. Spinning .

Still on the subject of corporate pay, I’m seeking answers to the problem from my little bit of knowledge of keeping up on current affairs and from my small experience as a shareholder (not in AIG thank God). Many employees hold shares of their company and as such shareholders are sent usually quarterly or annual voting information. I used to throw these out, knowing that our tiny percentage of ownership amounted to spit in a pond. But that’s not exercising a right that could have an impact if everyone took it more seriously.

There’s always the usual blah blah blah to vote on, but there’s also the usual “disclosure of executive compensation” item that the Board “suggests you vote no” on. Well dammit, vote YES! If every employee with his lousy 100 shares in 100,000,000 voted, then maybe something could be done. The big guys are counting on your lack of confidence in your vote counting.

I’m by no means a proponent of multi-million dollar salaries for executives (nor for movie stars or ballplayers for that matter) but what’s at work here is ‘whatever the market will bear’ and no one is going to refuse the extra money. And the fact of life is that someone somewhere thinks these people are worth it; shareholders, moviegoers, sportsfans. Sometimes these people actually may be worth it; it ain’t easy running a global conglomerate that employs thousands of workers; maybe it ain’t easy to cry on cue for a camera either. And maybe it doesn’t seem fair that one may work hard and get paid 1/300th of the top guy but it’s not just hard work that’s being compensated. It isn’t fair to see some bimbo marry the CEO and walk away a few years later with a portion of his salary that easily translates to the annual salaries of hundreds of laid-off workers either. But life’s never been guaranteed as fair.

(NOTE: I keep updating this post because despite my best intentions to drop this whole matter I can’t get it out of my mind.)

It’s hard not to like President Obama, he’s down-to-earth, humorous, intelligent, and silver-tongued. Even as I cringe under the events of the last few months and the view of the next few years, I cannot help but like him as a person.

Last night with Jay Leno his performance showed me some points that scare me. Maneuvering around distasteful questions is one thing; I don’t blame him, all politicians do this, and he manages it much better than most. He also gave some clear and eloquent answers that gave me hope that he “gets” it, and his heart is possibly in the right place even if I don’t feel his responding actions are always there. The “I take responsibility” thing is overdone however, but it worked for Bill Clinton and I suppose it’s become the new mantra since all people want to know is who to blame and when someone steps up, the anger dissipates. Oh yeah, okay, well he says he’s responsible so whatever. What bothered me however is the one remark he made about the proposed 90% tax on bonus pay. While he seemed to acknowledge that it isn’t the right thing to do, his blase attitude of “so sue me” (reneging on the contracts) is such a typical lawyer tactic. It is so in conflict with his intention to spend trillions of dollars on education when education on ethical issues can be learned free by example.  Oh wait, maybe that’s not in conflict at all. What I see ahead is a near Big Brother scenario where the individual lack of responsibility evidenced today grows worse, is taken up by the government, and the learning of moral values is accepted as being out of the hands of parents and plopped into the realm of government via the education system.

I think that with all the rush to placate the public no one’s thought of what happens down the road. For one thing, the idea of taxation as a remedy really has nothing to do with the matter so the lessons are useless. If enacted, this new tax law, even if it recoups 90% of taxpayer money, does that mean that AIG only owes 10% of the remaining since surely there is no intent to not only get the money back through taxes but still insist upon that portion of the ‘loan’ being repaid. That’s double-payment.

See, the damage here was done not to taxpayers, but to taxpayers as stockholders, and that’s who the companies need to answer to unless there were specific strings attached to the original loans and bailout money. There’s legal remedy when the problem is approached from that angle. To put it another way, if you loan someone $100 because they claim their rent is due, and then prior to paying you back they throw a party, you can be rightly upset, but you have no recourse other than the terms of the loan–how and when it will be paid back. If, on the other hand, you buy into the apartment, you better know what you’re buying, the good and the bad. If parties are an established Friday night deal, then, well, you’ve got to bite the bullet or attempt to renegotiate.

At any rate, I find myself getting too wired up about the goings on, and as a friend recently posted a quote from Neil Postman: “The news elicits a variety of opinions about which you can do nothing except to offer them as more news, about which you can do nothing” I find it too painful to keep banging my head against the walls. So it is time to retreat, retract, find a comfort zone and stray beyond its boundaries no more.

Well, they did it.

I am deeply saddened and find this action truly immoral.

I think I’m beginning to finally understand the concept of political correctness. In a Democratic administration, flub-ups are properly called “problems in a key relationship” whereas in a Republican reign, these are called lies, incompetence, and cover-ups.

Got it.

Actually a very productive day; shoe repair, laundry, emissions, grocery and bank and then, a few hours spent watching the committee grill Edward Liddy, the CEO of AIG.

Overall impression of Mr. Liddy is that he was extremely professional, intelligent, and forthright in his answers. He made a decision and maybe it wasn’t the right one–and maybe it will prove to be just that in the end–and it was bound to raise the ire of the majority of the U.S. in that not only had they put up tax dollars to pay AIG folks great sums of money, but worse, that money just reminded everyone how some people make so much more money than they do. And if possible, even worse than that, the people getting the money weren’t ballplayers or movie stars.

Some of the committee members, although outraged themselves, found the grace to comprehend that Mr. Liddy was put into a very difficult situation to do a job and fix a dying conglomerate, gratis, and they asked good, tough questions. Some didn’t seem to do anything more than try to assure their voters that they were righteously irate. Some didn’t have a clue what was going on. Some sounded dumber than I would have in their comprehension and focus.

And some honestly didn’t know what was going on: like the Fed Reserve’s knowledge of the compensation payments months earlier; or Dodd’s closed meetings wherein maybe someone took out a clause that would have prevented those payments. I was glad to see Barney Franks suggest that the stockholders–in fact, the taxpayers and the government acting in that capacity–possibly was the way to try to recoup the money in that their investments were seriously depleted by the same executives who were rewarded so handsomely. It’s just what I’ve been saying all along and so much more honest than coming up with a cockamamie 90% tax rate.

All in all, it was a very interesting view of the process at work.

According to the news, investors who suffered losses due to Madoff’s fraudulent business practices and who paid taxes on phantom gains will be able to reclaim some of that tax money from the government (as is just and fair).

Reading the USA Today article I came to this:

“Investors in some of these cases are entitled to a “theft loss” deduction, not subject to the limits on normal capital losses from investments, according to the IRS guidelines, Shulman testified at a Senate Finance Committee hearing.”

Now I don’t know yet what the “theft loss” deduction includes, or how it’s worded but it sounds like a possibility to check if it would cover the scamming done by the AIG executives (and I’m not saying that they’re all guilty of either out and out plotting or mere incompetency in letting the company accrue such losses) under a class action suit either by investors or by the public under the umbrella of the U.S. government. Words that are tangled into secure knots are never easily, but always eventually capable of being unraveled.

I sure wish I had access to all the records in the Bernie Madoff case, and this is why I’m so interested in it–because obviously I’m neither an investor or one who cares what’s going on with someone else’s money–because I just love a good mystery that involves figures and accounting. And of course, boats and diamonds and mansions are interesting too.  Because of my anal nature, my meticulous methods and tenaciousness to leave no stone unturned and no penny turned into an adjusting entry, I’ll betcha I could find almost all of the 65 billion he stole. And for a cool 1% finders fee, I’d absolutely love to do it.

Okay, so maybe in the heat of reading about the executive bonus pay of 160 million I (and the rest of America, except perhaps for the executive wives and families) get a bit overexcited about seeking justice.

I’m sorry I suggested that we egg Liddy’s house.

And yes, I know I have no legal expertise or even the vaguest sense of law but I do know fair from unfair, and I do know from personal experience that 1) Liddy’s legal team likely wasn’t looking the contracts over to find a way out but rather to assure their bosses that they were airtight and 2) just because a lawyer passed the bar it doesn’t mean he has an ounce of common sense or hasn’t been disillusioned enough by the system to prefer to take the easy way out. I’ve fought based on contract wording and had four lawyers disagree or waffle on it until the judge stated that my argument was  unequivocally legally sound.

So, any chance of the taxpayers filing a class action suit against AIG’s executive officers and their cockamamie decisions that brought the company to near ruin and then turned around and did it again with taxpayer dollars?

I don’t know why I read this political tripe anymore, except I suppose to get it from the most direct source. The designated spokesman answers a few reader questions and voiced worries:

“Karen from Newell, AL wrote “I am a school teacher in this very rural place…. This economic crisis is really hurting this little place. We will lose 7 teachers at my school which translates to increasing my class size from 15 to 20. This may not seem like much but it makes a big difference to students who need a lot of individual help.”

Oh suck it up, Karen. My elementary school class was 60-strong. And the teacher was locked up with these same students in the same classroom all day except for a lunch and recess break when the good sister would probably head for the convent and down some aspirin or perhaps a nip of wine. Are five extra kids really going to knock you for a loop? Then I think you’re in the wrong profession. You wanna see a school with a problem? That little girl who wrote to President Obama about her school in Georgia (?) where they barely had a roof over their heads, well now, that’s a problem.

And this:

Finally, several people, like Keith from Sitka, Alaska suggested that the Task Force have something with “average, middle-class Americans in an open forum to listen to what problems they face and what solutions they can offer.”

Well Keith, read the paragraph prior to this:

When the money is distributed at the state and local levels, we plan for it to be put to use where your community needs it most, whether you need teachers, firefighters, cops, paramedics, or bus drivers.  President Obama put my boss, Vice-President Biden, in charge of overseeing the distribution of the funds that, among many things, will create jobs that will restore the prosperity of the middle class.

And best of luck to you in obtaining your teaching cert, or plan B, the firefighters training, or C, paramedics are good, or if you’ve got a license, D, a bus driver. Other than that, you’re shit outta luck.

Reading about the Madoff swindle, I find so many folks laughing and figuring that the rich deserved what they got. But the rich pay big taxes and are the main source of income for charity groups. In an article in Vanity Fair, there’s this:

The center of the storm was the predominantly Jewish Palm Beach Country Club. The sand-colored building, with its fine restaurants and 18-hole golf course, sits between the Atlantic Ocean and Lake Worth. Membership is based not on what you have—the $350,000 initiation fee is the least concern of the admissions committee—but on what you give away. Madoff became a member in 1996. “You won’t get in unless you can demonstrate that you’ve been charitable in a big way,” said Richard Rampell, an accountant with a number of clients who are members. “They want to see a history of many years of giving every year at least what the initiation fee is, and they ask you to prove it.… I have a few clients who give 10 to 20 times that much every year to charity.” One member told me, “We built the hospital, we built the Kravis Center for the Performing Arts. We built it all. This is just not a come-and-have-a-party group.”

You hurt the big guys, and believe me, the little guys are going to get hurt as well.

• Obama vows to break cycle of job losses
• Job losses could get even worse
• Analysts: Job losses could drown stimulus
• Stark’s hottest job: Janitor

Does no one notice that the major job loss is in manufacturing, production, and white collar areas while the target area provides the majority in government, education, construction and health care?

Do we really expect the autoworkers and managers to learn how to perform surgery or run a backhoe?  Yes, many jobs are transferable into these sectors and change of arena won’t throw everyone for a loop, but it seems that a cutback or penalty (or incentive, I don’t care which) on companies who have moved their facilities overseas might be a step in the right direction to bring jobs back to these heavy-hit areas.

And by the way, say you don’t care about big banks and the stock market? Look at your pension plans, people. Unless the plan’s a big cookie jar that kept your money safely tucked inside, you’re affected by what happens on Wall Street.

This is so reminiscent of the wonderful ideology of the ’70s but for cryin out loud, we found that flower power just doesn’t work.

And, balls:

“Because of what we did, 95% of all working families will get a tax cut — in keeping with a promise I made on the campaign. And I’m pleased to announce that this morning, the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks — meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month. Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans.”

“That work begins on Monday, when I will convene a fiscal summit of independent experts and unions, advocacy groups and members of Congress to discuss how we can cut the trillion-dollar deficit that we’ve inherited. On Tuesday, I will speak to the nation about our urgent national priorities, and on Thursday, I’ll release a budget that’s sober in its assessments, honest in its accounting, and that lays out in detail my strategy for investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”   (The White House Blog)

No matter what the scenario, good or bad, there will always be those who exploit it, and it’s not the usual suspects this time:

From MSNBC, “New Foreclosure Defense: Prove I Owe You”

ZEPHYRHILLS, Fla. – Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

And just like that, the foreclosure proceedings came to a standstill.

If you’ve ever seen any of the TV small claims court shows you’ll notice a trend that still makes my jaw drop; it’s the “It’s his fault for loaning me the money ’cause he knew I couldn’t pay him back and that’s why I didn’t” frame of mind of these people who honest-to-God believe that’s a  legitimate defense.

Sorry folks, if I seem a bit out-dated and stodgy here, but while there were always people trying to worm their way out of things, they didn’t have the chutzpah to get on national media with their weasley claims.

I perfectly sympathize with all the people who have lost or are in danger of losing their homes, whether it’s their own fault or not, but I have no sympathy (and here’s where my conservative half comes in) whatsoever with someone not accepting their failure and attempting to move beyond it in an honest and gracious manner but instead pointing fingers at everyone from the rich people to the government to the dog down the street and demanding that somebody else fix the mess. We’ve never actually faced foreclosure, but there were times when we didn’t know how we’d pay the next month’s mortgage and bills. We didn’t whine; we tightened our belts, ate less, drove less, called and made arrangements with our lenders for a 10-day grace period if necessary, sold some valuables that had meant a lot to us. Because that’s what you do. If you’re a responsible, honest person, that is.

There really should be an easy way for a weblog or any site to get into Technorati or Google or Yahoo or whoever and be able to make the redirect of a moved site right there. Anyway, I have to enter this for Technorati:

Technorati Profile

Found the Katie Couric sit-down with Senators Obama and McCain that I referred to earlier, and in reading it, it confirms my tendency to think of her as a sub-standard journalist. She only presented on TV the two questions (the other being about elitism) and I find that rather as odd as her insistence with Governor Palin to get an answer on what magazines she reads.

However, it did make me feel a bit better about both presidential candidates (since one or the other IS going to be President and I’d like to have some confidence in either one): Senator McCain’s answer displayed a well-spoken refusal to be caught in a trap; Senator Obama displayed a humanness that eluded his mask of charisma.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/15/eveningnews/main4524998.shtml?tag=cbsBroadcasts;cbsBroadcastsContent)

Katie Couric: Why do you think so many prominent political figures risk so much by being unfaithful to their spouse?

Barack Obama: I have no idea, because my attitude is the more I’m in public, I mean, I don’t even want to pick my nose, you know. It’s, I mean, I’m assuming everybody’s watching.

And it’s just an interesting – I’ll leave that to the psychologists. But I find that, the more I’m in the public eye, the more I want to make sure that people know that … there’s no gap between who I am and the face I’m presenting to the world. You know, you want to, you want people to know that what you say is what you mean and that’s who you are.

——–

John McCain: I don’t know, Katie, and I don’t understand people’s personal lives. And so I can’t comment on that. I think it’s something that I am not really running for president to address, and I can’t comment on it.

Couric: Isn’t it bizarre, though, when you think about it, Senator? Elliott Spitzer, recently John Edwards, President Clinton. I think it’s very befuddling to many people in this country.

McCain: Yeah, but I also am reminded of the biblical admonition about "judge not." And so I really don’t make any comments about that because, frankly, I want to be a good president and try to lead an honorable life.

And I’ve been an imperfect servant and so I’m not judging.

Now what the hell was Couric thinking (besides entrapment of McCain, her bias is obvious) in asking both candidates the question of "Why would government officials risk everything to cheat on their spouse?"  Why on earth would she think that Senator Obama or Senator McCain would have the answer to that? It’s at best an opinion, and of a psychologist at that–not a question of a presidential candidate. People cheat, ALL kinds of people. And all for different reasons.

Even Couric’s questioning of the two men on the charges of their being elitists was a colossal waste of air time. What did she expect them to say?