Check It Out for Wednesday, March 18th
Jonathan Tasini at Working Life writes about the AIG sideshow and asks where was the outrage for the last thirty years with CEO salaries and other corporate fraud going on.
"I am watching the parade of outraged leaders--especially Democrats--who are railing about the AIG bonuses and, to be honest, I'm far more disgusted by the outrage then the chump change being argued over. Because the outrage masks this fact: virtually our entire political and economic leadership has turned a blind eye, and actually endorsed, a vast legalized robbery that has taken place over 30 years in the corporate suites of America. And I fear that, once we've sated ourselves over AIG, Bernie Madoff and a few other deserving targets, not a whole lot will change.
"Of course, it's entirely appalling that these AIG guys who failed are being rewarded. But, let's review some facts that I've collected in working on a just-finished book "The Audacity of Greed".
"This very robbery has been taking place for much longer than the current crisis. In 2007 alone, the pay and bonuses for the top 200 CEOs totaled more than $2.3 billion.
"$2.3 billion for 200 people.
"Where was the outrage then?
"While everyone else who worked at their companies was looking at a perilous retirement, these 200 fortunate folks pocketed lump sum pension benefits totaling almost $1.6 billion and another $1.4 billion in deferred compensation. They rang up another $1.3 billion in stock option gains and another $646 million in stock award gains.
"Where was the outrage then?
"Those 200 people held—-prepare for this one—-stock valued at $1.4 trillion at the end of 2007.
"$1.4 trillion..
"For 200 people.
"Where was the outrage then?
"Now, some people would say: oh, the difference now is that it's our tax dollars are at stake.
"Wrong. Our money was at stake for three decades: all that deferred compensation is paid for by you and I because there were tax advantages to deferring the compensation.
"But, more important, we have been paying for it in another way.
"They robbed millions of families of a decent living and a decent retirement—so they could enrich themselves. CEO greed meant a whole lot of people worked their butts off and had very little to show for it, forcing people to rack up mountains of debt on their credit cards or leverage the value of their homes to get a new line of credit—not to buy a second home in the South of France or pick up a multi-million yacht but to pay for health care, college for their kids, care for an aging parent or just to meet the daily bills.
"Well, folks, if you were a working person in America, TIMES HAVE BEEN BAD FOR 30 YEARS!!! You were being robbed for three decades.
"CEO greed meant that millions of people went without healthcare for themselves and their families.
"CEO greed meant that communities throughout the country lost good-paying jobs when plants closed up and left.
"CEO greed meant that millions of people lost their homes.
"CEO greed meant that a whole generation of people who had been duped into substituting 401(k)s for real pensions saw their savings evaporate in a week of plunging stock markets around the world—all brought on by CEO greed.
"These CEOs were accomplices in killing people. I mean that quite literally: because CEOs were too busy looking for ways to stuff their own bank accounts and chose not to cover workers with real health care, and because, in particular, insurance industry CEOs were intent on making sure they could enrich themselves, people either could not get health care or received shockingly low-quality care and, thus, died from inadequate care or died too young because they never were able to afford to see doctors who might have provided preventive care for treatable diseases."
Dave Lindorff writes about China apparently calling the shots militarily since its funding the US deficit:
"It may not be obvious today, and certainly it’s not how the corporate media reported it, but future historians are likely to look back at March 13, 2009 as the day that American imperialism began it’s inexorable decline. That’s the day that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced that his country was “worried” about its holdings of over $1 trillion in US treasury securities, and warned that he wanted the US to assure China that it would maintain its good credit and “honor its promises” and “maintain the safety of China’s assets..”
"There is no way that the US can accommodate Premier Wen and still finance and operate a global military system with over 1000 overseas bases, massive aircraft carrier battle groups, and with hundreds of thousands of men and women armed to the teeth with the latest high-tech military hardware, not to mention fight endless wars on the far side of the globe.
"What China is doing is pulling the rug out from under America’s six decades of global military dominance. It is no coincidence that the weekend before Wen’s statement, Chinese naval vessels aggressively harassed a US intelligence ship, the Impeccable, that was operating in the South China Sea.
"Now this decline of the US as an economic and military power is not going to be an overnight thing, because China needs to keep selling manufactured goods to the US market—the largest in the world—and in order to do that, it needs to keep recycling dollars spent on Chinese goods back into the US, which to date has meant buying US debt issues.
"But there are other ways to recycle dollars back to the US, most notably by investing in actual US assets...
"The end result will be a vast permanent weakening of America, as its economy becomes increasingly subservient to the interests of its new owners.
"Suddenly, however, in one brief speech, Chinese Premier Wen has made it clear that the US is no longer calling the shots. Nobody’s saying it out loud here in America, but behind the scenes, it’s clear that increasingly US economic policy is going henceforth to be dictated by governments in places like Bejing, Tokyo, New Delhi and Brazilia. Those same places will also increasingly be telling us where and even if we can use our once mighty military forces."
Michael Hudson writes about the real AIG conspiracy: "It may seem odd, but the public outrage against $135 million in AIG bonuses is a godsend to Wall Street, AIG scoundrels included. How can the media be so preoccupied with the discovery that there is self-serving greed to be found in the financial sector?
"What is wrong with this picture? Is there not something over-inflated about the outrage led most vociferously by Senator Charles Schumer and Rep. Barney Frank, the two leading shills for the bank giveaways over the past year? And does Pres. Obama perhaps find it convenient that finally, at long last, he has been able to criticize something that he believes Wall Street has done wrong?
"Here’s the problem with all the hoopla over the $135 million in AIG bonuses: This sum is only less than 0.1 per cent – one thousandth – of the $183 BILLION that the U.S. Treasury gave to AIG as a “pass-through” to its counterparties. This sum, over a thousand times the magnitude of the bonuses on which public attention is conveniently being focused by Wall Street promoters, did not stay with AIG. For over six months, the public media and Congressmen have been trying to find out just where this money DID go. Bloomberg brought a lawsuit to find out. Only to be met with a wall of silence.
"Until finally, on Sunday night, March 15, the government finally released the details. They were indeed highly embarrassing. The largest recipient turned out to be just what earlier financial reports had rumored: Paulson’s own firm, Goldman Sachs, headed the list. It was owed $13 billion in counterparty claims. Here’s the picture that’s emerging. Last September, Treasury Secretary Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, drew up a terse 3-page memo outlining his bailout proposal. The plan specified that whatever he and other Treasury officials did (thus including his subordinates, also from Goldman Sachs), could not be challenged legally or undone, much less prosecuted. This condition enraged Congress, which rejected the bailout in its first incarnation.
"It now looks as if Paulson had good reason to put in a fatal legal clause blocking any clawback of funds given by the Treasury to AIG’s counterparties. This is where public outrage should be focused.
"Regarding qui bono, what does Sen. Schumer, Rep. Frank, Pres. Obama and other Wall Street sponsors gain from this public outcry? For starters, it depicts them as hard taskmasters of the banking and financial sector, not its lobbyists scurrying to execute one giveaway after another. So the AIG kerfuffle has muddied the water about where their political loyalties really lie. It enables them to strike a misleading pose – and hence to pose as “honest brokers” next time they dishonestly give away the next few trillion dollars to their major sponsors and campaign contributors.
"Regarding the timing, I think I have answered that above. The uproar about AIG bonuses has effectively distracted attention from the AIG counterparties who received the $183 billion in Treasury giveaways."
Rev. William E. Alberts on being whole not holy and why religion often doesn't get it:
"Religion is automatically seen as inherently good for people, yet it often stunts a person’s emotional, intellectual and multicultural growth. While there are important exceptions, it stresses believing over thinking, certainty over inquiry, conformity over diversity, entitlement over enlightenment. It emphasizes rightness of belief over one’s right to believe as one chooses. It is about being right not one’s right of being. It values uniqueness of faith not faith in everyone’s uniqueness. Its priority is evangelizing people not ending inequalities. It has difficulty handling one’s right to be different—and especially one’s right to be wrong. It is far more about being an integral part of the status quo than about empowering those who are without economic and political status. It is much more comfortable with the way things are than with striving to make things the way they should be for the common good.
"The intrinsic value of religion should not be assumed. It tends to repress and “straightjacket” sexuality, with its weapon of “sinfulness” warring against what is natural and human and varied. It alienates the individual from himself or herself and from people who think and act differently than the believer. It is about being “holy” not whole. Thus the passing of anti-gay measures, like California’s Proposition 8, that deny loving and committed same sex couples the right to marry.
"Religion should not be viewed as sacrosanct. It ignores so much that is human. Itleads people to look to heaven rather than to earth for meaning. To look outward rather than inward for power. To look upward rather than around them for causes of conflicts and solutions. It is about dumbing down its god to fit the assumed infallible “Good Book,” which is used by evangelists and doctrinaires to claim authority and thus gain power over people.
"Religion should lead people to become more human not more “holy.” Beyond our theologies and political ideologies is the human need to love and to be loved.
"Therein is our common ground: our humanness. Religion—and politics—should be judged by the extent to which it teaches people to love themselves and to make room for and to value and love other persons for themselves.
"The Golden Rule is a basic teaching of most religions, inspired by the widely held belief that “God is love.” Surely, any god worthy of worshiping must be big enough to love all people equally, and to inspire them to do onto and love all other persons as they themselves would want to be honored and loved. Not that one needs to believe in a god to be legitimate and authentic and worthy and honored and loved. Our humanness makes all of us entitled. And our humanity enables us to transcend religious, political, racial and ethnic differences and make room for and live with each other."
Comments