The state’s last elected governor, Rod R. Blagojevich, is on trial for racketeering and extortion. But in 2003, he persuaded the legislature to let him float $10 billion in 30-year bonds and use the proceeds for two years of pension payments.

That gamble backfired and wound up costing the state many billions of dollars.

Based on a quick sampling of Illinois legislators, this multi-billion-dollar bet was approved by a combination of lawyers, policemen, schoolteachers, and bricklayers.

Now, lawyers are supposed to be good at suing people. Policemen are supposed to be good at punching jaywalkers. Bricklayers are supposed to be good at laying bricks. Schoolteachers are supposed to be good at … um … something, I’m sure.

But there’s no reason to expect any of them to be good at making multi-billion-dollar-bets with other people’s money. If one weren’t blinded by status quo bias, one might observe that a system that not only allows them to do so but encourages them to do so is, in some fundamental way, broken.

To his credit, even the President acknowledges this:

As you know, part of what led to this crisis was [states like Illinois] and others who were making huge and risky bets, using derivatives and other complicated financial instruments, in ways that defied accountability, or even common sense. In fact, many practices were so opaque, so confusing, so complex that the people inside the [legislatures] didn’t understand them, much less those who were charged with overseeing them. They weren’t fully aware of the massive bets that were being placed. That’s what led Warren Buffett to describe derivatives that were bought and sold with little oversight as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” That’s what he called them. And that’s why reform will rein in excess and help ensure that these kinds of transactions take place in the light of day.

What’s that? You say he was actually talking about private firms making bets with their own money? Well, in that case he ought to be even more critical of state legislatures doing the same thing. He is, isn’t he? I mean, it’s not like he was a member of the Illinois Senate when they took this multi-billion-dollar bet. He wasn’t, was he?

“Aren’t you concerned,” I would often ask, “that he doesn’t have much useful experience running anything? Is being a law professor and a Senator really useful preparation for being chief executive of Leviathan?”

“I see what you’re saying,” they’d inevitably answer, “but look at the streamlined, coolly effective campaign he’s running. That’s all the evidence I need of his executive skills.”

Accordingly, now that his executive skills are coming into question due to his perceived lack of leadership on the BP oil disaster, I humbly suggest that he demonstrate leadership by returning to his roots:

• use the internet and social media to recruit a virtual army of 18 to 29 year olds, who all probably have nothing better to do than scrubbing rocks and geese anyway
• revamp the Neighbor-to-Neighbor tool on my.barackobama.com to make it easier for volunteers to organize “house parties” where they can brainstorm with the neighbors for clever ways to stop the oil from spreading further
• commission an iconic logo for the Gulf cleanup efforts:

  

• I don’t know if a video of Obama girl covered in oil would help, but it certainly couldn’t hurt!
• create a catchy slogan. Something like “Ecological Change We Can Believe In” or “Yes BP Can!” or “Si BP Puede!”
• maybe some sort of Shepard Fairey poster? I’m thinking maybe a picture of Andre the Giant and then the word “BOOM” underneath.

  

• finally, just in case none of the previous approaches to leadership helps, I suggest some sort of music video featuring hip-hop stars and celebrity actors. If that doesn’t work, nothing will!

Why? Probably so you’ll vote for him again come 2012.

There’s some sort of nominally non-tawdry reason, too.

You see, by law, Social Security payments increase each year in a manner pegged to inflation. When Rascal Scooters and Life Alerts and diabeetus testing supplies and Centrum Silver get more expensive, Social Security checks get bigger to compensate.

This year, however, prices haven’t gone up! (According to government bean-counters, anyway.) How will seniors get by if we don’t cut them extra checks?

Listen to the heartless fat-cats in Congress:

“I think it would be inappropriate,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. “The reason we set up this process was to have the Social Security reimbursement reflect the cost of living.”

Now, at least a few of our elected betters understand that not granting a cost of living increase just because the cost of living didn’t increase amounts to “turning our backs” on Senior Citizens:

“I think that the Obama administration and many members of Congress understand that we simply can’t turn our backs on senior citizens,” Sanders said.

I’m convinced!

My only concern is where the President will get the $13 billion to dole out. Last I checked government revenues were falling short of government expenditures by a trillion dollars, give or take.

But according to a “senior administration official,” Obama’s got this figured out too. We’ll simply borrow the money!

Who wouldn’t want to risk their capital for a sure investment like “give free money to old people”? Obviously it can’t compare with “pay people to destroy functional cars” or “give free money to everybody” or “give more free money to old people,” but in today’s investment climate, I dare you to find something better!