The more important point of outrage behind the AIG bonuses

Yes, yes, by now, we've all heard: AIG paid $165 million in bonuses to many of its workers, including some who are suspected of being behind the products that are a major cause of AIG's meltdown. Some people got multi-million dollar bonuses, including some that no longer work for AIG. The company claims it was legally obligated to do so because the bonuses were contractually guaranteed.

I will spare you a long tirade about my outrage that these bonuses are being paid to the greedy morons who got us into this mess by average folks, many of whom no longer are employed or have faced significant cutbacks in income due to the economic fallout of this debacle. It's not that I'm not outraged; it's that almost everyone is outraged, and thus, you (and all the rest of us) have all heard it before.

There is, however, something even more outrageous than the fact that these bonuses were paid. It is the fact that they were paid due to contractual obligations.

We need a major reform of contract law in this country. Today, it is set up to favor the strong and wealthy over the weak and poor (or relatively poor). This system is unfair and unsustainable.

Take for example UAW. The Big 3 need federal bailout funds, but one of the conditions being imposed upon them is to "renegotiate" labor contracts in order to obtain wage cuts, benefit cuts, and most of all, cuts to benefits promised to past workers.

But wait. UAW had a contract, right? It's impossible to break contracts, right? Apparently not, so long as the parties taking it in the shorts due to the contract break are the average worker bee, and not a "genius" derivatives trader.

A contract basically consists of the following:

-Mutual Consent
-Offer and Acceptance
-Mutual Consideration
-Performance/Delivery
-Good Faith
-No Violation of Public Policy

Now, think about the last time you got an (unsolicited, likely) offer from Citibank or some similar company for a loan. The back of the check probably said something like "By cashing this check, you agree to be bound by our Terms." If you were lucky, they may have including their "Terms" in the same solicitation, and told you what interest rate they would charge, what fees they'd assess, whether or not they would force you to give up your Constitutional right to a trial by jury for civil matters, etc. If you weren't lucky, you were told that you'd get the terms AFTER you agreed to them by cashing the check.

Now, think about the reverse. Let's say you send a check to Citibank, and you write on it "By cashing this check, you agree to lower my interest rate to 2%, assess no further fees on my account, and agree that arbitration is voluntary, not mandatory." Would your "contract" be held up in court? No. Large corporations are not held responsible for reading the terms presented with a check from an individual consumer. Without being responsible for reading the terms, the corporation is assumed not to have agreed with them when cashing the check.

This is not fair. Either a contract is a contract is a contract....or it isn't. If the average citizen cannot enforce contract provisions, then frankly, the whining about "allowing bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgage terms would deal a fatal blow to contract law" needs to stop.

The Big 3 made wage and benefit agreements, and then purposefully chose to not fund them at the time of the agreements. Now they don't have enough money to do so profitably. Big shocker. If I made an agreement to pay $X to someone in the future, I better start saving for that future date now. Waiting until the day it's due and saying "Oh no, you guys are at fault for my poor financial situation" is bunk. Paying a CEO 800 times the average worker, and then demanding that the average worker take even more pay cuts is bunk. Paying a CEO 800 times the average worker and then demanding that the worker accept wages and benefits comparable to a company where the CEO is paid 8 times the average worker is bunk. And these bunk excuses do not warrant a mandated breaking of the UAW contract. The contract was negotiated and agreed to by both parties. The contract meets all the terms of a contract. The contract should stand.

Earmarks - The Horror

I don't understand the drama over earmarks. Apparently, there are more than 8,500 earmarks in the omnibus spending bill currently before the Senate, and a few Democrats, and more Republicans, are having a cow about it.

Really guys? This is where you want to make your stand?

I just love how people seem to think that civil society, and all of its perks, come out of nowhere. Fiscal conservatives love frugal entertainment. Take the kids to the park, to the "free day" at the museum, etc. People want to drive to work on pot-hole free, uncongested roads. People want businesses to be protected from litigation. People want to live in odor-free neighborhoods. But they don't want to pay for it.

Oh, no, that stuff comes by magic, right? Dropped off by the shoemaker's elves, right?

No.

You want to live somewhere nice, you gotta pay for it. You want parks, libraries, playgrounds, you gotta pay for 'em. You want Hormel to be able to sell their pork tenderloins Buy One/Get One Free, you gotta pay for pig manure smell reduction research so Hormel isn't constantly getting the crap sued out of them for the stench their operations create. You want research into autism - pay for fruit fly research.

In short, you want to live in civilization - quit your bitching and pay your dues.

Earmarks are an efficient way for Congress to get projects paid for. Projects that are necessary but would never pass on their own, because everyone is too fucking selfish and self-interested to vote for things like "pig odor research" when they aren't smelling any pigs yet.

Would-be GOP Presidential Candidates for 2012

Let's play a little guessing game, shall we?

Who is considering running for the GOP nomination in 2012?

I think that Palin may. Ick. Let's just not talk about that now.

I'm also thinking Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

You see, they're all making noise about not taking some of the stimulus package.

Apparently, there's a provision in the stimulus package that provides additional money for unemployment compensation. In order to qualify for the funds, states have to accept mandates about which workers are eligible for unemployment - sometimes, mandates that exceed those already in law as states compete in the desperate race to the bottom to attract business.

Now, the stimulus package provides funds to cover the extra mandates for roughly three years. However, when the federal money runs out, states would be left with no choice other than to raise unemployment taxes on business. And God forbid we raise business taxes - you know, when businesses have to pay taxes, they don't create jobs and they leave the state and they leave the country and they hire Martians that will work for .01 a month with no OSHA regulation or mandated breaks and... you get the point.

But wait? Why is there "no choice" but to raise unemployment taxes? Couldn't state laws to amended to exclude those new categories of workers eligible for unemployment in three years? Jindal apparently doesn't think so, but others disagree and say that a sunset provision could be put into the state law changes.

I can hear the stump speeches now: "I made the hard choices, and rejected money from the pork-laden stimulus package because it would have required a tax increase on businesses, and would therefore have been bad for workers. It wasn't popular, but I stuck to my principles."

Thankfully, I don't think it's going to work. People are going to ask (and rightfully so) "So, where are the hoards of businesses that flew these crushing unemployment tax increases in other states and fled to Louisiana/South Carolina/Mississippi?" I don't think they'll be there.

A sad reflection on our justice system

An 11-year-old Pennsylvania boy has been accused of killing his father's pregnant girlfriend.

That sentence alone should be horror enough.

But what makes it worse is that this child is going to be charged as an adult. Pennsylvania law stipulates that anyone over 10 who is accused of murder is charged as an adult.

This boy is not deemed mature enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, or a beer. He cannot buy a lottery ticket, apply for a driver's license, enter into any legal contract, or likely stay out past 10 PM. He cannot hold a job, or join the military, or choose to quit compulsory education.

But he can go to jail for the rest of his life if convicted.

Laws like this are intolerable. I understand the desire to feel safe in your community. I understand the desire for retribution. But for a society which deems a child too immature to be trusted with the decision to quit school, it is shameful that our fear and rage would forever imprison that same child on the basis of an admittedly horrific decision.

Children like this need help - something has very obviously gone badly wrong in their childhood. If they cannot be held accountable for the contract terms of joining Colombia house, they should not be held accountable in the same way an adult would when they commit crimes. One of the reasons our society holds that children do not have the same rights as adults is that we acknowledge that ignorance, naivete, and lack of emotional control are normal for children. Wisdom and emotional/impulse control are things that children gain as they grow into adults, presumably because they are taught to model those behaviors/characteristics from the adults around them.

As an aside, where the hell does an 11-year old get a gun and ammunition? Apparently the boy "owned" the gun - and it was designed for youth. The adult responsible for allowing him unlimited access to the gun and ammunition is the person who needs to be criminally charged.

You want to take your kid hunting? Fine. When Bambi is dead, the gun should be returned to the custody of the adult. The adult should unload the gun and lock it, and its ammunition, in a place where impulsive and immature children cannot gain access to it.

Payroll tax cut to begin showing up by April 1st

President Obama ordered the Treasury to begin implementation of the $65/month payroll tax cuts now, so that they will be in effect by April 1st of this year.

No time to waste - and no time wasted.

Is the foreclosure plan fair?

Actually, the better question is, does it matter?

Let me give you a little insight and background into my personal situation, just so you can see where I'm coming from. My husband and I bought our house in 2004. We bought it with a 3-1 ARM loan (not a subprime one - and not because we couldn't afford the fixed rate - this was a strategic decision on our part). In 2007, we refinanced to a 30-year fixed rate at a lower rate. We did have auto debt and credit card debt, and significant equity in our house. We could have rolled the other debt into the refi, but we chose not to (nor did we take out cash).

Fast forward to today. Not only do we no longer have any equity in our house, we are "upside-down" - we owe more than our house is worth. We still have our other debts too. Thankfully, we both have our health and our jobs (knock on wood) and we're managing fine although we feel somewhat stressed out.

So yes, it irks a little that someone who rolled their other debts into a refi, or took out cash and enjoyed a glorious vacation to Rome (complete with the gelato I want so badly) could potentially qualify for help, whereas my husband and I will not. We did what was the right thing to do. We are responsible. We pay our mortgage and other bills every month. Where's our incentive?

Here's a better question: Is there a plan that truly is better for the collective interests of the country? Not a better plan for the "responsible ones" or the "lucky ones" or the "irresponsible ones" or the "fraudulent ones" and so on. What is the plan that best addresses the needs of everyone?

Obama's foreclosure plan isn't perfect. There is no plan that is.

But is doing nothing a better alternative? No. The housing market continues to spiral downward, resulting in foreclosures, bad debts, the credit crunch, loss of jobs in construction and real estate, loss of jobs in construction-related industries, and so on. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets. Doing nothing may feel "fair" to those who were BOTH responsible and lucky*, but their housing values still go down. Eventually, the downward spiral will catch up with those that paid 20% down and got a fixed rate mortgage and carry no debt.

Well, what about the Republican 4% mortgage plan? Jeff Rosenberg deals quite nicely with this bad idea here and here on the Twin Cities Daily Liberal. (Summary - the plan would cost hundreds of billions and "bail out" those who don't need a bailout, leaving those that do need help S. O. L. In other words, Republican S. O. P.)

Frankly, I don't think the foreclosure plan needs to be fair. It needs to be effective. It needs to be for the good of the nation in general. And I think Obama's plan does that.

So, I can be mature enough to get over the fact that even though I was a "good girl" someone else who, quite possibly, was a "bad girl" may get a bigger piece of cake than I will. Especially when my alternative is no cake at all, and eventually no bread and no water either.





*Sorry, but no one succeeds entirely on the basis of their superior merit - there is always an element of luck involved. Sorry to burst your self-righteous bubble.

Michael Steele - The RNC Wannabe

After reading the latest about Michael Steele, the new RNC chairman, I am forced to conclude that the GOP just doesn't really understand....well, anything but wealthy white men and the rabid homophobic/anti-abortion sects of Christianity. However, they are trying to appeal to those they don't understand.

Sadly, this effort just doesn't seem to work well. Like, you know, when they tried to appeal to Hillary supporters with the choice of Sarah Palin. It seems as though they thought "Well, one woman is pretty much like another....right? Hillary supporters will like Sarah because she has ovaries and breasts, right?"

Um...no.

"And how about this - a black guy for the chair of the RNC. Surely, with a black guy as chair, no one will remember that there were almost no people of color at the national convention. Now we'll just automatically have wide appeal with blacks, right?"

Um...no.

And now, Michael Steele has declared that the RNC needs to go after the youth vote. What better way to do this but to throw out some random terms he's heard those kids say nowadays?

He's going to launch an "off the hook" public relations campaign. He's going to go for urban-suburban hip-hop settings. He's even going after the "one-armed midget" vote? (Did I mention this guy also has absolutely no tact?)

Here's the kicker: He doesn't really want to change any of the "principles" of his party. Guess what? RNC principles are not really attractive to youth. This would be evident by the fact that Obama took around 68% of the youth vote in the election.

Decrying funding for education as "pork" is not popular with youth. Economic policies that oversaw a decrease in income after inflation for college grads are not popular with youth. Wars with no end and no real goal - not popular with the youth that are expected to fight. In short - the Republicans are going to have to become more of a big tent, because throwing out phrases like "off the hook" isn't going to fool anyone. At best, it will annoy them. At worse, it will insult them.

This is apparently the best the GOP could do. I mean, um....the G to the O to the P.