Utopia

  "No, if a king is so hated or despised by his subjects that he can't keep them in order unless he reduces them to beggary by violence, extortion, and confiscation, he'd far better abdicate. Such methods of staying in power may preserve the title, but they destroy the majesty of a king... Certainly a man who enjoys a life of luxury while everyone else is moaning and groaning round him can harly be called a king -- he's more of a jailer.
  "Int short, it's a pretty poor doctor who can't cure one disease without giving you another, and a king who can't suppress crime without lowering standards of living should admit that he just doesn't know how to govern free men. He should start by suppressing one of his own vices -- either his pride of his laziness... He should adapt his expenditure to his income. He should prevent crime by sound administration..."

  This passage is from page 40 of Penguin Classics' Utopia by Thomas More. And here, I believe he is right. Kings (presidents too) are elected and put in power in order to take care of the people. Putting the country in billions of dollars of additional debt/"expenditures", and forcing a provision upon the people (such as health care) which will cause them to fall into a lower class due to the cost, is irresponsible, and as More said, he'd far better abdicate. At least the people would know then that he has a conscious of some sort, and possibly some wisdom in knowing when to quit.
  President Nixon did. Though there are not many kings before him that have, nor after. Perhaps their pride has gotten the best of them as More suggests? A pity that they must continue to try to prove themselves, and yet continue to ruin the country who put them in power... Perhaps those in power should read more books like this one. ;)