However, the line coming out of the administration right now is that he’s only learning about things from the media, not from within his government.
But anyway, I’m glad we’ve established that the President can indeed be held accountable for the performance of his administration. That does not mean that he controls every little thing that goes on, but problems need to be dealt with as they come up.
I also agree that the governent is too large. My reasoning is that one person, with his chosen cabinet, can’t keep the government under control. The Daily Show has Jon Stewart showing that Obama wasn’t aware that agencies under his control were going to make public their transgressions. I dont think the President should be aware of every single facet of the executive branch but he should be have some warning before the shit hits the fan.
That some of these actions were done by ‘rogue agents’ in the IRS scandal shows how powerful the governent has become.
Let’s dream that Obama gets all he wants and has enough time to implement all his plans as he wants. All is at peace…the government is benevolent and does not infringe any rights. The Republicans have a President elected after Obama serves his second term and adjust the government. Again they get all they want and works for the People as the government under Obama did.
Here is my fear, with this large government involved so much in our daily lives, what if someone power hungry decides to use the government against the people? If only a few ‘rogue agents’ can cause this amount of grief, then what can a dedicated willing group achieve?
That’s what I’m wondering, why is the President finding out what his government is doing from the media if the government is self-regulating?
Seems to me that “holding the government accountable” means that we figure out WHO within the government is most responsible for things that go wrong, and hold that person or persons accountable. It seems stupid to just automatically jump to the top person every single time, regardless of actual facts. The government is, as you have so rightly pointed out, composed of a whole lot of people.
Well the head of the IRS could have informed him if he was allowed to have one. I agree the executive branch is botching things but I don’t put all the blame on a branch that is being overworked and spread thin because the congress can’t be bothered to fill the jobs that are supposed to be filled. It really is the sabotage others have mentioned.
It’s like yelling at a couch for losing a baseball game when the truth of the matter is you decided he couldn’t have a second baseman or a right fielder. Maybe the coach made some bad plays but he isn’t being given a fair chance to begin with.
That’s what the President does, find out where the problem is and fire people. But for the public, the only person we can hold accountable is the President. Obviuosly, if he’s kicking ass and taking names, he’s doing his part. But normally people get fired for only two things in the executive branch:
A good example of #2 is that Inspector General getting fired for finding corruption. I notice that the President was on the ball then. Which begs the question of why he wasn’t aware of things when it wasn’t his allies getting harassed.
A government too small to be used against the people is too small to keep the nation from falling into chaos. A government in order to keep the peace must be powerful. Making the government too small to threaten the people doesn’t give you freedom, it gives you Somalia and warlords moving into the power vacuum.
Speak for yourself.
I, too, am part of that “public” of which you speak and when I hear something bad has happened in government my inclination is not to kick the president over it but to ask who actually did the wrong thing and punish that person appropriately. Booting the top guy for any and all wrong-doing regardless of who is actually responsible is yet another component of the recipe to dismantle government. It is over simplistic and irresponsible.
And what if the person involved isn’t punished for their wrongdoing? In fact, what happens if they get a promotion, which has been known to happen?
For every “problem” there is a Republican solution which is simple and wrong.
Let me get this straight- the IRS is an independent agency that does not answer to the president. At the time of the “wrongdoing”, it was headed by a Bush appointee. The IRS employees were asking for information from certain groups that it has every right to ask for and whose very names suggest that they are politically oriented as opposed to working to promote the general welfare. None of these groups were adversely affected in any way, they all got their tax-exempt status. The head of the IRS had since left the agency and the Republicans have refused to let Obama appoint a permanent director. Now Obama has fired the guy who had nothing to do with it and the Republicans will doubtlessly refuse to confirm a replacement. And supposedly all of this proves that government is too big. I suppose if your view of the world passes through enough prisms all of which are designed so that everything looks like government in general is always evil and Democrats in particular are always at fault and Obama is the anti-Christ, then yes this is a horrifying scandal, heads should roll, people should go to jail, and Obama should be impeached. When viewed with no filters, not so much.
That’s what the Press Secretary fed you, but it’s wrong. The IRS is in the Treasury Department and answers to the Treasury Secretary, who answers to the President.
The USA Today reports that liberal political groups sailed through the application process, while conservative groups came in for extra scrutiny:
In addition, conservative journalists are coming forward saying they came under extra IRS scrutiny shortly after publishing articles(or in one case doing an interview) that was damaging to the President.
Let’s be clear that none of this is a huge scandal so much as it is highlighting that the President doesn’t know what’s going on until the media tells him. Unless of course a political ally is being bothered by his government, in which case he moves with alacrity.
It’s wrong. What, you think crimes and misdemeanors don’t occur? How is this different from private industry? Municipal government? Private infractions?
But go after the actual wrong-doers, because that’s the only way to solve the problem. Ceremonially lopping off the head of the top guy doesn’t actually solve anything if he isn’t the one who did the actual deed. Being responsible means it’s the job of the head guy to clean up this sort of thing. The only time I’d advocate removal is if he was an active part of the misdeed, or if he fails to root out the guilty and/or rewards them.
If we take an egregious violation of law and lack of senior accountability to be the standard for an organization to be “too big,” let us also look at scandals like Abu Ghraib. The Chief of Staff of the Army’s primary job is to train and equip soldiers. Clearly, the soldiers responsible were not sufficiently trained to actually follow the law. The CSA did not lose his job over those crimes. Does that mean the Army is too big? Does it need to radically shrink?
And by implication, does that mean that the entire US Government must be smaller than the Army was in 2004?
I did not mean a powerless government and I’m sorry if it came out to seem this way. I am afraid of a governent so large that could not be reasonably controlled. Without reasonable control the chances of power being misused is enhanced.
Then you vote Democrat the next time instead.
Except being able to name the head, there isn’t much the president has to do with running the IRS. And in Obama’s case, he can’t even name the head because Republicans refuse to allow him to fill any positions in any agency.
And yet is was only liberal groups denied tax-exempt status.
Conservative journalists being conservative journalists, I’ll believe it when I see actual evidence. Conservatives tend to whine even when they have nothing to whine about.
And the reason Obama should have been aware the the IRS was checking tax-exempt status was what, exactly? Does he also monitor the menu in the IRS cafeteria? Does he decide who gets the parking space when an IRS employee retires? Does he decide the font to be used in IRS publications?
I don’t think you’ll hear any liberal ever say that the media is an unnecessary check against government.
Sadly, this is just another example of your considerable lack of reasoned arguments in this thread.
The idea that one single person is personally responsible and accountable for every action of the government of >300 million people and the greatest power on Earth is laughably simplistic. The idea that this means the government is ‘too big’ and needs to be reduced is moronic at best.
I’ve worked for some pretty large companies. I currently work for one of the top 10 employers in the US (in terms of number of employees). It would be utterly ridiculous to blame our CEO for every decision made in the entire company and then to say that any persistence of issues means our company is too big and we should cut the number of employees to a more managable size.
Control of the government has nothing to do with size. A smaller government can easily be more oppressive and undemocratic than a larger government.
It is easier for ‘rogue agents’ to operate under the radar in a larger government. If only a few rogue agents can cause this type of uproar, what damage might be done if multiple rogue agents banded together to a common end?
These are just my fears of a large government. These are not ‘My Fears of Obama’ or ‘My Fears of a Republican Administration’.
A larger government can more easily be more oppressive and undemocratic than a smaller government.