OK, somebody has to do something. It might have to be you and me, but it’s got to be somebody and it’s got to be now. We’re letting partisan buffoonery stand in the way of reason at exactly the wrong time.
Look, we’re facing economic crisis and I don’t mean mortgages, Wall Street, or unemployment. I mean you, me and our children. I mean national debt and I mean taxes. Think about this: my share of the national debt is $37,204 today. So is yours. So is each of your children’s. And it’ll be more tomorrow. And it’ll be more as the $787 billion bailout finds a way to fund itself.
There’s only a couple of ways to get that money. Either take more money in (increase taxes) or pay less money out (cut spending.) It’s really that simple. Honest. So who’s in favor of taking more money in? Taxes anyone? Bueller? I didn’t think so.
President Obama has proposed reviving the PAYGO practices and codifying them into law. (PAYGO basically says that if you want a dollar of spending you’ve got to cut a dollar of spending. Pay as you go. Get it?) Critics run to the right and say he is a hypocrite for requiring fiscal discipline after authorizing trillions in bailout money. I say phooey. The critics cannot simply say “you OK’d $787 billion in bailout so we’re not going to worry about being responsible with the taxpayer dollar either.” That, my friends, is partisan jack-assery getting in the way of your well being. And your children’s well being.
Now I’m not going to stand here in the glow of the old chestnut “I’ve got to live within my means, so why shouldn’t the government?” There are times for deficit spending. Just look at your local governments hamstrung by balanced budget laws. Just when things get tough economically they start raising taxes on you because you insisted they balance their budget. What I’m saying is the time for deficit spending is past. Sooner or later, er, sooner rather than later, we’re going to have to get some financial discipline in Washington.
So let’s take PAYGO out of the context of the bailout and put it into the context of fiscal responsibility. The prudent thing to do now, facing this huge debt, is to cut spending by more than one dollar for each new dollar spent. That’s right. More. I call it Super PAYGO. or SPAYGO. Or SUPAYGO, I'm not really sure yet. But if you want to spend $1 on guns, then cut $1.50 in butter. Raise the bar. Cut the expenses. But how on earth can the government cut, honestly cut, expenses? The same way corporate America does it. Get better at what you do. Streamline. Increase productivity. Nothing incents innovation more than hard times. Turn that spotlight onto the government and make them use your money more efficiently. Easier said than done, yes, but start saying it or it’ll never get done.
I don’t believe PAYGO needs to be a law (remember the hamstrung local governments.) It simply needs to be a practice enforced by our leadership. Don’t pass a bill with irresponsible spending in committee. Or on the House floor. Or the Senate. Or the White House. Don’t require that a law force you to act responsibly – do it yourself that’s why we elected you.
There’s an old adage that says the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The next best time is right now. Well, same goes for fiscal responsibility in Washington. It is time, America, to plant that tree. It is time before the idiocracy of super partisan politics causes generations of financial hardship. By the way, your share of the national debt went up one cent while you read this. So did your kid’s.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Spin Cycle
Have you ever given money to church? Have you ever bought a lottery ticket? Which one did you do for the potential (however misguided) financial reward? Lottery ticket. Not church, right? Right.
This week I happened to see a segment on the Christian Broadcast Network. Don’t ask how or why, I just did. It’s apparently pledge drive time at the ol’ CBN and to that end Pat Robertson made quite a promise. Donate money to CBN and you will see financial reward come back to you. He wasn’t talking Heavenly reward. He was talking payday here on Earth. He said that the government will break their promises, people will break their promises, but God won’t. And God is promising financial rewards if you’ll just send in a little cash. He quoted scripture and ran out a few examples. A guy suddenly inherited $10,000 after donating and another miraculously found a job right after he started to tithe. These two, according to Pat, are all the proof you need to whip out that check book and fire off a donation to the largest tele-ministry on earth. Then sit back and wait for the riches to roll in. That’s called spin, baby.
Every so often it’s pledge drive time for public television too. They have great spin. It goes something like this: “if you like what you see, send us some money and we’ll keep showing it.” I enjoy the cooking shows. I like to watch the travel shows and I like the fact that Sesame Street has a spot on the dial. I usually give them money, because I like what I see and want them to keep showing it. Same story with public radio. I love to listen to Car Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. I’ll pay for those programs. Here’s my check. If the next NPR pledge drive says “send us some money and you will reap financial rewards” then I’m out because that’s a lie.
So the CBN isn’t getting any of my money. In fact they’re getting a little of my ire for being so deceitful. Donating money to church won’t make you rich. Sorry. Let’s look at the numbers. I go to church with about 1,000 other people. Let’s say 30% of them give money. 300 people giving money. In any given week do you think something good happens to one of those 300 people? Yes it does. Do you think something good happens to one of the 700 who don’t give? You bet. These are independent events people. It is wrong, dare I say sinful, for Pat to stand there in your television set and promise your desperate soul that if you give him your hard earned cash you will get money in return. Shame, shame, shame.
I don’t have a problem with giving money to churches or preachers. In fact, I think faith-based giving plays a bigger role in making the world a better place than it gets credit for. As is the case so often, however, my problem is with the spin. Imagine how much more appealing it would be if Pat said “hey, we do a lot of good in the world. We spread the word of God, we build water wells and school houses in poor nations, we fight disease and starvation. If that’s important to you then send us a check and we’ll keep doing it.” Now you’re talking my language Pat.
I have two little thoughts eating away at my brain, though, as to why Pat doesn’t speak my language. One is that maybe the reality is “hey, we need to make big mortgage payments and buy new Cadillacs but you wouldn’t send us your money if I told you that.” The second is “hey, I know other people’s suffering and our good works don’t move you so I’m looking for the most effective way to separate you from your money.” Do they really know what the Christian part of CBN stands for anymore?
This week I happened to see a segment on the Christian Broadcast Network. Don’t ask how or why, I just did. It’s apparently pledge drive time at the ol’ CBN and to that end Pat Robertson made quite a promise. Donate money to CBN and you will see financial reward come back to you. He wasn’t talking Heavenly reward. He was talking payday here on Earth. He said that the government will break their promises, people will break their promises, but God won’t. And God is promising financial rewards if you’ll just send in a little cash. He quoted scripture and ran out a few examples. A guy suddenly inherited $10,000 after donating and another miraculously found a job right after he started to tithe. These two, according to Pat, are all the proof you need to whip out that check book and fire off a donation to the largest tele-ministry on earth. Then sit back and wait for the riches to roll in. That’s called spin, baby.
Every so often it’s pledge drive time for public television too. They have great spin. It goes something like this: “if you like what you see, send us some money and we’ll keep showing it.” I enjoy the cooking shows. I like to watch the travel shows and I like the fact that Sesame Street has a spot on the dial. I usually give them money, because I like what I see and want them to keep showing it. Same story with public radio. I love to listen to Car Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. I’ll pay for those programs. Here’s my check. If the next NPR pledge drive says “send us some money and you will reap financial rewards” then I’m out because that’s a lie.
So the CBN isn’t getting any of my money. In fact they’re getting a little of my ire for being so deceitful. Donating money to church won’t make you rich. Sorry. Let’s look at the numbers. I go to church with about 1,000 other people. Let’s say 30% of them give money. 300 people giving money. In any given week do you think something good happens to one of those 300 people? Yes it does. Do you think something good happens to one of the 700 who don’t give? You bet. These are independent events people. It is wrong, dare I say sinful, for Pat to stand there in your television set and promise your desperate soul that if you give him your hard earned cash you will get money in return. Shame, shame, shame.
I don’t have a problem with giving money to churches or preachers. In fact, I think faith-based giving plays a bigger role in making the world a better place than it gets credit for. As is the case so often, however, my problem is with the spin. Imagine how much more appealing it would be if Pat said “hey, we do a lot of good in the world. We spread the word of God, we build water wells and school houses in poor nations, we fight disease and starvation. If that’s important to you then send us a check and we’ll keep doing it.” Now you’re talking my language Pat.
I have two little thoughts eating away at my brain, though, as to why Pat doesn’t speak my language. One is that maybe the reality is “hey, we need to make big mortgage payments and buy new Cadillacs but you wouldn’t send us your money if I told you that.” The second is “hey, I know other people’s suffering and our good works don’t move you so I’m looking for the most effective way to separate you from your money.” Do they really know what the Christian part of CBN stands for anymore?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Give me a break
Sometimes you just can’t win. I am Catholic and completely fed up with all these other Catholics getting so upset over a little fiction set against the backdrop of the Catholic Church. Seriously, don’t we have a little more to be worried about?
I’m talking of course about Angels and Demons, the latest Dan Brown book made into a blockbuster movie. Catholics far and wide, well, at least vocal ones, are condemning the film as a “gratuitously outrageous” portrayal of the Church. It has been called “outlandish.” I’ve got another word for it: fiction.
Storytelling has been entertaining people for thousands of years. Whether from cavemen around campfires or modern movie makers, we all want to hear a good tale and be entertained. Would Harry Potter be such a smash if it were about a bunch of normal kids? No. Would you care about Harold and Kumar if they just went out and got a few hamburgers? No. Normal kids and fast food are the stuff of ordinary life. We want to see something extraordinary when we go to the movies.
How do you think the Catholics would like the Church portrayed in movies? I saw a movie a few years ago called The Barbarian Invasions. It’s a pretty misleading title, I’ll give you that, but in one scene the son goes to a Catholic Church in Canada. It’s essentially abandoned. All the statues and other religious things are in the basement in storage because the congregation withered away. That’s a pretty realistic portrayal of today’s Catholic Church in Canada – or so I’m told. Where are the news stories of Catholics saying “See? See? This is the true Catholic Church, The Da Vinci Code is sooooo unrealistic.”
One of these vocal bishops somewhere said that it was irresponsible to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment with this movie. I agree that stirring up “anti” sentiment is bad, but we’re not talking about the Holocaust here. We’re not talking about racial prejudice. We’re not talking about anything new, either. The Catholic Church did plenty to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment by covering up decades of sexual scandals. Don’t blame Ron Howard for that. Perhaps the Church should look in one of those fancy, gold covered mirrors in the Vatican museum and stop pointing the finger at Hollywood.
Let’s not even talk about the Church’s stance on female priests, contraception, and abortion. I’m not saying I disagree with the Church. I’m saying the Church has taken strong positions on these issues and these issues are divisive. That stirs up a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment with or without a new movie.
So I’m excited to go see Angels and Demons. I loved the book. So far it’s been a great movie season with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek. Don’t even get me started on these two though, they were sooooo unrealistic…
I’m talking of course about Angels and Demons, the latest Dan Brown book made into a blockbuster movie. Catholics far and wide, well, at least vocal ones, are condemning the film as a “gratuitously outrageous” portrayal of the Church. It has been called “outlandish.” I’ve got another word for it: fiction.
Storytelling has been entertaining people for thousands of years. Whether from cavemen around campfires or modern movie makers, we all want to hear a good tale and be entertained. Would Harry Potter be such a smash if it were about a bunch of normal kids? No. Would you care about Harold and Kumar if they just went out and got a few hamburgers? No. Normal kids and fast food are the stuff of ordinary life. We want to see something extraordinary when we go to the movies.
How do you think the Catholics would like the Church portrayed in movies? I saw a movie a few years ago called The Barbarian Invasions. It’s a pretty misleading title, I’ll give you that, but in one scene the son goes to a Catholic Church in Canada. It’s essentially abandoned. All the statues and other religious things are in the basement in storage because the congregation withered away. That’s a pretty realistic portrayal of today’s Catholic Church in Canada – or so I’m told. Where are the news stories of Catholics saying “See? See? This is the true Catholic Church, The Da Vinci Code is sooooo unrealistic.”
One of these vocal bishops somewhere said that it was irresponsible to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment with this movie. I agree that stirring up “anti” sentiment is bad, but we’re not talking about the Holocaust here. We’re not talking about racial prejudice. We’re not talking about anything new, either. The Catholic Church did plenty to stir up anti-Catholic sentiment by covering up decades of sexual scandals. Don’t blame Ron Howard for that. Perhaps the Church should look in one of those fancy, gold covered mirrors in the Vatican museum and stop pointing the finger at Hollywood.
Let’s not even talk about the Church’s stance on female priests, contraception, and abortion. I’m not saying I disagree with the Church. I’m saying the Church has taken strong positions on these issues and these issues are divisive. That stirs up a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment with or without a new movie.
So I’m excited to go see Angels and Demons. I loved the book. So far it’s been a great movie season with X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Star Trek. Don’t even get me started on these two though, they were sooooo unrealistic…
Thursday, May 7, 2009
I'll take what he's having.
I’ve never been suspended in my life. Not from school. Not from work. Not from the ceiling… Manny Ramirez sure has been though. 50 game suspension handed down by Major League Baseball for violating their substance abuse policy. As a result Manny will lose approximately one-third of his $25M salary. So he’ll just have to scrape by on $15 or $16M this year. And he gets his summer off. Sort of like school teachers only rich (and stupid.)
Let me ask you, if you could make $15M and have the summer off, would you view that as a punishment? I wouldn’t. I’m going to have to work every season of every year until the day I die to hopefully put one million in the bank to – ironically enough – retire. And that’s if the stock market rebounds and I manage to keep my job. Now let me ask you this: is Manny really being punished? No, he’s not.
So what in the world do we do with all these cheaters in baseball? Let’s look around. How does Laos deal with drug dealers? Firing squad, that’s how. I don’t know about you, but if I ever fire up a meth lab it’s sure as hell not going to be in Laos. They have a pretty low rate of drug use there too. Curious. But seriously, we can’t kill Manny Ramirez. So let’s look at the athletic equivalent: the SMU football-Mustangs. In the mid-80’s these repeat offenders were dealt the death penalty by the NCAA. Football was cancelled. Twenty years later this once perennial contender for the National Championship plays to empty stadiums in a second tier conference. Hmmm. So I submit to you – as an SMU alum – that SMU was really punished.
So I propose this: Dodgers, because of Manny Ramirez’ violation you forfeit 50 games this year. Sorry. All you Dodger fans who bought season tickets? Sorry. We’ll just cancel those games. Ask the Dodgers for a refund. Sorry Frank McCourt (Dodger’s owner) you don’t get gate revenue for those 50 games. Or parking receipts. Or concession sales. Or TV money. Sorry Dodgers local TV affiliate, you have to show reruns instead of games. And lose advertising money. All because Manny did steroids.
Now think about this: sorry Dallas Cowboys, but Pacman Jones just cost you two games for off-field behavior. Hey New York Yankees, pay attention to what A-Rod’s cousin is bringing him from the Dominican Republic because it might cost you 30 or 40 ball games. Listen up Baltimore Ravens, if Ray Lewis kills somebody again you forfeit the 2010 season. Is anybody going to want to take a chance on Michael Vick? Anybody?
What if the penalty for an athlete’s abuse really affected the team rather than just the guy? And don’t give me any lip about Manny’s absence affecting the team because he can't play blah blah blah. When I say affect the team I mean money-wise. Would the Dodgers have signed Manny if they knew he might cost them 50 games worth of money? No. Would professional teams take on troubled, but talented, athletes if they stood to lose substantial income as a result of that athlete’s indiscretions? No. Would the SMU boosters have paid players if they knew it would cost them their football team forever? No.
In this day and age where professional athletes make so much money that no fine or fee is truly punishment I say punish the owners. The owner put that bad apple on the team. Let's hold him accountable. And then we'll get rid of the dopers and thugs. Could my scheme return us to the days when professional athletes could be role models for kids? Listen up Charles Barkley!
Let me ask you, if you could make $15M and have the summer off, would you view that as a punishment? I wouldn’t. I’m going to have to work every season of every year until the day I die to hopefully put one million in the bank to – ironically enough – retire. And that’s if the stock market rebounds and I manage to keep my job. Now let me ask you this: is Manny really being punished? No, he’s not.
So what in the world do we do with all these cheaters in baseball? Let’s look around. How does Laos deal with drug dealers? Firing squad, that’s how. I don’t know about you, but if I ever fire up a meth lab it’s sure as hell not going to be in Laos. They have a pretty low rate of drug use there too. Curious. But seriously, we can’t kill Manny Ramirez. So let’s look at the athletic equivalent: the SMU football-Mustangs. In the mid-80’s these repeat offenders were dealt the death penalty by the NCAA. Football was cancelled. Twenty years later this once perennial contender for the National Championship plays to empty stadiums in a second tier conference. Hmmm. So I submit to you – as an SMU alum – that SMU was really punished.
So I propose this: Dodgers, because of Manny Ramirez’ violation you forfeit 50 games this year. Sorry. All you Dodger fans who bought season tickets? Sorry. We’ll just cancel those games. Ask the Dodgers for a refund. Sorry Frank McCourt (Dodger’s owner) you don’t get gate revenue for those 50 games. Or parking receipts. Or concession sales. Or TV money. Sorry Dodgers local TV affiliate, you have to show reruns instead of games. And lose advertising money. All because Manny did steroids.
Now think about this: sorry Dallas Cowboys, but Pacman Jones just cost you two games for off-field behavior. Hey New York Yankees, pay attention to what A-Rod’s cousin is bringing him from the Dominican Republic because it might cost you 30 or 40 ball games. Listen up Baltimore Ravens, if Ray Lewis kills somebody again you forfeit the 2010 season. Is anybody going to want to take a chance on Michael Vick? Anybody?
What if the penalty for an athlete’s abuse really affected the team rather than just the guy? And don’t give me any lip about Manny’s absence affecting the team because he can't play blah blah blah. When I say affect the team I mean money-wise. Would the Dodgers have signed Manny if they knew he might cost them 50 games worth of money? No. Would professional teams take on troubled, but talented, athletes if they stood to lose substantial income as a result of that athlete’s indiscretions? No. Would the SMU boosters have paid players if they knew it would cost them their football team forever? No.
In this day and age where professional athletes make so much money that no fine or fee is truly punishment I say punish the owners. The owner put that bad apple on the team. Let's hold him accountable. And then we'll get rid of the dopers and thugs. Could my scheme return us to the days when professional athletes could be role models for kids? Listen up Charles Barkley!
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Oldest Trick in the Book
I routinely chide myself for being too fat. However, I realize after watching a full season of “The Biggest Loser” that I am not obese. I can buy clothes off the rack. And I can fit into an airplane seat. In fact, I have a long, long way to go before I can’t fit in an airplane seat. For those who passed that point, though, United Airlines has adopted a policy of charging obese passengers for a second seat.
First of all let me say that I have no problem with what United is doing. Look at it this way, if I want a little extra seat space to put my laptop or my jacket I can’t just take it from the person next to me. If I need that extra space I need to pay for it. That’s the deal. My problem is with the spin.
United said they are adopting this new policy because they received 700 complaints last year. They flew 63,000,000 passengers last year. That’s a pretty low complaint ratio. Exponentially low. At least now we know the magic number for United. If 700 of us band together and complain about our luggage getting lost ... Sheesh. Do they really expect me to believe this?
Airlines have been in the business of charging extra fees for a long time and lately they’ve kicked it up a notch. In the past you had to pay a fee to change your ticket. Then you had to pay if you wanted to talk to a live representative. Then you had to pay for onboard snacks. Then to check a bag. The airlines are making a lot of money off these fees – and good for them, by the way. This fat fee is just another revenue source for the airlines. There’s no principle at stake here other than money. They no more care about 700 complaints than your Congressman does. In fact, United would be perfectly happy if we all went out and put on about 300 pounds. Cha-ching!
It’s sort of like school funding in Texas. Grant me a little latitude here. A couple of years ago our secessionist Governor enacted a plan to improve school funding. He promised to decrease the traditional source of funding – property taxes – and increase corporate and cigarette taxes. You can be sure cigarette taxes went up. I don’t know much about corporate taxes, but oddly enough my property taxes have gone up too. Hmmm.
But that’s a rant for another time. Think about this America. My government has made cigarettes prohibitively expensive increasing price by 200% over 20 years. My government bans advertising cigarettes in mainstream media so nobody will get the idea to start smoking. My government bans smoking from restaurants. My government makes smokers stand twelve feet away from the door in a little designated area like some sort of pariah hoping they’ll give it up and come back to right side of life. My government makes the cigarette companies tell me how bad their product is for me so that I’ll never buy them again. My government just wants me to be healthy and happy, right?
But wait... (you're thinking) ... if Americans stop buying cigarettes who’s going to pay for our schools?
See, the government doesn’t care about your health or the inside of restaurants or outside of doorways. They care about taxes. Also known as Revenue. And this is an easy sell. “You don’t have to pay, America, just those dirty smokers have to pay and they should really quit anyway.”
“You don’t have to pay, America, just those lazy fat people and they should really lose the weight anyway.” Oldest trick in the book.
First of all let me say that I have no problem with what United is doing. Look at it this way, if I want a little extra seat space to put my laptop or my jacket I can’t just take it from the person next to me. If I need that extra space I need to pay for it. That’s the deal. My problem is with the spin.
United said they are adopting this new policy because they received 700 complaints last year. They flew 63,000,000 passengers last year. That’s a pretty low complaint ratio. Exponentially low. At least now we know the magic number for United. If 700 of us band together and complain about our luggage getting lost ... Sheesh. Do they really expect me to believe this?
Airlines have been in the business of charging extra fees for a long time and lately they’ve kicked it up a notch. In the past you had to pay a fee to change your ticket. Then you had to pay if you wanted to talk to a live representative. Then you had to pay for onboard snacks. Then to check a bag. The airlines are making a lot of money off these fees – and good for them, by the way. This fat fee is just another revenue source for the airlines. There’s no principle at stake here other than money. They no more care about 700 complaints than your Congressman does. In fact, United would be perfectly happy if we all went out and put on about 300 pounds. Cha-ching!
It’s sort of like school funding in Texas. Grant me a little latitude here. A couple of years ago our secessionist Governor enacted a plan to improve school funding. He promised to decrease the traditional source of funding – property taxes – and increase corporate and cigarette taxes. You can be sure cigarette taxes went up. I don’t know much about corporate taxes, but oddly enough my property taxes have gone up too. Hmmm.
But that’s a rant for another time. Think about this America. My government has made cigarettes prohibitively expensive increasing price by 200% over 20 years. My government bans advertising cigarettes in mainstream media so nobody will get the idea to start smoking. My government bans smoking from restaurants. My government makes smokers stand twelve feet away from the door in a little designated area like some sort of pariah hoping they’ll give it up and come back to right side of life. My government makes the cigarette companies tell me how bad their product is for me so that I’ll never buy them again. My government just wants me to be healthy and happy, right?
But wait... (you're thinking) ... if Americans stop buying cigarettes who’s going to pay for our schools?
See, the government doesn’t care about your health or the inside of restaurants or outside of doorways. They care about taxes. Also known as Revenue. And this is an easy sell. “You don’t have to pay, America, just those dirty smokers have to pay and they should really quit anyway.”
“You don’t have to pay, America, just those lazy fat people and they should really lose the weight anyway.” Oldest trick in the book.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
One Lump or Two?
It’s tea time America. Well, maybe it’s tea party time. This week saw some 300 protests, called Tea Parties, against the Bailout (incorrectly characterized as President Obama’s Bailout.) The party-goers likened themselves to the American colonists who protested taxation without representation. Inspired by our founding fathers, the party patrons threw coolers marked “tea” into the water.
See I can go to the internet and in a matter of minutes I can find out exactly who my state and federal representatives are. They know this because I use the same website to launch emails letting them know my opinion on the issues of the day. And every so often if I don’t like the job that they’re doing I can vote to fire them. And if I think I can do a better job, then I can run for that job myself. So can you. And so can these disgruntled tea tossers. Tell me you don’t like the job your representative is doing. Tell me the guy you voted for lost. Tell me things don’t always turn out like you want. I’ll tell you that’s Democracy. Love it or leave it.
Let’s consider our newly disenfranchised Republicans for a minute. These are the religious conservative, pro business folks who believe that government should get lost. They were so in vogue for the last eight years that many of them forgot it was possible to be anything else. These are the no-tax and spend Republicans who prosper in the times of no regulation and no taxation and complain when they have to live by the rules. It’s only natural that they feel cheated by the system now. They don’t control the system anymore, but it still works the same way. It’s not Fascism because it’s not Republican. It’s all Democracy my friends.
So my impulse is to say “get stuffed you greedy Republicans.” But instead I say “well done you greedy Republicans.” You see these conservatives are many things, but one thing they are not is politically active. Oh sure, they’ll write a check for you and they’ll even show up on Election Day. But they’re not going to hold up a protest sign. That’s a little too much like a labor union. So I’m glad to see they’re finally showing a little activism because here’s the revelation of the day: Democracy doesn’t work if only one point of view exists. Democracy is no accident, it’s not easy, and it requires you to step up and do your part. It’s starting to sound more like America: Live it or leave it.
So we may stand on opposite sides of the Congressional aisle. We may curse each other in the headlines. But there would be no Ali without Frazier.
See I can go to the internet and in a matter of minutes I can find out exactly who my state and federal representatives are. They know this because I use the same website to launch emails letting them know my opinion on the issues of the day. And every so often if I don’t like the job that they’re doing I can vote to fire them. And if I think I can do a better job, then I can run for that job myself. So can you. And so can these disgruntled tea tossers. Tell me you don’t like the job your representative is doing. Tell me the guy you voted for lost. Tell me things don’t always turn out like you want. I’ll tell you that’s Democracy. Love it or leave it.
Let’s consider our newly disenfranchised Republicans for a minute. These are the religious conservative, pro business folks who believe that government should get lost. They were so in vogue for the last eight years that many of them forgot it was possible to be anything else. These are the no-tax and spend Republicans who prosper in the times of no regulation and no taxation and complain when they have to live by the rules. It’s only natural that they feel cheated by the system now. They don’t control the system anymore, but it still works the same way. It’s not Fascism because it’s not Republican. It’s all Democracy my friends.
So my impulse is to say “get stuffed you greedy Republicans.” But instead I say “well done you greedy Republicans.” You see these conservatives are many things, but one thing they are not is politically active. Oh sure, they’ll write a check for you and they’ll even show up on Election Day. But they’re not going to hold up a protest sign. That’s a little too much like a labor union. So I’m glad to see they’re finally showing a little activism because here’s the revelation of the day: Democracy doesn’t work if only one point of view exists. Democracy is no accident, it’s not easy, and it requires you to step up and do your part. It’s starting to sound more like America: Live it or leave it.
So we may stand on opposite sides of the Congressional aisle. We may curse each other in the headlines. But there would be no Ali without Frazier.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Oops I did it again...
I can’t help myself. AIG is still in the news and I still want to rant about it. So the AIG leader says that without market competitive bonuses he can’t keep the top talent required to run the company through these rocky times. I say “good, you don’t deserve them.” Let’s not forget that when times were good these guys ruined everything. What makes you think they’re the ones to lead us through the bad times?
Now Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are talking about bonuses too. You can bet they’ll trot out the same old rationale. It’s a safer bet than a mortgage backed security. To that I say “tough”.
(Note: my employer is not being bailed out and did not pay bonuses this year. Maybe we should have applied for some of that bailout money so we could have gotten bonuses.)
Here’s how I see it: bailout equals bankruptcy. Once you’re bankrupt you lose your business even if it keeps running. You have to have a judge’s OK to blow your nose. Your employee unions get broken. Your management gets forced wage cuts. Your pension goes away and million dollar bonuses evaporate. Why? Why is bankruptcy so tough on the employees? Simple: you screwed it up, you’re lucky to stay in business, and this has to be really unpleasant, otherwise you’ll just screw it up again. A bailout should work the same way. Rather than a nice cushy safety net, it has to be so awful that these morons won’t do it again.
Today, the US House of Representatives passed a bill taxing these AIG bonuses at 90%. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard and is really transparent. But if you can establish a practice that says “when you’re bankrupt and/or being bailed out, it will be so awful that you won’t do it again” then we might be on the right track. Not getting huge bonuses gets you started down that road real quick.
Sound too harsh? Maybe but let’s break it down. Suppose you get a new puppy. Every time the puppy has an ‘accident’ in the house you give it a treat. When do you think the puppy will stop crapping on the living room rug? Well, how about when you start rubbing his nose in it instead of giving him Milk Bones. It’s amazing how often things can be solved with the simple notion that it’s just like training a dog.
I get it that bad things happen to good people and these poor AIG executives are just trying to make a living. But… Am I supposed to feel bad for these guys not getting a bonus? Do they feel bad for me not getting one? Do they feel bad for all the people that have lost their homes or jobs? I reckon there are at least 73 unemployed Americans who deserve the million dollars more than the idiots so central to the condition of those Americans being unemployed in the first place. Or we could use the $165 million to fund a few new homeless shelters – we certainly need more of them now thanks to those goofballs.
More importantly, we need to rub these AIG noses in their own shit a few times and if it starts with no million dollar bonuses then so be it. And if they can find someone who will let them keep soiling the carpet then so be that too. But as long as it’s my carpet – which it is – I’d like to start rubbing a few noses (and not in an Eskimo kissing sort of way.)
Now Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are talking about bonuses too. You can bet they’ll trot out the same old rationale. It’s a safer bet than a mortgage backed security. To that I say “tough”.
(Note: my employer is not being bailed out and did not pay bonuses this year. Maybe we should have applied for some of that bailout money so we could have gotten bonuses.)
Here’s how I see it: bailout equals bankruptcy. Once you’re bankrupt you lose your business even if it keeps running. You have to have a judge’s OK to blow your nose. Your employee unions get broken. Your management gets forced wage cuts. Your pension goes away and million dollar bonuses evaporate. Why? Why is bankruptcy so tough on the employees? Simple: you screwed it up, you’re lucky to stay in business, and this has to be really unpleasant, otherwise you’ll just screw it up again. A bailout should work the same way. Rather than a nice cushy safety net, it has to be so awful that these morons won’t do it again.
Today, the US House of Representatives passed a bill taxing these AIG bonuses at 90%. That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard and is really transparent. But if you can establish a practice that says “when you’re bankrupt and/or being bailed out, it will be so awful that you won’t do it again” then we might be on the right track. Not getting huge bonuses gets you started down that road real quick.
Sound too harsh? Maybe but let’s break it down. Suppose you get a new puppy. Every time the puppy has an ‘accident’ in the house you give it a treat. When do you think the puppy will stop crapping on the living room rug? Well, how about when you start rubbing his nose in it instead of giving him Milk Bones. It’s amazing how often things can be solved with the simple notion that it’s just like training a dog.
I get it that bad things happen to good people and these poor AIG executives are just trying to make a living. But… Am I supposed to feel bad for these guys not getting a bonus? Do they feel bad for me not getting one? Do they feel bad for all the people that have lost their homes or jobs? I reckon there are at least 73 unemployed Americans who deserve the million dollars more than the idiots so central to the condition of those Americans being unemployed in the first place. Or we could use the $165 million to fund a few new homeless shelters – we certainly need more of them now thanks to those goofballs.
More importantly, we need to rub these AIG noses in their own shit a few times and if it starts with no million dollar bonuses then so be it. And if they can find someone who will let them keep soiling the carpet then so be that too. But as long as it’s my carpet – which it is – I’d like to start rubbing a few noses (and not in an Eskimo kissing sort of way.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)