Posted by
Derek H on Thursday, July 09, 2009 2:41:50 AM
It's amazing, the difference between a CEO of a major company and a member of Congress. Congress has managed to insulate themselves from criticism of their actions. But CEOs have not. They remain responsible to the shareholders and to the tides of public opinion.
Imagine if members of Congress were held to their previous statements. All the statements claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (back into the '90s and beyond). An inconvinient truth, to say the least. But where is the media in showing that? Nowhere, because it conflicts with their own core beliefs. But CEOs are responsible to shareholders, who do not forget earlier statements, because each of these statements affects their bottom line. These statements affect the overall value of their company, and cannot be spun to satisfy a certain constituancy.
Imagine the outcry if a CEO let a policy be implemented, without his or her personal review, throughout the company. Imagine that he knew nothing of the unintended consequences of that policy. Imagine the outrage. Would those nameless staffers who promulgated the policy be held responsible? Of course not. The CEO would be chastised by his Board of Directors, and possibly punished by the government. Yet, nationwide policy is allowed to be dictated by unelected assistants that "read" and paraphrase a bill to their representative before Congress.
This is madness. Every "legislator" should read every bit of "legislation" that comes before the "legislative body." If they choose to pass this off onto someone else, they have relinquished their title of "legislator" and gained the title of "pawn." I understand that some of our legislators wouldn't mind being called "pawns," because they believe that the overall goal of unending government control is worth anything. But you cannot call a "legislature" that does not read its' own bills "representation of the people, by the people, and for the people." What is going on here is unconstitutional. It is taxation without representation. It is everything that the Founders fought against.
If a CEO said "to hell with the Board, I'm doing what I think is best for the company," the board or the government (depending on the size of the company in question) would shut him down and fire him. Yet Obama is allowed to ignore settled law and award unsecured debt holders more than secured ones. And he is not held responsible by the media. This is an abdication of the responsibility that the media has been given. But, like every left-wing vocalization, the responsibility has given way to the rights. Say anything, and to hell with the consequences, because we are just exercising our right to free speech.
The media has lost its moral high ground. They forget that they are given the right to speak freely in order to behave as a check on government itself. They love the right to say whatever they like, to destroy anyone they choose. But they ignore the responsibility that comes with that freedom. They need to be reminded that they are the guardians of our personal freedom, not directors of it. They need to remember that they are our voice, not our interpreters. And they need to remember, at the end of the day, they do not dictate policy, but report on it.