Now, aside from the fact that a statement like that is as insulting as patting someone on the head and telling them not to worry their pretty little heads about math, there have been studies coming out which show that our 'professional politicians' are indeed less knowledgeable about issues than the general public in most areas, including the definition of a progressive tax, and, most importantly taxes and government spending.
Additionally, in a 1991 CATO institute publication, it is pointed out that:
Put simply, the professionalization of politics is incompatible with the essence of representative government. At its most basic, the exercise of a profession entails a set of role relationships between "experts" and "clients" in which the"professional" is an expert who offers knowledge and judgment to clients. In pursuit of a career, the professional moves "up and away," as Berkeley sociologist Robert N. Bellah puts it, from the face-to-face community that once oriented those persons pursuing a "calling." The culture of professionalism disconnects and distances the professional--whether journalist, doctor, attorney, social scientist, or politician--from those whom he or she intends to serve.(26) A form of trusteeship is one of the most salient characteristics of professionalism.(27) Professionals are detached from their clients by expertise, education, and culture. Although there are many different approaches to the analysis of professions and professionalism, the themes of authority, autonomy, and hierarchy are recurrent in the dominant sociological literature.(28) Each of those reveals the "space" that exists, by definition, between professionals and their clients.I submit that one of the most important things forgotten by our 'professional politicians' is that the United States is a Republic, not a democracy. As Madison said in Federalist 10:
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
Hamilton writes in Federalist 35:
There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome. There can be no doubt that in order to a judicious exercise of the power of taxation, it is necessary that the person in whose hands it should be acquainted with the general genius, habits, and modes of thinking of the people at large, and with the resources of the country. And this is all that can be reasonably meant by a knowledge of the interests and feelings of the people. In any other sense the proposition has either no meaning, or an absurd one. And in that sense let every considerate citizen judge for himself where the requisite qualification is most likely to be found.
So when 69% of the American public have come out against raising the debt ceiling, saying that we should leave the issues to the 'professional politicians' goes against the grain of issues raised in the Federalist Papers. When Obama wants to put an extra tax on a certain group of people, he is acting in complete contrast to the values of the founding fathers.
As a timely reminder also, in Federalist 57:
I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.
So all laws must apply to all equally. So what about all of those Obamacare waivers........
And he thinks WE'RE ignorant.....