And maybe that's the way our politicians see it too. Nibble for the cute pictures, but be a good kitty.
Barry (Obama, that is) is cashing in now.
He's going to rake in $400,000 to give a speech to Cantor Fitzgerald, a Wall Street investment bank. Some on the Left are flipping out that it cuts against everything Obama was supposed to stand for. The Right is screaming about it as well. But, in all fairness, much of the Right would flip out if Obama did anything less than hurl himself into a bottomless pit full of feces, sharp sticks, and armor-plated baboons hopped up on Viagra and trained to rape humans before ripping their faces off.
I was initially amused and bemused by the news and the outrage. After all, aside from Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter, has any ex-president or politician of any persuasion declined to use their status to cash in? (Presuming they outlived the office, that is). My first thought was "the man can do what he likes with his time, and if Cantor Fitzgerald wants to pay him $400,000 for some of that time, who are we to complain?"
But then I got to thinking… which is often dangerous. Because sometimes I think about dark shit. Not this time though.
I admit, I like Barack Obama. I'm glad he was president. In hindsight, I sorta wish Romney won in 2012 — only because I have this idea that the "real" Mitt Romney is the guy who was Governor of Massachusetts, not that hobgoblin weirdo fuckhead who ran for President. But, if I could hang out with Obama, I'd do it. I'd even pay money to do it. Romney? If you told me that Mitt Romney was coming over for dinner, I might need tranquilizers.
But I hardly think that Cantor Fitzgerald is paying that kind of money because the billionaires are all impressed with Barack Obama.
Now there is a sort-of innocent explanation. Branding. It doesn't hurt Cantor Fitzgerald's branding to have BHO's name spoken in the same sentence. So, that just might be worth $400,000.
On the other hand, think about how this happens to be the same guy who got elected, in part, on a promise to bring the Cantor Fitzgeralds of this world to heel. He didn't. Now they shower him with money.
Hmmm.
Do I suspect that there was a "secret deal?" Hell no. That's wicked fahkin retahded. Do I suspect actual corruption? No. Still fuckhead-on-a-stick level shit there. But, could it create the appearance of corruption, or perhaps contribute to a system where there really isn't a need for corruption, but it is corrupt nonetheless?
Obama is rich, but he isn't really that rich. He's not democracy-bending rich. He's not "nobody in my family will ever have to work again until there is a revolution" rich. He's not Romney rich. He's not "buy a sports team" rich. But, you know what? A few right moves, and he gets to be. One of those right moves is being able to charge $400,000 to speak to a bunch of fuckers who should be marched out into the fields at the end of a rifle and beaten while they harvest rice.
So around goes the conspiracy theory that Obama bailed out these pricks, instead of having them rounded up and locked up. Now they pay him back. That sure makes sense. So how would other future presidents behave? You're in your second term, and you know that you're going to graduate from the presidency pretty fucking rich… but not gravity-alteringly rich. Do you want to make sure you keep the billionaires happy?
Maybe.
You see this in the judiciary a lot. Judge is up for retirement. You would think that would mean that she would no longer give a fuck about having a more generous strike zone for campaign donors. But, sometimes they get more sketchy as their judicial career is about to end. Why? Because they're about to go from "first year associate at a big law firm" salary to charging $750 per hour to be an arbitrator. How do arbitrators make money? By getting picked to be arbitrators. How do you get picked to be an arbitrator? Get a reputation as being fair and impartial? Fuck no. You get picked by getting a reputation for favoring one side over another. Sure, the other side might know that and try and bounce you, but life is a game of playing the numbers. When you're an arbitrator, you want list serves, especially internal ones at big law firms, to light up with your name when the question goes out.
So you're a judge about to retire. Imagine in one of your last cases, you throw a complete bullshit decision out there — in favor of a firm with a few hundred lawyers and a very active arbitration practice. You get reversed on appeal. Who gives a fuck? Because by the time the reversal comes down, you're in private practice as an arbitrator — and that firm that got reversed on appeal gives no fucks about the reversal when it comes to picking you to rack in six figures to arbitrate a dispute.
She sure as fuck has a strong incentive to do the wrong thing, for the right people.
So lets crank that proven-scenario up to the presidential level.
Lets picture Elizabeth Warren as President. (I like the idea, for the record). She gets elected on this message of "I am going to finally rein in Wall Street." Bernie Sanders stands behind her nodding and smiling. But, then a funny thing happens. As the end of her second term is in view, she wonders … "I can do the right thing right now." Or she might think, "meh, let the next guy do the right thing… I'm gonna keep Goldman Sachs happy. After all, look how rich the Clintons and Obamas became after they moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." After the term is up, Goldman Sachs says "Liz was a good little kitty, lets invite her to speak for $500,000 or so."
And so do the other guys in the same game.
And then daughters get put on boards to do no work, but to collect huge paychecks. Wife gets appointed to some such shit as well. And the perks keep coming in. The ultimate costs to those giving them out is nothing. But, it creates a gyre of money and an incentive to keep shit in line. You know that if you leave office with the right people, with the right bank accounts, liking you, that's a good thing.
So how do we fix this shit? Maybe we can't. But, maybe we can.
Maybe there ought to be a prohibition on certain kinds of work after one is in office. Maybe judges should have a period of time in which they can't serve as arbitrators or mediators in private practice, or they lose their pensions. Maybe Presidents should be prohibited from income outside of their pension. Maybe. Maybe Presidents should automatically be given positions as Senators-at-Large for a term after their presidency, with conditions on that.
The fact is, from the President down to the lowliest state court magistrate, a lot of people draw small paychecks for the job they do — and they don't do it with a blind eye toward how they can cash in on it later.
I don't have a great solution. That's not what this is about. But, don't think for a moment that $400,000 landing in Mr. Obama's lap is just him getting paid for his time. It doesn't make him a bad guy. It doesn't make him corrupt. It doesn't make him evil. And I don't necessarily begrudge the guy his pay day.
But, you gotta have shit in your eyes to not see this as part of a bigger picture.
UPDATE: Just by happenstance, Glenn Reynolds has a parallel article talking about lobbyists, with a few less cuss words. Discussing why lobbying pays so well he writes:
First of all, the architects of complicated regulatory schemes are often the only ones who understand them. But more significantly, when you're the architect of a regulatory scheme, it's handy for companies if it's already in your mind that you might get a lucrative job from them later — or not. (source)
Yep… nibble on the fingers…
His proposal to fix it — post-government employment should be taxed at a super-high rate for the first five years you go to lobby. Not a bad idea. Perhaps worth looking at for ex-president income and ex-judge income as well.
Last 5 posts by Randazza
- Randazza: Public Masturbation as Protected Speech? - May 15th, 2017
- Randazza: 400,000 Reasons to be a Good Little Pet - May 9th, 2017
- Randazza: No Laughing Matter - May 8th, 2017
- Randazza: What is at Stake in the French Election - May 7th, 2017
- Randazza: I was on Infowars (and I liked it) - April 26th, 2017
maybe we should have a bunch of millionaires paying for the right thing to be done. but, what are the odds?
Sir, I am shocked, SHOCKED that the most transparent President of the most transparent administration in history would be involved in some sort of quid pro quo.
Everyone should read physicist Richard Feynman's story on assessing textbooks and the constant attempts to bribe or mislead the members of the committee selecting books.
http://www.textbookleague.org/103feyn.htm
and that was small potatoes: no more than state math books on the line. Imagine how bad that shit is when it comes to the really high-tiers of government.
The Obamas really are that rich. Remember the $60M book deal?
The best explanation I can come up with for the $400K is that compared to $60M it feels like a rounding error.
I like how you're using a lot of fuckin' cussing as a fuckin' counterbalance to what is essentially a fuckin' shittin' very nuanced and moderate fuckin' ass dick viewpoint, which is kind of a fuckin' novelty, but it also comes off as frat-ish
"It doesn't make him a bad guy. It doesn't make him corrupt. It doesn't make him evil."
That is the worst part, isn't it?
That for a corrupt system to work you don't need evil guys.
Sorry, I got distracted from the main point trying to grasp the idea that a a bottomless pit could be full (of anything). Full? How much would the contents weigh? How would we know it was full?
So, sorry (again), I'll go back, re-read, and try to skip over that part.
Sir, you forgot the spring-like sides, tripwires, whirling knife blades driven by water power, broken glass and scorpions.
Tongue-bathes the guy who assassinated a 16 year old boy, while advocating the brutal enslavement of people for the sin of having lots of money (yes, I'm aware this is hyperbole). Seems legit.
Presumably, you think that their wealth was likely misbegotten. Funny then that you're so in love with the guy who doled out million dollar government checks to his favored corporate cronies like they were candy.
Meh. My company has a huge annual event for clients. Every year we have a speaker, some of who have included Condi Rice, Nicholas Sarkozy, and the Duke basketball coach. I don't think we pay 400k, but I bet it's a solid 200K. We get whomever the speakers' org has available in our budget. We'd happily get Obama, Bush, a Clinton, or Romney if we could afford that tier of speaker.
We're a tech company. We're not trying to buy influence with either a very unpopular French political party or the hegemony of NCAA sports. We just want to show off for our clients and entertain them for an hour so they'll come to our event and let us sell them software.
I suck at physics.
He's not "buy a sports team rich," but he and Michelle did just get a $65 million book deal advance, and he made a pretty decent amount from his previous book.
All this should be legal, sure, and it's still better than doing it while serving, but it's not in the best interests of the Democratic Party for him to do this, and probably not in the best interests of the country. It's in his best interests.
Especially if you're the kind of person who thinks that the bailouts were regrettable but necessary to avoid a worse financial crisis that would have hurt ordinary people even more, this sort of thing looks terrible and makes similar actions in the future less likely.
Maybe there ought to be a prohibition on certain kinds of work after one is in office. Maybe judges should have a period of time in which they can't serve as arbitrators or mediators in private practice, or they lose their pensions. Maybe Presidents should be prohibited from income outside of their pension. Maybe.
No.
I can't conceive of why anyone would want to do those fucking jobs in the first place if they couldn't make bank after they retired. Forget about attracting the best people to run for it. You'd get 10x worse candidates than what we have now.
You want good people, you have to offer good money, good bennies, luxury. That's true for anywhere – politics, corporations, non-profits, whatever. If I don't offer millions for a CEO, I'm going to get a schlub who is guaranteed to drive that company into the ground.
We may not like that, but that's the way the world and humanity is. *shrugs* You get what you pay for. You don't pay much, you get shit.
I don't have a great solution. That's not what this is about. But, don't think for a moment that $400,000 landing in Mr. Obama's lap is just him getting paid for his time. It doesn't make him a bad guy. It doesn't make him corrupt. It doesn't make him evil. And I don't necessarily begrudge the guy his pay day.
Either what he's doing is legit, which means it's good, or it's illegal, in which case he needs to be punished. If you don't want people to do things, then you have to make it illegal, otherwise you cannot punish them. *shrugs* I don't know what else to tell you.
My hot take:
That's really only one reason.
If you want to tell elected officials that they aren't allowed to earn money once out of office, get used to the idea of already rich billionaires and millionaires being the only ones wanting to become elected officials.
Then you'll only have to have far more trivial things like a president making constant taxpayer funded trips to his own private property, or getting the state department to shill his hotels, or having White House spokespeople telling the public to buy clothes from the his family's businesses, or his son in law trying to sell visas for business deals etc.
It'd be like stopping Goldman Sachs types from lobbying the government by just hiring them directly into the government, they're not going to lobby themselves are they? Problem solved.
Just be glad we have our strong system of checks and balances to prevent these things.
@John Thacker: but it's not in the best interests of the Democratic Party for him to do this, and probably not in the best interests of the country. It's in his best interests.
*shrugs* He's no longer President. Considering the amount of shit people gave him while President, especially the Congressional stalling, he should tell both the country AND the Democratic Party to fuck off and shit up a rope. I certainly would.
I don't see why, at this point, he owes anybody any loyalty or consideration.
Herbert Hoover donated his salary, etc. to charity. He was already rich before entering politics, and made a major effort to avoid profiting from politics.
He predates the two presidents that you mentioned.
@ExiledV2 If you can't comprehend a motivation other than money, that's a serious problem with you.
It's kind of like criminals who think "everybody does it". You justify your own venality by generalizing it to everyone — or at least, everyone you see positively. That guy is smart? Well, so am I, so he must be motivated by avarice. That guy is competent? Clearly he became so to get more money, like I would.
It's a fundamental cognitive bias. Unfortunately, you're projecting the worst of yourself over what you see in the best of others.
As long as Larry the Cable Guy's minimum speaking fee is in the $150-300K range, the former most powerful man in the world can charge whatever he damn well likes.
I love this whole argument. "Sure, there's not a single shred of evidence to support this conclusion, but it's the only conclusion that I think could possibly be right! And if you think otherwise, you have fecal matter in your optics."
No other explanation, see. Just corruption and the intention, from the word go, to seek lucrative employment opportunities later on. No other possible explanation at all. Not a one.
Matt Levine frequently posts about "what motivates regulators?" over at Bloomberg View, which is refreshing because he's not just trying to prop up his pet theory. He's thrown out a bunch, which necessarily conflict, including "the regulator should be rough so that private industry respects him" or "the regulator should be nice because the private industry likes nice" or "the regulator should incomprehensible regulations because then private industry will hire him to figure it out."
If all you are interested in your own pet unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, you won't like reading all this, but if you want to really figure it out, and read the literature about the topic (there is always literature), this is a good starting spot.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-06-26/strict-regulation-makes-the-revolving-door-spin-faster
ExiledV2 said:
He got paid the money because Cantor Fitzgerald wanted to associate itself with what he represents, the glow of being among the clerisy.
Just in passing, the way to get the big bankers off our backs is not to “rein them in” (i.e., integrate them even more deeply into the political system and give them even more motive to buy politicians) but to take away their subsidies and their regulatory shields against competition from upstarts. But what politician will ever give that idea a moment's thought?
No, not bottomless. Otherwise, how's he going to land on the sharp sticks and come face to face with the armor plated baboons swimming in the feces?
How very Mao of you.
This phenomenon is called Regulatory Capture.
Anon Y. Mous says May 9, 2017 at 12:53 pm:
I'm sure he meant the marching to begin only after due process of law.
This is America, not China. Rice harvesting is private enterprise, not government. If due process of law weren't followed, then the rice harvesters union might sue to prevent unlawful nationalization of the professional rice harvesting industry.
I think a quid-pro-quo for the bailout theory fails on its face. $400,000 isn't even close to the amount of quo that quid ought to bring in. But mostly, I think it's just axiomatic that people who like being powerful like it, and the big paychecks are a part of that. The only ex-president of my lifetime whom I think clearly crossed the line in his unseemly wheeling and dealing after he left office is, of course, Bill Clinton.
That he was/is much smarter, better informed, competent, and (at least apparently) less personally cruel than Trump is doesn't mean nothing, by any means. But when it comes to principles, they're two points on the same continuum, imo.
For the record, we train our armor plated, feces soaked, face ripping baboons to practice affirmative consent.
Reporter arrested for yelling questions at Kellyanne Conway and HHS Sec. Tom Price, and it's not even anti-democracy enough to compete with the other headlines.
I know it doesn't belong here, but this is a current events thread, and although it's not like left-wing college students are protesting Ann Coulter or anything, it still seemed kind of anti-speech.
You are aware, I hope, that the Obamas are donating $2 million to the Chicago Schools? 'Cause if you are, I missed it.
Well it was one of the big selling points for Trump that he was already too rich for this to have an effect wasn't it?
I don't take issue with Barack Obama accepting $400,000 for a speaking gig. I take issue with the fact that Barack Obama's time as president did not dissuade the people who hired him for it from paying him $400,000.
I disagree with the statement
"I hardly think that Cantor Fitzgerald is paying that kind of money because the billionaires are all impressed with Barack Obama."
I think they're all very impressed. I think they think that he was a good president, and that he has good advice to give them.
And I consider it a mark against Obama that Cantor Fitzgerald considers him to have been a good enough president to come talk to them.
I don't think Obama made decisions with an eye to the future. I think he made the decisions that he thought were in the best interest of the people of the country. I don't think there was some form of quid-pro-quo there.
Yeah, Obama did the same thing every president of the last fifty years or so (who outlived the office) has done. On the other hand… Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton… Which one of those guys am I supposed to like? It's hard to tell.
I also consider it a mark on Obama more than others. Because you're right, how many Presidents aside from Truman and Carter failed to cash in?
On the other hand… How many Presidents were elected positioning themselves as an entirely new breed of politician, with the idea of bringing change to Washington as a major focus of their campaign? Obama ran very much on his ability and desire to transform Washington.
So how is it NOT a mark against a politician who ran on a belief that people CAN be better (hope) and a desire to bring a fundamentally new approach (change) that he did the exact same "Cash in on the public office" trick that every other politician did.
Why should I care that he isn't any different?
HIS WHOLE PITCH WAS THAT HE WAS DIFFERENT. Why should I care that he's not above cashing in? He made a point of running as the sort of person who was above cashing in. It was one of the primary focuses of his campaign, to the point he was criticized for not being sufficiently substantive on policy.
It still would be something well worth criticizing him for, because I don't want Cantor Fitzgerald to LIKE the President, and I'd go so far as to say "Cantor Fitzgerald hates this guy" is an endorsement. But it would be less of one personally if he hadn't also said he WASN'T like other candidates.
"And I consider it a mark against Obama that Cantor Fitzgerald considers him to have been a good enough president to come talk to them."
Well put
It is one … although, I don't imagine that he is satisfied with his riches.
Yes, but in continued fairness, we like our ex-Presidents to ride off in the sunset and disappear. Doing *anything* is the polar opposite of that desire.
@Tobias Hawke
There's nothing non-hopey-change-y about his taking a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald. He did not run on the message of shunning those you disagree with. On the contrary.
Serious question: Exactly what, during his presidency, ought Obama to have done about Cantor Fitzgerald that he failed to do and that was realistically within his power to do?
The bailout prevented the real collapse of the liquid economy, which would have severely affected you and everyone else in the world. It wasn't just a gift to banks. And Obama was not the one who allowed that threat to go unchecked.
Another serious question: Above the level of "investment banks bad," what is objectionable about Obama getting paid his free-market value? I thought libertarians were in favor of that, and didn't believe in choice-shaming. So where's the harm, and to whom?
Except that it isn't worth looking at an idea like that, because the folks who want a payoff and the folks who want to pay them off will just structure a deal that avoids that five years – or wtf ever the plan is.
And the folks who are essentially honest and unwilling to work around the system and who get picked up by e.g. the company EAB works for are the ones who will suffer.
@ExiledV2
I actually can't tell if this is parody.
You really think that avarice is such a strong correlate with competence that anyone willing to work for less than millions is guaranteed to be an incompetent schlub? Guaranteed to be 10x worse than Trump, Clinton, Obama, Dubya, Kerry, the whole lot? You really can't think of any motivation that a competent person might have for working in government other than a big money payout? For working at a non-profit? Even if you think payout is a generally reliable indicator of ability, you really think that relationship is linear? Diminishing returns wouldn't kick in at some point on the way to the top?
It's one thing to believe in efficient markets and the Ethics of Greed, but to take it out to this extreme seems rather silly, maybe even a little simpleminded.
Mi Marc
Just a quick heads-up: Cantor Fitzgerald was the firm which lost the most ppl on 9/11 when the towers collapsed.
No, nothing at all bad about taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the people who fucked us all over.
No, he didn't run on shunning people. Again. The bigger problem isn't him taking the money. It's THEM WANTING TO GIVE HIM THE MONEY. If he'd been actually working to reign in Wall Street's excess, then they shouldn't like him. When you make people stop screwing someone over, they don't want to give you six figures.
He may have felt he had to protect the institutions. Doesn't mean he had to protect the individuals running the institutions. "Too big to fail" doesn't have to mean "Too rich to arrest." The whole idea of a corporation is that it's not an individual person.
But on the hope-y-change-y front, again… Do you think it IS change to make money off your public service? Especially when you make a big deal about how you should take public service seriously, as a genuine effort to help others, not as an ego trip? When you're running as a new breed of politician, it's a damn heavy mark against you when you say "HOW DARE YOU EXPECT ME NOT TO ACT LIKE EVERY OTHER SELF-ABSORBED ASSHOLE WHO HELD THIS OFFICE?!"
It's not about shunning people I "don't like." I don't like the teacher who growled at me when I asked him how he was doing. But if Obama likes him, I don't mind. Maybe they're best friends, for all I know. I'm not gonna criticize him for that.
"The bailout prevented the real collapse of the liquid economy, which would have severely affected you and everyone else in the world. It wasn't just a gift to banks. And Obama was not the one who allowed that threat to go unchecked."
Did he make it so that they can't screw us over again? Investment banks are bad because they have the power to keep screwing people over. And they keep. Screwing. People. Over.
If it weren't for the fact that half the country is still falling apart, I wouldn't care about investment banks.
[quote]Another serious question: Above the level of "investment banks bad," what is objectionable about Obama getting paid his free-market value? I thought libertarians were in favor of that, and didn't believe in choice-shaming. So where's the harm, and to whom?[/quote]
Who said I was a libertarian? If you want to call me a libertarian, you can call me that. But if you think I'm not acting like a libertarian, don't pull this "Oh, I THOUGHT YOU WERE A LIBERTARIAN" shit. I'm going to hold my beliefs, and if you think they're not libertarian, you're welcome to think that. I'm not trying to measure up to whatever standard you have for what political movement (which I have never told you I was a member of)
And as for why should I have a problem with him taking payment for a speech? Again, he was the one who was running as a different, more honest, more accountable breed of politician. That's my only concern PERSONALLY. I don't think he's a bad person. I don't think people necessarily consciously think about everything they do.
Now I'll admit, I might have been wrong. If it turns out that he gave a speech excoriating them for gambling with human suffering, and they paid for it because they genuinely felt bad about what they'd done, and are working to change it, then I retract my objection. I think that's highly unlikely. But I have been wrong about things before.
But let's be clear. This isn't about who I like and don't like. It's not a friendship circle or a popularity contest. It's about people's lives. It's about 1.56 million people without a roof to sleep under. It's about 80% of Americans in debt. It's about 15% of Americans below the EXTREMELY LOW poverty line that the US Census bureau holds.
It's about very real, common, human suffering that effects one of the so-called 'strongest economies' in the world.
Stop treating it like it's a goddamn game.
[quote]
Just a quick heads-up: Cantor Fitzgerald was the firm which lost the most ppl on 9/11 when the towers collapsed.[/quote]
OH GOSH. A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THEM DIED FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.
I guess I should have realized that exempted them from criticism.
@ExiledV2 says
So right-wingers didn't like Obama, therefore Obama doesn't owe non-right-wingers anything? That's ridiculous.
@GuestPoster
Wow, the hypocrisy.
@Ann
Libertarians don't believe in the government prohibiting anything but initiation of force. It follows that other anti-social behavior should be counteracted with social pressure.
I again ask what work it is that you think he didn't do that he should and realistically could have — ie, how did he make them want to give him the money? In what way should he have acted to reign in Wall Street's excess, or made it stop screwing people over?
How, exactly, Wall Street is screwing people over, as you see it, would also be very helpful to know.
Sorry to ask so many questions. But I'm trying to figure out what the locus and nature of the failure/betrayal/harm is, basically. The rhetoric by itself could mean any number of things.
I'm not sure I understand the question, or even its terms. What distinguishes "making money off your public service" from "working in the private sector post-presidency in exchange for compensation, in the usual way that people unprovided with a large independent income typically do"?
I think that as long as the person preaching that message takes his public service seriously, as a genuine effort to help others, not as an ego trip, he's kept his side of the bargain.
As far as afterwards goes, as I said above, I'd need to know why the alleged bad act/betrayal is one before I could say.
That wasn't really addressed to you, it was more like me grousing to myself. I apologize for sending it your way.
I'm sorry to be obtuse, and also sorry to be a broken record, but where is the dishonesty and unaccountability? Who or what are the institutions that it wouldn't be less honest and accountable of him to accept a speaking fee from?
One of the things I find confusing here is that (at least as I saw it) Obama never ran on that kind of economic message, or pretended to. He actually has a pretty damn impressively good record on the economy, especially considering where he came in. But he's basically an honorable, center-right-leaning, business-friendly Democrat, and always has been. I think I've said this before, but he was politically to the right of Nixon on more things than he wasn't.
Nevertheless, he actually did a lot to reform Wall Street during his first two years in office. To the best of my recollection, this was 100% more than any national politician in the post-war era that I can think of.
I think his mistake (or flaw, or whatever you want to call it) is that he spent those two years trying to keep it real wrt the uniter-not-divider part of the program, and thus played ball with the opposition party too much during the only part of his presidency when they weren't hell-bent on using their congressional advantage to not return the favor.
By the time Bernie Sanders began cursing Dodd-Frank and calling for the break up of the banks in 2015, it wouldn't have been legislatively within Obama's reach to do that even if he tried. He had to pick his priorities and the one he picked was climate change. I personally don't think that was the wrong choice. I doubt Sanders and Warren do either.
In any event. Obama is giving Cantor Fitzgerald a speech, and they're giving him $400,000. Realistically speaking, I would expect him to say things that were true to his own views in terms that were well-suited to his audience, because he's a phenomenal public speaker and that's what he always does.
If those are the terms, I personally don't see it as dishonorable or a sell-out. I actually barely disagree with the OP, for a Randazza post. But the "hand that feeds you" part of it is unexamined, simplistic, and conspiratorial. $400,000 is not enough money to really buy a lot more than a speech and probably a reception, or whatever. It's a high fee, but not compromised-by-it high. Trump was paid $400,000 to participate in a Comedy Central roast, and wasn't compromised by it in any way other than he appears to have received payment in the form of a donation to the Trump Foundation, which is felony income tax evasion if he didn't declare it.
But there's no way of knowing that, because he won't release his tax returns. So my point is just that it's not the kind of money you can buy a powerful person for. It's just what they get paid.
Marc: I don't agree with the part of your post dealing with former judges working as arbitrators/mediators. I have been a careful observer of the local judiciary for a quarter century or so, and the judges who make a successful transition to private judging are the guys (and gals) who develop a reputation over the years for being fair and doing their homework on a case. Typically both sides have to agree to use a mediator, and we plaintiff lawyers aren't idiots (well, not all of us are). People aren't going to agree to use a guy who has a reputation for being too buddy/buddy with the big defense firms.
If you told me that Mitt Romney was coming over for dinner, I might need tranquilizers.
That would be dangerously doubling down – I think Mr. Romney's mere presence would be soporific enough.
How is that relevant to this?
@Ann
Why do you expect other people to explain their posts, when you refuse to do so?
That doesn't make any sense. If there was a donation to his Foundation, he would have no reason to declare it on his personal tax return. And my understanding is that one decalres one's total income, not individual payments.
It kind of reminds me of a line from 'Law and Order': "The system rises and falls on the decency of the average person", or something like that.
In other words, are they paying for more than his time? Probably, but you have to trust people to do the right thing until they don't. Otherwise, our current authoritarian nightmare will suddenly look a lot more favorable real quick.
The most transparent administration is pretty much true, contrary to your Breitbart cult fanatics
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/subjects/transparency/
Quid pro quo because he makes money from a speech after being President? That does not make sense. Congress passes laws, do you have specific examples of Obama's actions in return for this speech?
You might want to read more about America's separation of powers, and what little power the President has especially if you are Obama and you face the most obstructive opposition party in history. It was not Obama's fault that the segment of the financial industry that caused the financial crisis had no regulation and thus no ability for government to go after the big players except to fine them. Also a politician has no choice but to work with the financial industry since the world's economy relies on this small but powerful group to run the world's economies.
It is very possible Obama wants to try and influence these groups to accept more regulation, more taxes and transparency, just like Clinton did in her own speeches.
Why do Libertarians hold Democratic politicians to a standard they hold no one else to? Is that how you justify never voting Democratic and accepting Republicans in government?
I would opt for dinner with Mitt Romney over dinner with the Obamas without a second's hesitation, because I would be much more curious to see what he's like in action in a small-scale setting than I would the Obamas. And I'd opt for dinner with Roger Stone over either, because he seems to be both interesting and fun, as well as beautifully dressed.
@David —
Tobias Hawke is not a libertarian. I greatly regret starting that unfounded rumor with my sloppy commentary.
Also:
You're not kidding about the "if you're Obama" part. As Rep. MacArthur (R-NJ) told his constituents only yesterday, congress is not in the business of overseeing the executive branch.
I'll admit straight out that this is basically whataboutism. But I genuinely find Obama's acceptance of a large speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald in his post-presidency to be of barely any significance to the question of how politicians fuck the people over compared to the current president firing the FBI director for accelerating an investigation into his campaign, then establishing an "election integrity" commission headed by Kris Kobach, in addition to which a member of his cabinet just commended the police who arrested a reporter for asking him questions, all within the last 48 hours, without any signs at all that congress is going to act as a check or balance on any of it.
Moreover, ten percent of US District Court judgeships are already vacant, due to that obstructionist party you just mentioned. So it's possible that the courts will also eventually get stacked with non-checks-and-balances-oriented appointees. I don't in fact see any reason why they won't be to the greatest extent and as quickly as possible. The indications are that they will.
These things aren't smoke, they're fire. That Obama's putting together some family wealth by accepting speaking fees from Cantor Fitzgerald after leaving office. Goldman Sachs was his second highest campaign donor in 2008, ffs. But he didn't put them in charge of the fucking country, and he still passed legislation Wall Street didn't like or want when he got in his office. I don't see the point of cursing the sham darkness of his speaking fee, when the entire damn democracy is teetering on the edge of a cliff for other reasons right now,.
I'm not sure it actually is whataboutism, ftm. I think there has to be a real problem to deflect from first for that to be the case. And as I've said, I'm seriously unclear about why this even is one.
"Obama wasn't what the media on the left or right said, he was what Obama said. Sellout!"
I've heard that a million times, but I was the one voter who believed him before I voted for him and so I wasn't surprised at all by any of his actions.
I can't imagine the real politics, the real reasons why a person would be "against" paid private speaking. It is a very, very strange position. Some people actually believe it to be their own personal business, because the person doing this private speaking has also done public speaking in the past. Very odd, I don't see the connection between past public speaking or public service by another person, and any of your prerogatives becoming involved.
Is the problem that he is inciting a riot, or… dare I say it? Dare I? Is President Obama doing paid work somehow akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre? He is _____, after all.
If only anybody in this universe understood that phrase… lol
Glenn's solution is cute. If people in government vote for people in government to pay substantially higher income taxes on lobbying once they're no longer in government, and it's not part of some elaborate scheme or sleight of hand, then I'll donate my left nut to a research lab for free.
@Cromulent Bloviator
I was actually pleasantly surprised. That he's not my personal political ideal is not really a sticking point to me, because, you know. I can't help noticing that I'm not the only person in the country. But the first time he ran, I thought he was essentially just an incredibly charismatic, very ambitious Chicago backroom politician. I also thought he would be too accommodating to the Clintons and their political progeny to be his own man.
And I was totally wrong about both. He turned out to be a man of character and nobody's executive but his own. He just had a hard row to hoe
I don't think the objection is to the paid private speaking as much as it is reflexive animosity toward investment banks.
I actually get why people feel that way. But the problem with mistaking your knee-jerk emotional reflexes for political positions is that that's how people can end up getting played.
deleted
I deleted the above version of this comment because it was so personally mean.
But it's genuinely mind-boggling to me that Randazza is over on Twitter happily promoting the blatantly false-dichotomy-based talking point about the hypocrisy of Democrats for objecting to an illegitimate firing, even though it was of someone they wanted to see fired legitimately.
And it's even more mind-boggling to me that the fact that the President of the United States just threatened a private citizen with reprisals if he talked to the press is evidently not noteworthy enough to him to be worth mentioning.
I'm half-expecting a "Maybe Trump is right — the White House *should* cancel all press briefings" post just about any moment now.
I think it doesn't help that the bigwigs making the decisions over at Cantor Fitzgerald are Obama's (And any other President's) colleagues in a way that the rest of the world aren't.
I mean, these are people who can get some face time with the President, like, actual face-time, not a paid photo op, and, you know, I'm sure you get to know them pretty intimately as people. You know, "Phil over at Goldman Sachs is hilarious, have him tell you that story about the stripper and the goat" or "Judy at Cantor Fitzgerald just has the most adorable kids."
Sid the factory foreman and Betty the bag lady get, at most, a photo-op and a couple of minutes to ask a question. Obama, or Trump, or Bush, or Clinton ain't gonna makes friends with 'em. They're not going to remember them, specifically, after a couple of days. They aren't going to come up with dumb nicknames for 'em or ever have any contact with them ever again.
And that means the lobbyists and executives and various bigwigs are just a little more real. It's just a little easier to trust them or to think that they're legit. Because they're real people with real families and hopes and fears, and Sid and Betty are just a couple weirdoes you pass on the street and never think about again.
@Christopher —
Your argument appears to be that the president can't serve the 300-plus million American people he represents unless he abjures meeting with people whose activities the federal government regulates, because if he does meet with them, he'll just end up making decisions based on his appreciation of their personal charm and not the people's interests.
The solution to this, as you see it, would be for him to instead spend that time meeting with ordinary citizens one-on-one and getting to know them personally.
Never mind that there are 300-plus million of them. I have a question. What would prevent him from favoring the interests of the ones whom he found the most personally appealing, if the premise is that this is how he makes decisions anyway?
Here's a thought: Wouldn't it be easier as well as better for the people's interests just to judge him on the basis of how he did his job?
"But I hardly think that Cantor Fitzgerald is paying that kind of money because the billionaires are all impressed with Barack Obama."
Actually, they paid him to speak at a health care conference Cantor was holding. So the audience wasn't just Cantor Fitzgerald people. Obama was likely bait to get executives from other companies to cough up whatever fees were required to attend or have a sales presence at the conference.
And health care executives may well have some interest in hearing the Obamacare guy speak.
AAnn
Maybe relatively speaking, but on an absolute sense he was dishonest, promoted bigotry, and supported violating civil rights.
So … you're guessing what his argument is, and responding to that? Do you really not see any hypocrisy in inferring what Christopher is saying, when you've been so hostile to me responding to my best understanding of your argument, and accusing me of a "trap" when I ask you to clarify your argument? Or are you so narcissistic that you can't understand how this is contradictory?
@Jon,
Very good point that, and one I hadn't seen till now. I mean, who could even imagine having a non-sketchy reason for inviting one of the major architects of the nation's current health insurance regulations to a healthcare conference. That would be like…. I dunno. Inviting teachers to parent-teacher conferences!
@Jon H —
Very good point. Thanks for posting.
Hello Ann –
I used to enjoy Randazza when he wrote at the Legal Satyricon and back then I wished he would write more. This is, I guess, an example of be careful what you wish for. I have no idea what has happened to him since he started writing at Popehat. I have seen very little that reminds me of the guy who wrote such good stuff on Tsarnaev, for instance.
BTW – I enjoy your posts very much. You are doing the Lord's work.
@Roscoe:
This is absolutely true in situations where both parties are reasonably sophisticated, have the option of going to trial but agree that avoiding a trial is in their best interests, and have bargaining power somewhere in the same order of magnitude.
However, I would guess that the lion's share of arbitration (in terms of cases, but perhaps not amount on controversy) occurs because one party agreed to binding arbitration in a contract drafted by a substantially larger and more sophisticated party. In those situations, the more powerful party generally has more control over picking the arbiter–either because the contract explicitly grants them that power, or simply because being the more knowledgeable party gives them the edge in that process. Moreover, in terms of sheer numbers, the larger party will likely be involved in numerous arbitrations with numerous customers, whereas any individual customer is not. I don't think these circumstances provide particularly strong incentives to cultivate a reputation for fairness. The less powerful party has less control over who judges the arbitration, is less likely to be particularly familiar with the reputation of the various private judges, and unlikely to base their decisions on how the contract deals with the infrequent possibility of litigation.
Limits on post-retirement jobs make sense. But so does paying judges etc better. If a judge is working for first year associate salary for 20 years, he is going to be hungry for a big payoff. If the salary is more like junior partner, its easier to make conditions on post-retirement activities.