Dallas Morning News–The political bias

It is no big surprise given the state of Texas produces the most extreme among the GOP fringe that the Dallas Morning News editorial republished as an “Outside Voice,” in the Spokesman-Review on the 23^rd of March 2009 would start off clawing at President Obama and his economic team over the AIG bailout and subsequent payments of excessive bonuses.  Apparently however, the same newspaper must have been asleep at the switch when then Senator Obama only voted for the bailout package that as then Treasury Secretary Paulson declared must have as few strings attached as possible.  Which meant that taxpayers’ money could just get delivered carte blanche to the banking industry in trouble over bad financial practices to simply do what they wished with the money.  The Republican party in Congress certainly never asked hard questions of Paulson even as they raised the specter of “socialism.”  But then, I would guess that they would have some lingering loyalty still toward an administration that would prove more than an embarrassment to them come November.  An administration that most certainly treated everyone as a chump.  Yeah, Dallas Morning News could have said a great deal about that bailout when it was initially passed.  It could have said a great deal like asking exactly why AIG kept coming back to government wanting even more and more billions in bailouts.

It would take former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer on Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS” on CNN to give us a real clue as to why exactly AIG kept coming back to the feds for more and yet more billions in taxpayers’ dollars.  Seems that AIG was padding TARP money that the various banks had already received with even more of its own bailout money supposed to bring AIG back to some kind of financial health.  Handing out billions to those various lending institutions and applying hundreds of millions in bonuses to its own failed executives.  I can see why the taxpayers should have been outraged.  But what can you say when Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Sec. Hank Paulson screams in utter panic that if we don’t “do something,” the sky will fall.

What was just as amazing was the the GOP waited months before they could start asking hard questions of the current Dem administration.  The hard questions as to why Paulson and Bernanke wanted “no strings attached” on the banking bailout seemed out of the question in September, October, November, December.  And what is just as amazing is that the Dallas Morning News assumes that Treasury Secretary Geithner should have divine powers to “know” all about AIG shenanigans “a year ago” concerning those retention bonuses, when no one knew about them until last week.  Geithner wasn’t treasury secretary a year ago.  And he doesn’t have a full staff at treasury now.  Why would we assume he’d “know anything?”  You need a full staff at treasury before you can begin to investigate AIG and etc. in the manner that they deserve.  For all that the news media to include “60 Minutes” realizes that on an intellectual level, the news media  to include CNN, still loves to level strum and drang at an administration that has barely been in office a little more than 2 months.  President Obama in a “60 Minutes” interview last night did disclose that Geithner is operating without a lot of personnel support.  Yeah, why should we assume that Geithner trying to do the most with least should have known what was brewing at AIG?

Has it ever occurred to such fish wrappers as the Dallas Morning News that investigative reporting is part of their job description?  “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” is a parody of a talk/news half-hour based loosely on CNN.  But unlike CNN, Mr. Stewart (who sets out most often to make fun of the so-called “seriousness” of news reporting) doesn’t suffer from short-term memory loss.  He’ll pull file footage and remind people, for example:  What candidate Bush said in 2000, as opposed to what President Bush would say even 3 or 4 years later.  Whereas, CNN seems to have been perpetually surprised by unfolding events…  He tasked Jim Cramer and by extension news media reporting of the business world for failing to investigate more thoroughly, scammers, cheats and frauds hell-bent on causing their respective companies to go belly-up.  Why would Geithner, who just now accepted the Treasury job and who doesn’t have a full staff to assist him have the power to take a good hard look at AIG:  Executive pay in the excess, executive bonuses in the excess; even as AIG had inserted one foot into the grave.  Dallas Morning News could have looked into it.  CNN, CNBC and etc. could have investigated.  If there is anyone now playing catch up on this issue, seems to me that it is the news media.  And they are playing their viewership and readership for chumps.  A truly independent press wouldn’t have waited for the government to issue a statement before venting.  A watchdog press at its finest would have told the government where there was a problem.

The AIG Mess

A letter published in the 19 March 2009 edition of the Spokesman-Review expresses very well exactly why there can be some real public anger over the excessive AIG bonus packages.

Rewarding ineptitude

Please help me understand. I have a company and I agreed to pay my executives millions of dollars in bonuses, but my company isn’t doing well under their tutelage and is about to fold.

Alas, if we fold, no one will get bonuses.  But along comes government and gives me money that hasn’t even been printed yet.  Now we momentarily survive and I am able to pay my executives bonuses for how well they ran my company.

Is that correct?  What a wonderful government.

Ray Cory
Spokane Valley

It would seem that any legally binding contract does not simply require that bonuses be paid out annually but that they should be geared to best performance, how well you do your job, that assures the profitability of the company.  And that even further, bonuses should be on a prorated scale, based on how much profit the company actually has accrued each year.  If however the employee of the company makes the sort of disastrous decisons that costs the company millions of dollars, not only should that employee not get a bonus but should even be fired.  And when employees create a string of disasters that can have catastrophic effects on the company’s entire operations, as was the case with AIG, then why should those employees get those bonuses?  Especially when they hadn’t done their jobs?  The GW era of rewarding failure is over.

Which brings to mind a Froma Harrop column republished in the same paper on the same day.  While Ms. Harrop a columnist for the Providence Journal wasn’t exactly discussing the AIG fiasco as one of the examples of the economic meltdown, she was discussing in graphic terms the double standards that the Republican party holds for themselves versus the minorities they seek to reach out to.  No doubt that many minorities would be polled as “socially conservative” to mean that they hold to some kind of high religious values in their lives.  But while the GOP would preach “self-control” with plenty of gvt legislation to buttress it; I can see where they didn’t preach such “self-control” to the business sector.  Indeed, the GOP were all about loosening the bonds of legislated self-control from the business sector.  After all, the whole idea of setting up rules and regs from the federal gvt was only the first step toward a “central command” society.  And we would never want that.

Problem for the GOP, was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now “nationalized” because of run amok business practices, AIG is 80% taxpayer owned, we have also seen collapsing banks and failing mortgage companies because of the elimination of rules and regs that would have guaranteed their profits and stability.  If the GOP want to legislate moral behavior on an individual level, they should be just as prepared to legislate the same moral behavior in the private sector.  “A sliding scale” indeed.

In the interests of “fair and balanaced.”

One thing I have taken note since blogging, Facebooking and tweeting; is the number of people who start crying the moment you challenge them on their favorite ideology.  Usually, self-described as “conservative.”  Let’s make it plain what conservatism ought not be, something that scares everyone else  half to death.  To put it bluntly, a conservative Christian would first and foremost recall God’s two greatest commandments, not only to love God but also to love your neighbor.  Rush Limbaugh isn’t on the list of people who recall that aspect of the bible any too well.  Especially when he can coin such words as “feminazi.”  To put “conservative” on such language is to render it a “credibility” that it quite frankly doesn’t deserve.  A truly moral man would not go about belittling people with whom he disagreed.  Expressing an obscene hatred of anything that Limbaugh uses the mouthpiece of a radio mic to spew does tend to drive off the more rational.   After all, if the other guy can have that kind of hysterical wrath raining down on his head, when will it be my turn?  It can be the turn of Michael J. Fox suffering from Parkinson’s disease who goes on the campaign trail in 2004 to extoll the virtues of stem cell research.  Where Christ would have frowned on people ostricizing the sick and disabled and would have healed them forthwith, Limbaugh mocks and derides Fox because Limbaugh is of course politically opposed to stem cell research.  Which produces the greatest possible moral relativist irony:  if Fox’s mom had chosen an abortion, someone else would have played at least one comedic werewolf film among other TV shows and films, might not have suffered the onset of Parkinson’s fairly early in his acting career, and might not have a need to support stem cell research on say more than a rhetorical level.  But because Limbaugh’s ideology is to oppose abortion/stem cell research; wouldn’t it be a particular argument that the only reason why he would is so he can have a target for all his vitriol?  Michael Steele was originally correct about the man being first an entertainer.  You really can’t take the guy seriously.  Unless you are a ditto head of course.

When it comes to National Security advisor wannabe Freeman, who withdrew his name from consideration, David Broder went into supreme hostile mode about how this was the latest embarrassment for the Obama  administration.  Like, this is such a young and untried president, that when would be members of his cabinet must withdraw from being confirmed for any number of reasons, in the case of Freeman, literally political reasons, it must be an “embarrassment.”  Apparently, Mr. Broder hasn’t considered the number of cabinet appointments that were confirmed to past presidents, GOP and Dem that became a greater embarrassment in their particular offices.  Hell, they might even have held distinguished careers before they ended up with hoof in mouth proclivities, to include ultimately Donald Rumsfeld. I am of the opinion that embarrassments are by degree of interpretation.  And Broder who pictured the Freeman of reality as a thoughtful and very smart guy, as opposed to his off the wall statements I guess that he managed to create a firestorm over, smart and thoughtful guys won’t go out to deliberately embarrass themselves before embarrassing the gvt they ultimately could represent.  I can understand why Freeman got “chased off” by GOP and Dem alike, when he singles out AIPAC for special ire when in fact all lobbying groups are going to have a vested interest in who enters gvt service.  I’m quite sure that Obama can do better than have a stumblebum on staff with a helluva mouth.   Only Broder would exhibit a sympathy for Freeman given his particular hostility toward a presidency about 2 months old.

Charles Krauthammer flips out

You always have to figure that a president is doing something right when the opposition goes off the deep end.  And Charles Krauthammer republished in the Spokesman-Review, went off the deep end in absolutely pure hysteria.  Only now do we hear about a president spending way too much money, as long as the money is being invested in the U.S.  On the other hand, and this is what I caught as a point of greatest interest, was that he was literally whining about a lack of a program for the banks.

Excuse me, but the banks got themselves into a big mess by engaging in risky ventures.   And they did a lot to hurt their own customers while they were about it.  The news media such as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report were prepared to at one time describe the sort of risks banks were starting to engage in some 2 decades back, following the collapse of the S&Ls.  That in fact the banks were following the same course of action that finished off the S&Ls that resulted in billions of dollars in taxpayers’ bailouts.  Such prescient reporting that would ultimately prove true in the last year.  Of course it would take time before risky ventures would begin taking their toll.  But once it happened, it might also be nearly impossible to fix.  Yet, Krauthammer who would have dismissed such early warnings as so much “liberal press,” now wonders on the level of hysteria why the banks aren’t getting a program to fix them, yet.  Well, that would mean regulation, wouldn’t it?  And regulation would be bad.

When it comes to hysterical reactions, those who suffer them lack a clear and concise argument.  Indeed, they have no idea how quickly their thrashing around becomes an upsetting of the apple cart of their own ideology.  The people don’t matter.  We shouldn’t spend way too much on them to give them back jobs and paychecks.  Only the banks should, that managed to do a lot to destroy both.  Those who ran the banks, to include WaMu (Washington Mutual) did have choices to make.  Profits could have been obtained had those banks charted a safe course.  But, apparently greed was more desired than keeping one’s balance sheet in good order.  Thus the collapse of WaMu and the closure of up to 16 banks now.  Wouldn’t conservatism preach against greed?  Isn’t greed the biggest threat to capitalism?  It sure looks like it from here.

Lou Dobbs, around a year ago, got called a socialist for doing a lot of preaching against this, the sort of thing being described above.  Accused of protectionism for railing about businesses outsourcing good American jobs overseas.  Get with the times, Dobbs, right?  Globalization is for real.  But when the banks to include Citigroup started getting into well publicized trouble over a year ago, the were seeking global investors too to infuse them with cash.  So, ultimately, what might have been localized to one nation and perhaps more easily fixable at one point.  Became instead a nightmarish scenario that started taking the world banking system down into the abyss.  How do you fix the world financial system?  Well, I guess you would do as President Barack H. Obama is trying to do now, and spend money and do some re-regulating of old financial practices.  As is Great Britain trying to save the Bank of England.  China trying to save its own financial system.  Too bad Krauthammer isn’t taking a good look at the facts.

Kudos to Meyerson

Given the new Obama administration, there have been plenty of Republican cries of “socialism.”  Especially, coming from no less than Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli.  The very idea that gvt must intervene in the economy:  “socialist.”  The very idea that the gvt must begin passing out checks to restart the business of jobs creation:  “socialist.”  The very idea that gvt must bail out home owners:  has to be met with protest rallies, of course.  And pregnant women wearing t-shirts that declare my baby is paying your mortgage.  In short, the so-called “right” being fresh out of compassion for those made newly impoverished, or is there an undergirding fear of their own mortality when it comes to jobs, homes and health care lost and therefore it becomes necessary to scapegoat your neighbor who has already fallen on hard times, and not necessarily of his or her free will.

I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” in full this morning having missed part of it the night before, Jon Stewart had something to say about Rick Santelli beefing on the Chicago trading floor about the general population having to take over toxic loans through their tax dollars.  Of course that is literally true, it would have to happen that way.  But the same taxpayers have to pay to put props under such sinking companies as AIG, Citibank, and etc.  What Mr. Stewart went and did was to look back of old video files of CNBC, Fox and etc. from 2007 and 2008 when the CEOS  were claiming nothing but sunshine and roses for their respective companies, the same respective companies that went belly up.  Such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros and etc.  At the same time, news channels such as Fox and CNBC failed to ask these CEOs any kind of hard questions.  He made it plain in the first part of his show that Wall Street wasn’t bothered with taking all that taxpaid for bailout money.  Santelli just had heartburn that those who got burned over subprime mortages shouldn’t get part of the bail out pie.  However, before companies such as Countrywide disappeared into the ether were known to have encouraged home buyers to use their existing property as a credit card.  Just as, so Mr. Stewart noted, people were being told they could invest in companies and literally trust the people who ran them (into the ground, incidentally) with their money, and yes, lost.  Bernie Madoff comes to mind.  Literally, the news media was in the tank for the business world and failed to take note of obviously troubling signs already evident in the real world.  Mr. Stewart would later ask a business columnist for the New York Times all about that…  So, is it “socialist” to see gvt as lending assistance to the common people according to those who once ran the gvt that aided the rich and richer?

Harold Meyerson took a look in the history books to describe what Communists and Socialists were in fact doing back in the 1930s, literally, the destruction of capitalism.  Of gvt that ultimately controlled and nationalized everything.  Which did happen in the then Soviet Union, China and etc.  Just because Obama is pushing money out the door and seeking new regulations to keep businesses fairly stable and profitable, does not mean that he is pushing for a pure nationalization of the private sector, and Meyerson knows this.  Businesses have managed quite well with regs and taxation.  They began to fail when those regs were relaxed or went unenforced.  Just as they would fail when they decided a disconnect could exist between the American consumer and American labor.  When actually, they are one and the same.  In the case of GM, now facing the prospect of financing bankruptcy charges, health care costs for workers was cited as one cause of their losing billions in money.  Even exorbitant pensions.  What wasn’t cited was high oil prices and the better competition from foreign imports.  In short, the American consumer/labor was to blame for the failings at the corporate level.  The failure of decision making to make use of cutting edge technology to produce hybrid cars, perhaps even electric cars and keep them on the road after the late 70s oil shock was over with.  Only in the last few years did American auto companies begin changing over all car design.  But that was long after foreign car makers had already done so.  Behind the curve, and then the latest oil shocks of just 2008 alone and the American consumer suddenly found it impossible to have to decide between a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk and which was more affordable.  Businesses literally started shutting down because of that oil shock, fueled in part by rapacious speculators, and the bad economic news only got worse from there.  No rules, right?  And the global economy started shutting down.  So, lawlessness=capitalism?  And the consequences of lawlessness, well the bankruptcy that already did happen.  But, it took all of 8 years and a new administration before Fox News, Lou Dobbs and etc. could cotton onto it.  Now that the new administration isn’t GOP, of course.

I guess that Meyerson got a little tired of the tirades and so as a confessed Democratic Socialist said what he knew of his particular political persuasion.  That what Obama was doing was simply trying to revitalize capitalism, of course under a new set of rules.  A gvt that begins looking out for the people—as Lou Dobbs once begged it to do—is now assaulting our liberties!!! (Circa 6 March 2009, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart).  What Dobbs was really railing about was new gun laws or bans on sales of guns sold across the border and possibly into the hands of narco terrorists.  And that is an assault on the American right to keep and bear arms?  Uh, excuse me, but why would we arm narco terrorists who are definitely engaging in wholesale slaughter of their own people and mowing down Americans north of the border as well.  Well, why would we?  Wonder if Dobbs ever thought that President Obama might have been paying attention to his 180° terrorcast about narco terrorists and illegal aliens over 2008?  And yes, proceeding to protect American citizens by banning the sale of such weapons.  Suddenly, the NRA is more important than narco terrorists getting their hands on heavy firepower developed in this nation.  Or the protection of the American people along the Mexican border.  You just have to wonder.

Conservative Commentators?

From the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Feb. 25: (republished in the Spokesman-Review, 2 March 2009)

Conservative commentators — Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck among them — have been railing against a provision in the federal stimulus bill that funds research into how well medical treatments actually work and distributes the results to doctors and patients.

Limbaugh warns darkly that comparing the effectiveness of health treatments is just the first step toward health care rationing and government-controlled medicine.

Never mind that health care already is rationed in the United States on the basis of price.  Never mind that knowing the utility of goods and services offered for sale is the conerstone free-market economics essential to determining their value.  Never mind that the rationing assertion is borrowed wholesale from a flawed analysis by Betsy McCaughey, a former Republican lieutenant governor of New York, who works for a think tank funded in part by the drug industry.

So who would oppose improving health quality and reducing waste?  Some drug and medical device makers worry that testing will show their ultra-expensive products aren’t much better or any better than existing alternatives.

And then there are politicians and pundits with nothing better to offer but bankrupt ideas and no way to sell them but fear itself.

In 2007 and 2008 Lou Dobbs (mentioned in the above republished editorial) did a lot of railing about health care costs and just what it was doing to bankrupt the middle class.  In the name of a “war on the middle class” he was doing a number of road trips and even testifying before Congress.  Just as in the name of the war on the middle class, he posed such sympathetic views as don’t people want a government that works?  And he was all for pushing for a government that works.  That was when the people spoke on 4 November 2008 and ousted a lot more GOP from the Congressional ranks and put a Democratic president in the oval office.  Now as given by that “liberal media” article above, Mr. Dobbs has done a complete about face.  He is no longer worried about any “war on the middle class” or a government that might actually start working for the people that elected it, instead he ends up pushing the sort of garbage that government must now be the institution to be feared because… but without possibly telling his viewing audience that the very same health care industry:  too flawed, too inefficient, too wasteful, too expensive; is now providing his talking points.

A government that requires the health care industry to begin proving that any device, any drug entering the marketplace be shown to be reliable, effective, and safe is only doing what it should, regulating interstate commerce.  Since one can assume that drug and medical device development won’t only be sold in that state where that specific manufacturing corporation is actually located.  And if the presumption is that such drugs and medical devices being sold nationwide then the viability of the product must be a great concern to those who will ultimately use it.  If it is no more effective than existing products, just more expensive, why do we need it?  If expensive does not mean quality, why do we buy it?  I think I’d have no doubts about drug companies having heart burn over this.  A stimulus package that includes consumer protection would require that they actually work to earn the $$$ that they demand.  Rather than passing snake oil to patients under an expensive name brand.