherever.
MarkD at May 19, 2013 2:51 PM
I would argue against that funding restriction but can support a no funding being external to the state that houses that contributor's district.
The reason for that is long distance commuters. An example would be an employee that lives in Ann Arbor, MI but worked for one of the Big Three in downtown Detroit. He may hate the Democratic representative that represents Detroit, but would not have a say in trying to get rid of the bad one that is proposing a new law that would screw his job. He could be fine with his Ann Arbor rep.
Living in Toledo and telecommuting with the occasional trip up to Detroit -- he would be screwed.
Jim P. at May 19, 2013 4:18 PM
Obama took office promising a new level of transparency in government. Instead, his administration has become more secretive than ever.
jefe at May 19, 2013 5:40 PM
( sistertoldjah. com/archives/2013/05/17/
new-administration-defense-on-benghazi-were-not-evil-just-idiots/ )
=== ===
Said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response: “We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”
=== ===
AMG: Hah! Closer to being idiots, but there is room for lying as well.
( rightwingnews. com/barack-obama/axelrod-its-not-obamas-fault-government-is-too-big )
=== ===
[edited] David Axelrod, political advisor to President Obama (5/2013):
Part of being president is there’s so much underneath you because the government is so vast. The President goes through these controversies because it is impossible to know [what is going on] and yet he is responsible for it, and it’s a difficult situation.
=== ===
( theliberalslies.blogspot. com/2010/11/obama-failure-sparks-echos-again-of.html )
=== ===
[edited] Obamamites in the press suggest that the presidency is just too much for one person to handle.
This "suggestion" echos one made thirty years ago when an equally inept Democrat Jimmy Carter was president, and the country was in shambles as a result of his incompetence. The apologists for Jimmy Carter suggested during his only term that the Presidency was too big for one person to handle and there were even suggestions that a co-presidency was the answer.
There have been five Presidents since Carter including Obama. Obama is the one president where it is again suggested that the job is too big for one person to handle.
=== ===
AMG: Bad policy produces bad results. Democrats propose bad policies. These have never worked, and are again not working.
Andrew_M_Garland at May 19, 2013 7:00 PM
"I would argue against that funding restriction but can support a no funding being external to the state that houses that contributor's district."
While it would be nice to think about a carpetbagger like Hillary being unable to get funding from outside New York - her move there being the epitome of opportunism - this would also seem to mean that the NRA or other groups could not collect funding and back candidates across state lines.
Gee. What would George Soros do?
Radwaste at May 20, 2013 3:01 AM
"There have been five Presidents since Carter including Obama. Obama is the one president where it is again suggested that the job is too big for one person to handle."
This should not be surprising.
Which political party insists that the average citizen cannot cope without government aid?
If you are dedicated to the idea that the human being is an incompetent loon, you can't help but apply the same to an underperforming member of your own party.
Cue the sex scandal, to turn the public's attention away from the President. That ALWAYS works.
Radwaste at May 20, 2013 3:13 AM
"the government is delegitimizing itself with all of these recent scandals "
That's business as usual up here. Shawinigate, the Duffy scandal, and now this.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/05/19/prime-minister-stephen-harpers-chief-of-staff-nigel-wright-resigns
It isn't a government thing, it's a politician thing. Many many pants on fire, methinks....
***Shut up Crid we already know your opinion.****
wtf at May 20, 2013 4:02 PM
Leave a comment