Tuesday, April 12, 2005
60 cities in 60 days
Certain Democrats are complaining about the expense of Bush' tour to promote his solution for Social Security. I don't agree with the main crux of the proposed solution (private retirement accounts) but I am less critical of the expense of the trip.
What should the President's role be? If I understand my Civics 101 properly, the President is the Executor - the Legislator sends the bill to the President who then puts it into practice. Of course this isn't really correct, since
a) The president chooses to sign the bill or not and
b) The president often proposes things before congress (e.g. budgets)
So what should a President be doing? If a President really believes in something, I think that it is appropriate to sell it to Americans, and even to spend tax-payers money to do so. I think that this is not so different from what Clinton did in support of his Medicare Reform.
So in the end, I am left with the conlcusion that the tactic is acceptable, even if the solution is not.
Before someone complains -- I specifically am not endorsing the pseudo-media blurbs coming out of the White House. The White House owes the public clarity when it sends out these shorts which are then aired by local news stations. I believe that the White House is on record as saying that it is the stations' responsibility to disclose the source, not the White House. That is wrong. When the White House fails to clearly identify its media messages it fails its duty to serve the people. Just my 2 cents.
As always, thanks for reading.
What should the President's role be? If I understand my Civics 101 properly, the President is the Executor - the Legislator sends the bill to the President who then puts it into practice. Of course this isn't really correct, since
a) The president chooses to sign the bill or not and
b) The president often proposes things before congress (e.g. budgets)
So what should a President be doing? If a President really believes in something, I think that it is appropriate to sell it to Americans, and even to spend tax-payers money to do so. I think that this is not so different from what Clinton did in support of his Medicare Reform.
So in the end, I am left with the conlcusion that the tactic is acceptable, even if the solution is not.
Before someone complains -- I specifically am not endorsing the pseudo-media blurbs coming out of the White House. The White House owes the public clarity when it sends out these shorts which are then aired by local news stations. I believe that the White House is on record as saying that it is the stations' responsibility to disclose the source, not the White House. That is wrong. When the White House fails to clearly identify its media messages it fails its duty to serve the people. Just my 2 cents.
As always, thanks for reading.
