Michael Jackson’s estate is now estimated to be worth at least $500 million. Unfortunately for the individuals claiming to be the biological parents of one or more of his children, this works out to an average of $74.32 each.
Republicans continued their opposition to provision for so-called “death panels” as part of health care reform. A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said, “True Republicans have consistently shown their ability to pursue end-of-life with no outside assistance.”
Birthers continued to argue that the absence of a birth certificate suggests Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. and therefore not legally qualified to be President. Their argument is weakened somewhat by suspicions that many of them were themselves born on another planet.
The government’s Cash for Clunkers program came to an end, having taken nearly 700,000 low mileage vehicles off the road. The program’s success prompted some to suggest trading in their old ineffective Congressional representatives for newer, more responsive models.
Protesters at a town hall meeting in Iowa denounced the intrusion of government into their lives. The demonstration came to an end only when several had to leave to cash their social security and medicare checks.
Dick Cheney is becoming increasing vocal in denouncing former President Bush. His complaints seem to center on Bush’s inability to sit still on Cheney’s lap while Cheney was talking for him.
A loaded .38 pistol turned up in the collection plate of a church in Texas. The gun’s owner said he misunderstood when the Minister invited congregants to “Pass the Peace.”
Michael Vick, having completed his sentence for organizing dogfights, signed as a quarterback with the Philadelphia Eagles. This caused some confusion among the coaching staff as all “red dog” references in the Eagles’ playbooks had to be eliminated.
Tom DeLay, the former Speaker of the House who resigned in disgrace in a campaign funding scandal has signed to appear on “Dancing With the Stars.” Reportedly, his first performance will be doing either the K Street Lobbyist Shuffle or the Washington Flimflam.
Congressional action on health care came to an abrupt halt with the announcement that a key element – the Federal Coordination Council for Comparative Effectiveness – had a name that was incomprehensible and caused anyone reading or speaking it to fall into a deep sleep.
Good night, and good luck.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
A Tale of Two Governors
In 1962, during his tour as Kennedy’s Ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith used the pseudonym Mark Epernay to author a slender book of essays entitled “The McLandress Dimension.” Purportedly the work of one Herchel McLandress, an obscure but influential Boston psychometricist – in fact, an invention of Galbraith’s fertile mind – the McLandress dimension was a metric for the length of time an individual could think about anything other than self. Richard Nixon, with a score of three seconds, was at the bottom of the scale; then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, at four and one-half hours, was near the top, bested only by Eleanor Roosevelt for whom the figure was infinity.
This concept, while wholly fictitious, seems relevant to the strange, concurrent developments in the Governor’s offices of South Carolina and Alaska. In both cases we are being treated to the teeth-grinding results of politicians who have evidently lost any altruistic notions they might once have had about public service, seeing elected office not as an obligation to the citizenry, but rather an opportunity to advance one’s own interests.
In Governor Sanford’s case, we see an individual who waltzed off to the Argentine without bothering to tell anyone how he might be reached in the event some untoward event – say, new unwelcome efforts by Washington to prop up the state’s economy with infusions of cash – required his immediate attention. The proximate issue, to be clear, is not the reason for his absence. Modesty and forbearance suggest this be left to the Governor and his immediate family. Rather the focus should be on this demonstrated unwillingness and possible future inability to carry out the responsibilities of office which, it should be noted, he swore a solemn oath to effectuate. Past, but more important, probable future failure in this undertaking would seem more than ample justification for action by South Carolinians to seek on an expedited basis a replacement, leaving to Governor Sanford the option of resignation or impeachment.
Not so in the case of Governor Palin. Here, as far as we know, are no transgressions beyond woeful worldly ignorance and utter disregard of syntax. We may eventually learn more of the reasons for the Governor’s untimely abandonment of the duties of office which, like her South Carolina counterpart, she had sworn to discharge to the best of her abilities. But barring revelation of a potentially impeachable offense, we will likely be left, as now, with the suspicion either that the Governor’s work was no longer appealing or sufficiently remunerative, or that the siren song of higher office became irresistible. In any of these cases the citizens of Alaska might consider suing the soon-to-be former Governor for breach of promise.
It may be some scant comfort that neither Governor Sanford nor Governor Palin offers President Nixon serious competition at the bottom of the McLandress Dimension scale. But both give painful evidence of fully subscribing to the depressingly prevalent notion that “It’s all about me.”
This concept, while wholly fictitious, seems relevant to the strange, concurrent developments in the Governor’s offices of South Carolina and Alaska. In both cases we are being treated to the teeth-grinding results of politicians who have evidently lost any altruistic notions they might once have had about public service, seeing elected office not as an obligation to the citizenry, but rather an opportunity to advance one’s own interests.
In Governor Sanford’s case, we see an individual who waltzed off to the Argentine without bothering to tell anyone how he might be reached in the event some untoward event – say, new unwelcome efforts by Washington to prop up the state’s economy with infusions of cash – required his immediate attention. The proximate issue, to be clear, is not the reason for his absence. Modesty and forbearance suggest this be left to the Governor and his immediate family. Rather the focus should be on this demonstrated unwillingness and possible future inability to carry out the responsibilities of office which, it should be noted, he swore a solemn oath to effectuate. Past, but more important, probable future failure in this undertaking would seem more than ample justification for action by South Carolinians to seek on an expedited basis a replacement, leaving to Governor Sanford the option of resignation or impeachment.
Not so in the case of Governor Palin. Here, as far as we know, are no transgressions beyond woeful worldly ignorance and utter disregard of syntax. We may eventually learn more of the reasons for the Governor’s untimely abandonment of the duties of office which, like her South Carolina counterpart, she had sworn to discharge to the best of her abilities. But barring revelation of a potentially impeachable offense, we will likely be left, as now, with the suspicion either that the Governor’s work was no longer appealing or sufficiently remunerative, or that the siren song of higher office became irresistible. In any of these cases the citizens of Alaska might consider suing the soon-to-be former Governor for breach of promise.
It may be some scant comfort that neither Governor Sanford nor Governor Palin offers President Nixon serious competition at the bottom of the McLandress Dimension scale. But both give painful evidence of fully subscribing to the depressingly prevalent notion that “It’s all about me.”
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Not-So-Grand Old Party
The slow-motion train wreck that is the Republican Party has picked up a bit of speed with the near back-to-back admissions by Sen. John Ensign of Nevada and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina of having strayed from the marital straight and narrow. In the Governor’s case, the confession was delivered in remarks sufficiently bizarre to justify questioning whether ole Mark is playing with a deck of 52. Although in fairness, his originally unexplained absence from the state might have been applauded by the teachers and students on whose behalf he turned down $700 million in educational stimulus funds.
In both cases, a member of the GOP prominent enough to have garnered some mention as potential a Presidential candidate in 2012 has been brought low and forced to consider the awful possibility of life off the political bandwagon. If the GOP keeps shedding prospective ticket leaders at this fearsome rate, we’ll soon be treated to the return of Sarah Palin to the national spotlight, an possibility which no doubt has comedy writers everywhere enthusiastically appealing to their deities.
But perhaps this is unfair to the party of Lincoln. In a truly Herculean display of optimism, Grover Norquist disagrees that the philanderings of Messrs Ensign, Sanford and their predecessors suggest problems for Republicans. To the contrary, he thinks “. . .It shows that sexual attractiveness of limited-government conservatism.” Which seems analogous to thinking John Dillinger cute because of his affinity for guns. Although, come to think of it, this is a sentiment many Republicans might actually espouse.
To be fair, malfeasance by politicians is hardly an exclusively Republican phenomenon. See, just at the national level, Clinton, W., Edwards, J., Rostenkowski, D., and, more likely than not, Jefferson, W., who you may recall had the bright idea of wrapping up a 100-large bribe and stashing it in his freezer. Obviously greed and disdain for the law and one’s electorate play well on both sides of the aisle.
But what particularly grates – almost uniformly - in the cases of Republicans fallen from grace is the revealed monstrous hypocrisy. Family men all, pillars of their communities, exemplars of probity, and as happy to bask in the glow of their halos as to decry and denounce those less morally elevated. Which is to say virtually everyone of a differing political persuasion. You might think the succession of colleagues being brought low would somehow temper their expressions of righteous indignation. You might even think one or two at least would recall the mossy advice to residents of glass houses. Evidently, you would be wrong.
“I think there is somewhat of an identity crisis in the Republican Party,” says Tony Perkins, president of the evangelical Family Research Council. “Are they going to be a party that attracts values voters, and are they going to be the party that lives by those values?” More to the immediate point, can they keep their accusatory fingers in their pockets and their trousers buttoned?
In both cases, a member of the GOP prominent enough to have garnered some mention as potential a Presidential candidate in 2012 has been brought low and forced to consider the awful possibility of life off the political bandwagon. If the GOP keeps shedding prospective ticket leaders at this fearsome rate, we’ll soon be treated to the return of Sarah Palin to the national spotlight, an possibility which no doubt has comedy writers everywhere enthusiastically appealing to their deities.
But perhaps this is unfair to the party of Lincoln. In a truly Herculean display of optimism, Grover Norquist disagrees that the philanderings of Messrs Ensign, Sanford and their predecessors suggest problems for Republicans. To the contrary, he thinks “. . .It shows that sexual attractiveness of limited-government conservatism.” Which seems analogous to thinking John Dillinger cute because of his affinity for guns. Although, come to think of it, this is a sentiment many Republicans might actually espouse.
To be fair, malfeasance by politicians is hardly an exclusively Republican phenomenon. See, just at the national level, Clinton, W., Edwards, J., Rostenkowski, D., and, more likely than not, Jefferson, W., who you may recall had the bright idea of wrapping up a 100-large bribe and stashing it in his freezer. Obviously greed and disdain for the law and one’s electorate play well on both sides of the aisle.
But what particularly grates – almost uniformly - in the cases of Republicans fallen from grace is the revealed monstrous hypocrisy. Family men all, pillars of their communities, exemplars of probity, and as happy to bask in the glow of their halos as to decry and denounce those less morally elevated. Which is to say virtually everyone of a differing political persuasion. You might think the succession of colleagues being brought low would somehow temper their expressions of righteous indignation. You might even think one or two at least would recall the mossy advice to residents of glass houses. Evidently, you would be wrong.
“I think there is somewhat of an identity crisis in the Republican Party,” says Tony Perkins, president of the evangelical Family Research Council. “Are they going to be a party that attracts values voters, and are they going to be the party that lives by those values?” More to the immediate point, can they keep their accusatory fingers in their pockets and their trousers buttoned?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
R.I.P., GM
After the government’s bailout of Chrysler in 1979 – a then-mind-boggling $1.5 billion undertaking -- Lee Iaccoca famously said, “If you can find a better car, buy it.” Subsequent droves of prospective GM buyers have heeded this trenchant advice, and acted accordingly. And so GM, underwater to the staggering tune of $90 billion, has finally tossed in the towel.
But in all the reportage of GM’s bankruptcy, precious little is being said of a root cause of the debacle. This is not, as might be thought, anything so abstract as brand identity dilution, or as arcane as GM’s wage/benefits competitive disadvantage, or as simply boneheaded as hiring gumshoes to dig up dirt on Ralph Nader, although all have contributed to The General’s demise No, this cause of GM’s decline from over half of the U.S. auto market to something under a fifth and a share price that won’t buy a cup of coffee is simply that car buyers, to an increasingly large extent, haven’t wanted to buy any of the passenger vehicles the company over-enthusiastically cranked out.
This seems odd on its face. You might think that a corporate entity with GM’s resources would have had the presence of mind and the ability to hire the wizards to plumb the depths of consumers’ automotive likes and dislikes, then build a product reflecting same and price it somewhere in the area of reasonable value-for-money. You might think, but evidently you would be wrong.
This is, after all – a phrase with a sadly relevant ring -- a company that brought to the unsuspecting and subsequently unimpressed auto market such triumphs as the Pontiac Aztek, the Cadillac Cimarron, and the Chevrolet Corvair . What could they possibly have been thinking?
Well, here’s what they weren’t thinking. To an appalling and eventually fatal degree, they weren’t thinking anywhere nearly enough like the people who decide they need new four-wheel transportation, look at some ads, do some research, talk to some friends, maybe go to a car show, check out a dealer or two, then sign up for a long series of monthly payments, drive their new pride and joy home from the dealer and park it proudly in their driveway. At which point, far too often in the case of GM products, it all starts to fall apart. At least figuratively,
Because while any number of car enthusiast publications and websites spin out performance numbers, the measurement that often matters most is how the buggy performs parked in front of its owner’s house. Does it support, even promote the owner’s self-image? Does it attract appreciative, even envious attention from the neighbors? And does it do so to an extent sufficient to sell enough copies to support the mind-bogglingly complex operation that is GM?.
Evidently not. A major reason for which is to be found on the streets of the U.S. auto industry’s hometown, the Motor City, Detroit. Or better, on the leafy avenues and lanes of Detroit’s suburbs where dwell the executives responsible, virtually always in committee, for saying, “Yup – this one’s as good as we can make it. Let’s crank up the production lines.” And who, at the end of their workday descend to the garage of their headquarters where, if a chauffeured limo does not await, they climb into a current-year, company-provided car which will have been washed, fueled and serviced by and at the company’s expense. And who, as a result, have only the gauziest understanding of how their supposed customers actually deal with, and relate to their products. If GM’s managers and friends – and Detroit is nothing if not a company town – drive the same cars in the same other-worldly fashion, how could they possibly appreciate, let alone anticipate the lack of buyer enthusiasm which regularly met GM’s product offerings?
Saturn, which GM launched with such optimistic fervor in 1990, was billed as “A different kind of car, from a different kind of company.” Although some 500 miles from Detroit, the new Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee was insufficiently distant to avoid the effects of GM’s fatal disconnect with its market. GM announced the plant will be one of two put on “standby” this fall, ready to resume production at some indefinite future date. As if.
But in all the reportage of GM’s bankruptcy, precious little is being said of a root cause of the debacle. This is not, as might be thought, anything so abstract as brand identity dilution, or as arcane as GM’s wage/benefits competitive disadvantage, or as simply boneheaded as hiring gumshoes to dig up dirt on Ralph Nader, although all have contributed to The General’s demise No, this cause of GM’s decline from over half of the U.S. auto market to something under a fifth and a share price that won’t buy a cup of coffee is simply that car buyers, to an increasingly large extent, haven’t wanted to buy any of the passenger vehicles the company over-enthusiastically cranked out.
This seems odd on its face. You might think that a corporate entity with GM’s resources would have had the presence of mind and the ability to hire the wizards to plumb the depths of consumers’ automotive likes and dislikes, then build a product reflecting same and price it somewhere in the area of reasonable value-for-money. You might think, but evidently you would be wrong.
This is, after all – a phrase with a sadly relevant ring -- a company that brought to the unsuspecting and subsequently unimpressed auto market such triumphs as the Pontiac Aztek, the Cadillac Cimarron, and the Chevrolet Corvair . What could they possibly have been thinking?
Well, here’s what they weren’t thinking. To an appalling and eventually fatal degree, they weren’t thinking anywhere nearly enough like the people who decide they need new four-wheel transportation, look at some ads, do some research, talk to some friends, maybe go to a car show, check out a dealer or two, then sign up for a long series of monthly payments, drive their new pride and joy home from the dealer and park it proudly in their driveway. At which point, far too often in the case of GM products, it all starts to fall apart. At least figuratively,
Because while any number of car enthusiast publications and websites spin out performance numbers, the measurement that often matters most is how the buggy performs parked in front of its owner’s house. Does it support, even promote the owner’s self-image? Does it attract appreciative, even envious attention from the neighbors? And does it do so to an extent sufficient to sell enough copies to support the mind-bogglingly complex operation that is GM?.
Evidently not. A major reason for which is to be found on the streets of the U.S. auto industry’s hometown, the Motor City, Detroit. Or better, on the leafy avenues and lanes of Detroit’s suburbs where dwell the executives responsible, virtually always in committee, for saying, “Yup – this one’s as good as we can make it. Let’s crank up the production lines.” And who, at the end of their workday descend to the garage of their headquarters where, if a chauffeured limo does not await, they climb into a current-year, company-provided car which will have been washed, fueled and serviced by and at the company’s expense. And who, as a result, have only the gauziest understanding of how their supposed customers actually deal with, and relate to their products. If GM’s managers and friends – and Detroit is nothing if not a company town – drive the same cars in the same other-worldly fashion, how could they possibly appreciate, let alone anticipate the lack of buyer enthusiasm which regularly met GM’s product offerings?
Saturn, which GM launched with such optimistic fervor in 1990, was billed as “A different kind of car, from a different kind of company.” Although some 500 miles from Detroit, the new Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee was insufficiently distant to avoid the effects of GM’s fatal disconnect with its market. GM announced the plant will be one of two put on “standby” this fall, ready to resume production at some indefinite future date. As if.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Real Story
As we stumble about in the financial apocalyptic wilderness, thanks should be given for those too brief moments of frivolity and mirth, without which our days would be indeed drear. Most recently, such entertainment has been generously provided by the leaders, spokespeople, apologists, camp followers, and enablers associated with the Republican party. Not that they are a numerically impressive band, mind you. But clearly its members have taken with a vengeance to the notion that having nothing to say and saying it loudly go hand in hand.
So we have the present spectacle of the GOP waxing wroth over Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to clear the record on what she was, or wasn’t told by her CIA briefers and when she was, or wasn’t told it. As an attempt to divert attention, this is world class. The good Speaker will presumably sort out her stories and be judged, as is right and proper, by her Congressional colleagues and constituents. What is of nearly infinitely greater moment is the issue that gave rise to the Speaker’s discomfiture in the first place, that being the imposition of torture on detainees by and in the name of the U.S.
At the outset, it would be well to dispense with the prissy labeling of this practice as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” George Orwell couldn’t have done better. Beyond conjuring an anodyne name, those responsible for this long-playing horror show were evidently sufficiently concerned by what they were doing to be guided – exonerated before the fact, if you will – by legal opinions the logic of which was no less tortured than those subjected to the grotesque allowed practices.
But still come those, the former Vice President leading the pack, who claim the ends justified the means, and that the absence of a repetition of 9/11 is proof positive and ample justification for whatever was done. Against this outrageous position stand several arguments against the use of torture:
It’s illegal. A Nixonian (or, distressingly, Condoleezian) “If the President does it, that makes it legal” justification notwithstanding, torture – as the term is commonly understood – is prohibited by, among other strictures, the Geneva Convention. In 1947 a Japanese officer was tried, convicted and sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a U.S. citizen.
It doesn’t work. Two “high value” Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to 183 and 83 applications of waterboarding. One might wonder what fresh information was likely to be offered up after the 10th session. Let alone the 50th. Or 150th. Asked in 2008 if “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been effective, Robert Mueller, the Bush-appointed Director of the FBI, said, “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
It’s counter-productive. Beyond serving as an A+ recruitment tool for our enemies, the U.S. use of torture has been roundly condemned by our allies, even to the extent, in the specific case of Turkey, of inhibiting our Middle East military efforts. Even more distressingly and damaging, abandonment of the higher moral ground compromises our ability to lead by example, to engage in useful diplomacy, in fact to do much at all in pursuit of our legitimate interests in ways that don’t involve blowing things and people up. And by what right could we protest the inhuman treatment of a U.S. citizen by some unfriendly nation when we ourselves have done no less?
There are alternatives. In the real life, far away from Jack Bauer’s fantasy world, the elicitation of information from those who would initially rather withhold it is a practice about as old as hills. See, for example, any police drama or real-life practice. Someway, somehow, the commonweal has managed to survive an endless series of enemies, not to mention their lawyers, without resorting to the thumbscrews. A CIA officer offered this nice distinction: “If you torture a suspect, he may tell you the location of his safe house. If you befriend him, he may tell you it’s booby-trapped.”
So let’s review. Torture is a bad idea because it’s illegal, doesn’t work, is counter-productive, and has alternatives. And that, not Nancy’s self-justifications, is the real story.
So we have the present spectacle of the GOP waxing wroth over Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s efforts to clear the record on what she was, or wasn’t told by her CIA briefers and when she was, or wasn’t told it. As an attempt to divert attention, this is world class. The good Speaker will presumably sort out her stories and be judged, as is right and proper, by her Congressional colleagues and constituents. What is of nearly infinitely greater moment is the issue that gave rise to the Speaker’s discomfiture in the first place, that being the imposition of torture on detainees by and in the name of the U.S.
At the outset, it would be well to dispense with the prissy labeling of this practice as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” George Orwell couldn’t have done better. Beyond conjuring an anodyne name, those responsible for this long-playing horror show were evidently sufficiently concerned by what they were doing to be guided – exonerated before the fact, if you will – by legal opinions the logic of which was no less tortured than those subjected to the grotesque allowed practices.
But still come those, the former Vice President leading the pack, who claim the ends justified the means, and that the absence of a repetition of 9/11 is proof positive and ample justification for whatever was done. Against this outrageous position stand several arguments against the use of torture:
It’s illegal. A Nixonian (or, distressingly, Condoleezian) “If the President does it, that makes it legal” justification notwithstanding, torture – as the term is commonly understood – is prohibited by, among other strictures, the Geneva Convention. In 1947 a Japanese officer was tried, convicted and sentenced to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding a U.S. citizen.
It doesn’t work. Two “high value” Al Qaeda prisoners were subjected to 183 and 83 applications of waterboarding. One might wonder what fresh information was likely to be offered up after the 10th session. Let alone the 50th. Or 150th. Asked in 2008 if “enhanced interrogation techniques” had been effective, Robert Mueller, the Bush-appointed Director of the FBI, said, “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
It’s counter-productive. Beyond serving as an A+ recruitment tool for our enemies, the U.S. use of torture has been roundly condemned by our allies, even to the extent, in the specific case of Turkey, of inhibiting our Middle East military efforts. Even more distressingly and damaging, abandonment of the higher moral ground compromises our ability to lead by example, to engage in useful diplomacy, in fact to do much at all in pursuit of our legitimate interests in ways that don’t involve blowing things and people up. And by what right could we protest the inhuman treatment of a U.S. citizen by some unfriendly nation when we ourselves have done no less?
There are alternatives. In the real life, far away from Jack Bauer’s fantasy world, the elicitation of information from those who would initially rather withhold it is a practice about as old as hills. See, for example, any police drama or real-life practice. Someway, somehow, the commonweal has managed to survive an endless series of enemies, not to mention their lawyers, without resorting to the thumbscrews. A CIA officer offered this nice distinction: “If you torture a suspect, he may tell you the location of his safe house. If you befriend him, he may tell you it’s booby-trapped.”
So let’s review. Torture is a bad idea because it’s illegal, doesn’t work, is counter-productive, and has alternatives. And that, not Nancy’s self-justifications, is the real story.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The New Scarlet Letter
Poor Ed Liddy. Hauled before a Congressional subcommittee yesterday he must have felt like the object of a multi-player Whack-a-Mole game. He took offense at one comment, only to have his interlocutor confirm that such was exactly his intention in making it. The disclosure of receipt of death threats by AIG employees was acknowledged, but probably not with such reassurance that the potential targets are eager to venture from their houses.
After a full dose of this verbal mutilation, Mr. Liddy offered that he was encouraging bonus recipients whose salary exceeded $100,000 to return half the bonus money. Too little, and likely too late, as the witch hunt for any half-plausibly responsible party continues. Hardly a wonder that the President has temporarily abandoned the capital fortress for the more congenial venues of a Los Angeles suburb town meeting and an appearance on the Tonight Show.
But ol’ Ed may be on to something. As Andrew Cuomo, New York State’s Attorney General seems intent on determining, those having pocketed the bonuses may have little protection from public disclosure of their names and respective extraordinary emoluments. Save of course, the seemingly attractive defense of having, after due consideration, returned them in their entirety.
As every parent knows, the instillation of desired juvenile behavior involves the careful application of both positive and negative reinforcement. And what, even allowing for the presumed adulthood of the AIG’ers at issue could be more conducive to subsequent right action, not to mention recouping the bonus money, and quelling the unseemly rush to judgment and execution of sentence, the latter two not necessarily in that order?
Surely not all eyes will weep for those with salaries of $100,000 having to make due without what were, in numerous cases, bonuses of stupefying magnitude. The total bonus pool of $165 million was spread over 418 employees – an average of just under $400,000 each and every one. And while some poor souls fell below that figure, fully 73 became first-time, or more likely multimillionaires.
After a brief period to allow calm reflection by those involved, AIG should accede to Congress’s request for the names of the 418 with salaries over $100,000, along with the amount of their bonus and, crucially, how much if not all has been returned.
One would hope those making the generous, not to mention prudent decision would be properly recognized, perhaps even partially exonerated for their past roles in leading AIG over the brink. For those choosing otherwise, well, the resulting scarlet letter might be more figurative than Hester Prynne’s, but might better serve to identify and shame.
After a full dose of this verbal mutilation, Mr. Liddy offered that he was encouraging bonus recipients whose salary exceeded $100,000 to return half the bonus money. Too little, and likely too late, as the witch hunt for any half-plausibly responsible party continues. Hardly a wonder that the President has temporarily abandoned the capital fortress for the more congenial venues of a Los Angeles suburb town meeting and an appearance on the Tonight Show.
But ol’ Ed may be on to something. As Andrew Cuomo, New York State’s Attorney General seems intent on determining, those having pocketed the bonuses may have little protection from public disclosure of their names and respective extraordinary emoluments. Save of course, the seemingly attractive defense of having, after due consideration, returned them in their entirety.
As every parent knows, the instillation of desired juvenile behavior involves the careful application of both positive and negative reinforcement. And what, even allowing for the presumed adulthood of the AIG’ers at issue could be more conducive to subsequent right action, not to mention recouping the bonus money, and quelling the unseemly rush to judgment and execution of sentence, the latter two not necessarily in that order?
Surely not all eyes will weep for those with salaries of $100,000 having to make due without what were, in numerous cases, bonuses of stupefying magnitude. The total bonus pool of $165 million was spread over 418 employees – an average of just under $400,000 each and every one. And while some poor souls fell below that figure, fully 73 became first-time, or more likely multimillionaires.
After a brief period to allow calm reflection by those involved, AIG should accede to Congress’s request for the names of the 418 with salaries over $100,000, along with the amount of their bonus and, crucially, how much if not all has been returned.
One would hope those making the generous, not to mention prudent decision would be properly recognized, perhaps even partially exonerated for their past roles in leading AIG over the brink. For those choosing otherwise, well, the resulting scarlet letter might be more figurative than Hester Prynne’s, but might better serve to identify and shame.
Madness
No, not the seasonal celebration of collegiate team ability to put a ball into a netted basket. We refer rather to the sentiment so memorably ellucidated by Howard Beale in “Network:” “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this any more!”
Bringing these references to mind is, of course, the ongoing spectacle occasioned by payment of outsized bonuses to many of the very same AIG worthies responsible for bringing the global financial house of cards down around their – and our ears. It develops that AIG, having been showered with $200 billion in an as-yet unsuccessful effort to keep it vaguely afloat, dispensed some $165 million in bonuses to 418 lucky employees. And former employees, as 52 of the recipients no longer grace AIG’s payroll, a fact which somewhat undercuts the rationalization of the bonuses as necessary to prevent the slow-motion train wreck that is AIG from doing further damage. Politicians of every stripe are lining up for their sound bites expressing outrage at this unconscionable perversion of something or other, vowing to take all steps necessary to rescind the bonuses while their recipients, in one of the more extreme scenarios, are encouraged to fall on their ceremonial swords. Presumably in full public view.
Well, we’re all mad as hell. Politicians have no monopoly on anger at how a tiny group of individuals gamed the system for their own pecuniary benefit while the supposed regulators, perhaps mesmerized by a 14,000 Dow and beguiled by the apparent endless success of a let-‘er-rip approach to market oversight ignored any and all signs of an impending catastrophe and even the too-rare expert warnings.
If outrage could be monetized, this crisis would be over by lunch. But as we sharpen our poleaxes and head off for the castle in search of retribution and the heads of those responsible for, or at least proximate to the problem, some caution might be advisable.
Among the redresses being loudly advocated, including by some who should know better (front and center, Representatives Maloney and Frank) is the ex post facto voiding of the contracts under which the bonuses were paid. Or the imposition of a confiscatory tax rate on the misbegotten gains. While perhaps momentarily satisfying, these steps and similar others run a serious risk of exacerbating the problem.
Consider. The U.S. Government, through whatever agency matters not, undertakes to invalidate a legal document on the basis of its having regrettable, unforeseen results. Or, displeased with the financial doings of one or more of its citizens, subjects them to retroactive taxes on some portion of their income arbitrarily deemed offensive.
You want madness? The quick result would be a total destruction of any confidence in any undertaking, financial or otherwise, more complex than immediate barter. The notion of, for example, “full faith and credit” would be supplanted by Humpty Dumpty’s rather more flexible: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” By these lights, a $10,000 U.S. Treasury note could, on a bureaucratic whim, be revalued at $50. The wretched citizens of Zimbabwe are too experienced with this sort of economic chaos, and theirs is a situation no sane person would welcome. Confidence that the vast amount of U.S. debt the Chinese hold is critical to their continued willingness to do so, and their disposal thereof would make the current meltdown look like a pleasant picnic in the park in late spring.
Let’s hold off on the mindless rage. At least before lining up the firing squad, let’s make sure it’s not in a circular formation.
Bringing these references to mind is, of course, the ongoing spectacle occasioned by payment of outsized bonuses to many of the very same AIG worthies responsible for bringing the global financial house of cards down around their – and our ears. It develops that AIG, having been showered with $200 billion in an as-yet unsuccessful effort to keep it vaguely afloat, dispensed some $165 million in bonuses to 418 lucky employees. And former employees, as 52 of the recipients no longer grace AIG’s payroll, a fact which somewhat undercuts the rationalization of the bonuses as necessary to prevent the slow-motion train wreck that is AIG from doing further damage. Politicians of every stripe are lining up for their sound bites expressing outrage at this unconscionable perversion of something or other, vowing to take all steps necessary to rescind the bonuses while their recipients, in one of the more extreme scenarios, are encouraged to fall on their ceremonial swords. Presumably in full public view.
Well, we’re all mad as hell. Politicians have no monopoly on anger at how a tiny group of individuals gamed the system for their own pecuniary benefit while the supposed regulators, perhaps mesmerized by a 14,000 Dow and beguiled by the apparent endless success of a let-‘er-rip approach to market oversight ignored any and all signs of an impending catastrophe and even the too-rare expert warnings.
If outrage could be monetized, this crisis would be over by lunch. But as we sharpen our poleaxes and head off for the castle in search of retribution and the heads of those responsible for, or at least proximate to the problem, some caution might be advisable.
Among the redresses being loudly advocated, including by some who should know better (front and center, Representatives Maloney and Frank) is the ex post facto voiding of the contracts under which the bonuses were paid. Or the imposition of a confiscatory tax rate on the misbegotten gains. While perhaps momentarily satisfying, these steps and similar others run a serious risk of exacerbating the problem.
Consider. The U.S. Government, through whatever agency matters not, undertakes to invalidate a legal document on the basis of its having regrettable, unforeseen results. Or, displeased with the financial doings of one or more of its citizens, subjects them to retroactive taxes on some portion of their income arbitrarily deemed offensive.
You want madness? The quick result would be a total destruction of any confidence in any undertaking, financial or otherwise, more complex than immediate barter. The notion of, for example, “full faith and credit” would be supplanted by Humpty Dumpty’s rather more flexible: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” By these lights, a $10,000 U.S. Treasury note could, on a bureaucratic whim, be revalued at $50. The wretched citizens of Zimbabwe are too experienced with this sort of economic chaos, and theirs is a situation no sane person would welcome. Confidence that the vast amount of U.S. debt the Chinese hold is critical to their continued willingness to do so, and their disposal thereof would make the current meltdown look like a pleasant picnic in the park in late spring.
Let’s hold off on the mindless rage. At least before lining up the firing squad, let’s make sure it’s not in a circular formation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)