Friday, August 27

Why do pols never have to answer for their awful errors?

In the private sector-- at least at the rank-and-file level-- if you make a really bad decision you'll usually be fired. And if you do something illegal, like taking a bribe, you can be prosecuted and jailed.

But as one rises to the highest ranks, some sort of transformation occurs: For those who reach this "charmed" class, the rules change dramatically. Now if you make a decision that burns half a billion bucks or so, you'll still get eased out--but usually with a so-called "golden parachute" worth tens of millions.

Nice work if you can get it. And folks on both the Left and Right understandably get pretty irate over this kind of unfairness.

But now let's look at the public sector--politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe this is just my selective memory, but seems to me that politicians are never called to account for bad decisions. If by some bizarre quirk some reporter gets close enough--with a videocamera rolling--to ask the guy why his favorite project went to shit, the guy always tap-dances away without giving a straight answer.

You never can get any of these rat-bastards on the witness stand and force them to answer direct questions. I mean, imagine if you could get Barney Frank on the stand; you show the courtroom the video of him saying, "Oh, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are absolutely sound--no problems at all!" And then you say, "Congressman, how do you explain your making the absolutely bullshit, totally crap, wretchedly wrong statement we just saw? Are you f'n stupid, or are you merely corrupt?"

Some attorney out there put me some knowledge: Are you sure it's illegal to kill these guys?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home