Ford Motor Company founder, Henry Ford, once said, “You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do.” Declining government assistance and accepting internal accountability, Ford thwarted a corporate collapse of its business ventures through in-house restructuring and refinancing. Consumers will no doubt remember, or at least consider, that when deciding to buy a new car, with Ford’s reputation intact for what it did that competitors like General Motors and Chrysler did not. No company in the world can buy that sort of public relations marketing.
Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, on the other hand, have pulled off an audacious heist of taxpayer money. After soliciting, and receiving, a combined $155 billion in government bailout money, the companies continued their frivolous spending. Despite supposed near-catastrophic financial straits, the three managed nonetheless to shell out a combined $606 million, of which Citigroup spent the majority at a cost of $400 million, for the naming rights at three sports arenas. Certainly, hardly the indispensable, curative investment needed for curbing the economic strife of the financial sector. Even more, Citigroup, citing contracts already in place, was set to purchase a new corporate jet for $50 million, no doubt for ferrying executives to their now-cancelled Bahamas convention in June. Only the combined outrage of politicians, the media and taxpayers – possibly the first time in history all three aligned in unison – ostensibly forced the cancellation of the purchase.
The precedents and examples set by these corporations, who by no means are alone in their impudence, have only served to entice entities of all ilks – from lobbyist groups like ACORN to the porn industry – to coolly seek their handout from the government. As Davy Crockett, the legendary 19th century frontiersman and politician, so eloquently stated, "We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of public money." Unfortunately, that is exactly what is occurring under any bailout plans - government charity taken from the public coffers.
To make matters worse, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had major tax issues, a problem which claimed the nomination of Tom Daschle for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Predictably, the errors were not corrected until they came to light during the nomination process. Geithner took ineligible business and charity-related deductions, expensed personal use items and failed to pay self-employment taxes totaling $34,000 between 2001 and 2005. Yet, as a key member of the economic brain trust, he is the person charged with administering and overhauling the troubled economy – no less paid for by the average American taxpayer. Or at least, the ones who pay into the system. Like the most expensive inauguration in Presidential history, it sends the wrong message at a time when Americans are looking to its leaders for fiscal responsibility with taxpayer money and alleviating the country’s economic ills.
Accordingly, rather than a bailout of financially mismanaged industries and undeserving entities, a more agreeable solution would be the division of the proposed stimulus (House bill - $820 billion; Senate bill - $838 billion) among every American taxpayer – the ones supplying a large chunk of the economic recovery package, after all – who no less would directly contribute to those very industries through spending. With an estimated population near 306 million, with just under half comprising the taxpayers, every eligible citizen (i.e. John Q. Taxpayer) could then receive roughly $6,000. Though outwardly insignificant compared to months of losses in wages and investments, that money could nonetheless be used by burdened Americans to at least pay their mortgage, ease their debt and/or spend on items from groceries to cars. Thus, economic recovery would be driven from the bottom on up, rather than from the top on down. Additionally, it would buy time, literally, for government and industry to affect changes, respectively, to fiscal policy and business models – not to mention establishing proper oversight for implementation and compliance – without haphazardly instituting such in a symbolic rush to satisfy campaign promises.
With the understood reality that we live in a capitalistic society and a global world market, that scenario, however, would not be a win-win for business. In spite of a prospective increase in consumer spending if consumers, rather than producers, were bailed out, business, from its perspective, would not thrive in the way that best benefits their bottom line. Forget the fact that questionable practices and irresponsible dealings were the majority cause of the economic troubles in the first place. For instance, if customers were able to wipe out their debt due to government intervention, banks and credit companies could not continue to exploit and reap from consumers’ debt spending in the form of exorbitant fees and interest rates. As such, those truly in need of an economic bailout – which would not include high-priced executives seeking bonuses – are not the ones who will receive it. Thus, the cycle will perpetuate that continually puts Wall Street ahead of Main Street, and maintain the status quo of economic enslavement for the most impoverished.
So much for the little guy filled with the promise of “hope and change”…
©2009 Steve Sagarra
On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama, the enigmatic celebrity darling turned divine savior of the leftist media, was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Indeed, being the first African-American to hold the highest office in the country, his election is quite possibly as significant as, if not more than, Washington or Lincoln. Everyone knew that it would happen; it was just a matter of when. With a rather atypical flat inaugural speech, Obama continued his campaign rhetoric of bringing change to Washington and to the country as a whole. The question is, as the most expensive inauguration in Presidential history, were the obvious excesses necessary at a time when Americans are looking to the U.S. government, and its leaders, for fiscal restraint and responsibility? To some, on both sides of the political aisle, it simply sent the wrong message.
While Joe Biden, the long-serving U.S. Senator from Delaware, will be Vice-President, who has “Team Obama” picked for the rest of the Administration to usher in the new era of “hope and change”?
NON-CABINET:
Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel
Emanuel is a former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton. He is known as a firebrand, lashing out at those who cross him. He also has documented associations with the corrupt of Illinois politics, from the current scandal-plagued Governor, Rod Blagojevich, on down.
Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Peter Orszag
Orszag is former Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Professors Alan Blinder, of Princeton, and Joseph Stiglitz, of Columbia University, who served in the Clinton Administration as part of Clinton’s economic advisory team, and Robert Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton, mentored and influenced him. As the current Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, Rubin orchestrated Citigroup's strategy of taking on more risk in debt markets that by the end of 2008 led the firm to the brink of collapse and an eventual government bailout. All things considered, a former student of a man who helped bring about the Wall Street collapse in the first place does not seem the solution needed at present.
Ambassador to the United Nations - Susan Rice
Rice is a former staff member of the National Security Council and Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Clinton Administration. A senior foreign policy advisor, accusations have swirled around her concerning the failure to act against, and potentially neutralize, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, while he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s.
Director of National Intelligence - Dennis C. Blair
A retired Navy admiral with 34 years experience, Admiral Blair was the CIA's military liaison in the mid-1990s. Upon occasion, he advised Obama while the latter served in the U.S. Senate, and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University with former President Bill Clinton.
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency - Leon Panetta
Panetta is former White House Chief of Staff under Clinton. A veteran Congressman, he is a bureaucratic "outsider" known more for administrative concerns over personnel and budgets with little to no experience in national security matters. He served on the Iraq Study Group, which recommended a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq in opposition to proposals by the Bush Administration, and General David Petraeus, to increase troops in order to stabilize the country. Only time will tell whether his "outsiderness" will aid or hinder his task of implementing change in an agency that has been under a negative microscope throughout the Bush Administration. As Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, stated, “I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”
Solicitor General - Elena Kagan
Kagan was most recently Dean of the Harvard Law School, from which Obama graduated, and former law professor, working alongside Obama, at the University of Chicago. Her scholarly work focuses on administrative law, including the role of the President of the United States in formulating and influencing federal administrative and regulatory law - undoubtedly something needed by an inexperienced President such as Obama. Having previously served as an associate counsel to President Bill Clinton, it may be recalled that Clinton nominated her for the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in 1999. The Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee declined to bring her nomination forward for a hearing, making it one of two D.C. Circuit nominations not acted upon before the end of the Clinton Administration. Later, President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts, the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, to the seat to which she had been nominated; even more, Obama, as a junior U.S. Senator, voted against Roberts’ confirmation to the high court in 2005. For those not understanding the irony of the entire situation, the Solicitor General is charged with arguing for the United States in front of the Supreme Court.
CABINET:
Another year has passed, and another has begun. More memories gained and further memories, unfortunately, lost to time and age. The question is, have you started your Christmas shopping? Keep in mind, only eleven months until we do it once again. Fortuitously, the astronomical necessity in adding an extra second to the closing year presents an opportunity to reflect on it that much longer.
Intrinsically, the reality of life shows that with the good comes the bad, and vice-versa. Hardly unique, 2008 was witness to moments woefully forgotten – soaring gas prices, global recession, further worldwide terrorism – and those eminently remembered – Fidel Castro stepping down, Michael Phelps surpassing Mark Spitz in Olympic gold, the first African-American elected U.S. President. Locally, there was no less a noteworthy mix as well – tragic, unprecedented shootings; perennial flooding and an early morning earthquake; the ongoing, remarkably hassle-free major highway overhaul. Of course, the sale of Anheuser-Busch may take precedence as the foremost local event to occur during the year. With that in mind, and although we may want some of these moments “never brought to mind” again, we should surely toast the more pleasant with “a right goodwill draught.”
Is it truly a “new” year though? According to the accepted, fairly universal Gregorian calendar, yes – the calendar turned two weeks ago. However, for those countries that still follow the “old” Julian calendar, the New Year actually starts, well, today. The Chinese New Year does not begin, typically, for another week, but may not start from then until sometime in late February. Depending on where one resides in India, the New Year could begin in March or April. Yet, the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, started last September, and because the Islamic calendar is shorter than the Gregorian, Muslims celebrated Muharram (“Islamic New Year”) twice last year.
Thus, have we really rung in “the New Year”? With all the different ways to track time around the globe, it is amazing we even know the day let alone the year. Perhaps that explains, in part, why international diplomacy seems so difficult? Is the real barrier to global peace that no one knows the meeting time? Certainly, the world could use “a cup of kindness yet,” having indeed “wandered many a weary foot.”
No matter the time when one celebrates, there is the inherent hope of a fresh start at the New Year. Regrettably, it is too optimistic to believe that as one is chased away the latest will usher in only the good. Even so, it would be difficult to overcome those unforeseen, dire times without such confidence. Ultimately, we should remember what came before when looking to what is to come, because far too soon, we will face yet another year gone by. Just make certain to have your shopping done before the last second, particularly for those you may have since forgotten.
©2009 Steve Sagarra
