The excuse of the day is that President Obama was only informed relatively recently about Healthcare.gov’s problems:
(CNN) — President Barack Obama didn’t know of problems with the Affordable Care Act’s website — despite insurance companies’ complaints and the site’s crashing during a test run — until after its now well-documented abysmal launch, the nation’s health chief told CNN on Tuesday.
In an exclusive interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in “the first couple of days” after the site went live October 1.
“But not before that?” Gupta followed up.
To which Sebelius replied, “No, sir.”
I’m having a bit of trouble following the thread. The Administration has defended the PPACA tooth and nails, routinely giving the explanation that it was the signature legislation of the Obama presidency. The president has not been kept informed about the progress of a matter of such vital importance to his legacy? I can only think of a handful of explanations for that:
- Plausible deniability.
- The president is interested in the details, expects to kept in the loop by his subordinates, but is very poorly served them (a point I’ve made here frequently).
- The president really isn’t particularly interested in the PPACA but it does make a handy club with which to beat the Republicans.
- The president prefers to sketch out the big picture ideas, leave the details to his subordinates, and his subordinates dropped the ball.
#4 is largely what I meant when I described the job that Barack Obama really wanted as “consultant-in-chief”. Mickey Kaus describes something along the same lines:
But perhaps we elected a President who isn’t interested in how the nuts and bolts of government work–as long as he worries about the big legislation, what goes on in the bureaucratic boxes is a second order problem, right? If that’s what Obama thinks, his health care rollout is, as they say, a teachable moment.
It’s possible to have a “big picture” president and for it work out just fine. Cf. Eisenhower. However, for that to be the case a) the president’s subordinates must take responsibility and b) they must feel empowered to make decisions without the president’s guidance on the details. Every account I’ve ever read of the Obama presidency suggests that neither of those is the case.
As I wrote above, I’m having trouble following the thread.
I agree it’s #4. Also agree that doesn’t buy Mr. Obama any slack. You can come at the job however you want, but you do have to get the job done.
Right now the Administration appears to be thrashing for an excuse. The first try was that it was due to the high volume of interest. Then it was growing pains. Then glitches. Now it’s “the president didn’t know”.
If they’re going to stick with that, I think I see a sudden longing to spend more time with her family in Sec. Sebelius’s future.
Yet another explanation I’ve read is that the Obama Administration is full of small government fanatics who want the federal government to fail.
Here’s a simpler explanation: he’s lying, as he has been repeatedly lying throughout his administration about any number of topics or issues. He could get away with it though, because unlike a Republican President, the press (being 90% or so straight out liberals) will protect him. So he’s never been really called out for anything, no accountability whatsoever. It helped get him reelected but to grow as a president and leader, probably not so much.
But this is simply way too big to sweep under the rug. They want to. I think it’s painful for them to report on any of it. I suspect most of them had their “What a wild success story this is! Fuck you GOP!!” stories all ready to go. Imagine when they might to start making the “Ummm, guys, the Tea Baggers, errr, Tea Party, those uneducated, flyover, suicidal, racist morons, ummmm, who have been irrationally fighting Obamacare since it’s debut and making all the points we’re seeing now, ummmmm, they uhhh…they may have been right? N’aaaaahhhhh….guys? Tell me I’m wrong…pleaaaasseeeeeeee” connection…
Agree with 4a and b, but would also add that leaders who operate in that style must also know enough details to be able to check benchmarks along the way, and must use a leadership style that gives subordinates comfort in giving honest apprisals. All of those conditions appear to be lacking with this president, and unless that changes quickly his administration is doomed to failure.
Obama is maneuvering to assure plausible deniability in case history should ever want to hold him responsible for being President.
At some point doesn’t plausible deniability become implausible, or equivalent to incompetence or malfeasance? This is I think the third time that we’re told Obama learned of major problems only at the time that the problems became known to the public. It’s becoming absurd.
Alf Landon, GOP presidential candidate, 1936:
Prophets of doom. They always sound like they know what they’re talking about. But so seldom do.
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8128/
Social Security is a very interesting case, Michael. Factually, for the average Joe the return isn’t very good—the average worker actually loses a little on his or her Social Security “investment”. For the society as a whole, it’s a pretty good deal for the very reason contained in the name: security. I think the gamble’s working out pretty well but I recognize that other people don’t agree with me.
We haven’t changed the tax rate being levied in decades (the last time was 1990). We have, however, changed the maximum income on which the tax is levied slightly over the years. The last time a major change was made was also decades ago. Now it’s increasing by less than 1% per year. Clearly, making changes has become increasingly difficult over the years, not easier.
Social Security was enacted on a bipartisan basis. That means that both parties had a stake in seeing it succeed, something not the case with the PPACA. And it was popular from its inception, something that also cannot be said of the PPACA.
People are creatures of habit. They tend to see and do things over and over again, in the same way, whether it’s working or not. I put President Obama squarely in that category.
He has acted no differently regarding his disengagement with how the PPACA was going than he did with following the events in Benghazi (presumably going to bed and leaving for a fund-raiser the next morning), the IRS scandal (it’s become a low profile issue), F&F (stopped in it’s tracts by his EO), and too many other events/problems to keep repeating.
It appears that Obama likes to be front and center, when it involves accolades and glory. Otherwise, it’s always someone else’s fault or problem to take care of.
The final step for a leader is to supervise. The final step for a boss is to issue the orders. President Obama acts like he is the boss of America. This works until things begin to go wrong.
First, before #1, Sebelius is lying. As always, you are charitable, Dave. But she is lying to give political cover.
An organization can only have a completely hands-off, visionary, leader if the troops are competent and capable of delivering bad news as a correcting mechanism. Obama is a control freak, and so is President Jarret, so the point is moot. The balance is laughable.
Some say I hate Obama. Not true. I think the state of affairs is actually sad. I just think we hired someone for a tough job who had absolutely nothing to justify it, but was carried by the wave of cult of personality. And I hate to say I told you so, but I told people during the original campaign I would have thrown his resume in the trash. Nothing has transpired to change my mind. I think the country is waking up.
As for the narrow point on SS. Any program is a financial “success” if whenever it goes broke a capital call is made, whether daily, yearly or once every 20 years. As an “investment,” recipient get more out than paid in. But its not set up as an investment. If it were, the returns are shockingly bad – Enron looks like angels.
Mike S
The press certainly protected Bush re his Iraq War lies.
That unexpected (by the powers that be) loser led directly to Obama’s election, Hillary being edged out because of her pro-war vote.
Of course had Obama been in Hillary’s position, good chance he would have voted for the war as well, considering his Afghan surge, drone bombing run amok, attempt to get a war in Syria going, under the table attempts to stay longer in Iraq, etc.
It’s not a GOP-Dem thing, it’s an appease the ruling class thing.