Words of Wisdom #5

It is so hard for government planners, no matter how sophisticated, to ever substitute for millions of individuals working night and day to make their dreams come true.

~ Ronald Reagan, May 31, 1988

~~If you are reading this on Facebook, please go to firstprinciplesfirst.wordpress.com and leave your comments there~~

At the Pleasure of the Czar

I started this post a long time ago but never completed it.  Recent developments have brought this one back to my attention.

A while back, Obama’s “Pay Czar”, Kenneth Feinberg, announced that he would be cutting executive compensation by 50% at 7 of the companies that received TARP funds. (Read about it here.)  The 7 companies are Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial

Believe it or not, I have some mixed emotions on this one.  I sort of feel like they deserve what they get.  These companies should have failed and they should be out of jobs, unceremoniously replaced by the board of directors as the lawyers file for Chapter 11.  Instead, they were given money that they didn’t deserve, or earn, from our back pockets.  Play with fire and you might get burned.

However, the reality is that while it might be satisfying on some level to enact some revenge on these companies, in the long run, this is bad for all of us in this country.

I have never liked the word Czar being used in respect to members of our government.  The first time I ever saw it used was in reference to Ronald Reagan’s Drug Czar.  I didn’t know what a Czar was at the time, but once I put it together with the historical reference to the Russian Tyrants, it just felt wrong.

Back then, however, Czar was more of an ironic word choice, the more this President does, the less ironic and more appropriate the word seems.  Unfortunately, Czar may be more accurate a title than President these days, given how President Obama views his role in our society.

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, said recently that they would keep their “boot on [BP’s] neck”  over the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Isn’t the imagery a little disturbing here?  I put less stock in the imagery than I do the intent, and the intent is scary.  Our government is not supposed to have the power to put a “boot” on anyone’s “neck”.  We have courts to sort these things out in, not jack booted thugs.

In an interview on NBC’s Today Show, Obama stated that he wanted to know “who’s ass to kick” over the spill.  Many are discussing the President’s choice to use the word “ass”.  I really don’t care.  It is such a minor issue in sea of major ones.

What bothers me is that President somehow thinks that this is his mandate.  It is not.  If there is ass to be kicked by the government or necks to be stepped on, that is the job of the Legal branch.  We have laws in place.  If they were violated, then justice will be handed out by the courts.  BP is getting its ass sufficiently handed to it right now financially and this is before the addition of any fine or other legal remedy that may be imposed.  If the laws are inadequate, then that is up to the Legislature.  Again, not the President’s job.

Russian Czar’s on the other hand, did kick ass.  Anytime they saw fit.  This is known as the rule of men and not the rule of law.  President Obama, it seems, prefers the rule of men.

Our founders revolted against the rule of men. They gave us rule of law.  Read the Declaration of Independence and see for yourself.  Every offense of the king is laid out there.  The first 9 are about the lack of consistent laws and include the complaint that “[The King] has made Judges dependent on his Will alone”.

What would you rather have?  Rules that are clear and laid out in advance or rules that are subject to the whims of a man that may change based on emotions or political expedience?

I choose Law over Men.  Even if flawed, the flaws of laws are much fewer and more easily remedied than the flaws of men.