I’m even happier that Romney lost the election than I was before because now it turns out that his understanding of the president’s role is completely wrong:
“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Mr. Romney said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”
All of these things would qualify as a “gift” if Obama had used his personal funds to purchase them for said groups of people. He didn’t, though. The money for these initiatives came out of the funds contributed by the taxpayers. All Obama did was manage the taxpayers’ money (which is actually a huge part of his job description) in a way that the majority of taxpayers approved. This approval was demonstrated at the voting polls on November 6.
When a manager of a mutual fund manages the customers’ money well and offers them a good return on the investment, you’d have to be very deluded to believe that this return is the manager’s gift to the fund’s customers.
It is sad and also quite scary that a presidential candidate, even one who did not have a chance of winning, sees taxpayers’ money as some sort of a private trust fund belonging to the president that the president can throw around in the form of gifts. We have already seen what this approach did to our economy when President Bush Jr. gave gifts to the tune of trillions of dollars to his Wall Street buddies.