Wanna Buy a Stinky Sack?

The Geithner plan made me think of an old joke. It probably started as an ethnic joke; in the 70s, when I first heard it, it was a "moron" joke -- which at the time was the polictically correct alternative to ethnic jokes. Now that we're not supposed to make fun of morons, I'm not sure what kind of joke it is.

Anyway, this [member of group we're mocking] walks up to another [member of the same group] holding a sack. He says, "If you can guess how many chickens are in this sack, I'll give you all six of them."

And the other [member of the group] says, "Twelve?"

The public-private partnership deal reminds me of that one, only instead with Goldman Sachs alumni as the hated group:


One Goldman Sachs alum (now a hedge-fund manager) says to the other Goldman Sachs alum (now the Treasury Secretary), "So, Tim, there's this sack. Our friends want to get rid of it. It smells bad. It's making them sick. It might be full of shit, might be full of gold, hard to say. Anyway, I'm going to pick a number out of a hat, and whatever number it is, that's the price. We divide by seven and then split that in half. You with me so far?"

"Sure, divide random number by seven, split in half," says the Secretary. "I think I know where we're going with this. But won't people point out that if the problem with the bag is how bad it smells, it's probably full of shit?"

"No no no," says the hedge-fund manager, "I mean, obviously there's some shit that's come in contact with the sack at some point. But the chances of it being a bag full of shit are nearly impossible. I did the math. So anyway we each put in one-fourteenth, you lend me the other six-sevenths of the price, and we buy the sack. Our friends will be totally grateful and start to feel better. And we'll have the sack."

"Brilliant!" says the Secretary. "We take the smelly bag off their hands and we get to split the gold. And I'll be earning interest on the loan I gave you."

"Yup," says the hedge-fund manager. "It's synergy. Of course, on the off chance it turns out to be a bag of shit, I won't be repaying the loan. But how likely is that?"

"Yeah, how likely is that?" laughs the Secretary. "The critics just don't realize this is better than just leaving the stinky bag out there. And they're just being pessimistic when they say it's a bag full of shit. Like they know. If we can't even tell what's in the sack, how can they?"

"Deal?" says the first Goldman Sachs alum?

"Deal," says the second Goldman Sachs alum.

This version is not as funny as the original. I'm beginning to suspect we're all the butt of this one.

The Baby and the Bathwater

At the farmer's market on Saturday, there were volunteers collecting signatures in support for Obama's budget. I dragged my fiance over to the table. "I signed online," I said, "but you should sign, too."

The girl at the table told me I should go ahead and sign again. I picked up a pen and muttered that I'd like to add a note that says, "Fire Tim Geithner."

"Oh, you can if you want," the canvasser said, nodding.

"The trouble is," a woman to my left chimed in, "most people don't understand the difference."

I'm so steeped in this, it took me a moment to understand what she meant, but I fear she may be right. Budget. Bailout. Stimulus. These are all things that have to do with sums of money beyond our comprehension. All things being decided in Washington, hundreds or thousands of miles from our hometowns, where we comprehend all too well the sums of jobs and homes lost. For the average American, watching the news with our hands over our eyes like it's a horror movie or a surgery show, it's easy to just lump them all together. If too many people do that, the results could be tragic.

Contrary to what Republicans and right-wing bloggers would have you think, admiring President Obama doesn't requre blind agreement with his every policy position. I happen to be more convinced by Paul Krugman's solution to the banking crisis than by Secretary Geithner's. I'm inclined to agree with--of all people--Henry Blodget that the financial sector is not suffering a liquidity crisis, it is simply insolvent. That the question is no longer whether we "let the banks fail." The banks have failed. The question is who has to shoulder the consequences of the failure: the people whose actions created this mess, or the rest of us?

That's how I feel about the bailout, otherwise known as TARP, otherwise known as the "Financial Stability Plan." But if that's the filthy bathwater, then Obama's proposed budget is the corresponding baby. It's grounded in the principles of fairness, in the idea that government should serve the common good. That when there's a crisis, we should all turn our attention to the people who need our help the most. That our environment, our health, or national security, and our economy are all interconnected, and that the way forward needs to address them together. That shared sacrifice is an American value.

When was the last time a budget proposal made us teary? It's what we all imagined when we danced in the streets last November. A better, more compassionate future is possible, and there's a blueprint for it in that budget. I'm sure everyone can find at least one detail to quibble with, but the guiding philosophy is solid. And nothing would be sadder than to see it buried under a pile of anger.

Nuances of Neutrality

When I read today's Washington Post article about a leaked ICRC report ... I was struck by this statement:

"At least five copies of the report were shared with the CIA and top White House officials in 2007 but barred from public release by ICRC guidelines intended to preserve the humanitarian group's strict policy of neutrality in conflicts."

My first reaction was, "Come again? How is helping the CIA conceal their misdeeds neutral?" But I realized I'm somewhat ignorant on the workings of the ICRC, so I did some reading. I found this thoughtful discussion of the matter the ICRC website.

I can see valid points on both sides--their ability to provide humanitarian aid and to document violations of the Geneva Convention depends on their perceived neutrality. Breaching confidentiality after being allowed access to a conflicted area would be like a journalist giving up a source. But in cases like the Holocaust, silence turns into complicity. I like the idea that they will break their silence if a government repeatedly ignores their findings or continues their abuses. I don't think this is a question with easy answers, and I don't feel qualified to add much to the discussion. Just food for thought.

I'd rather look at pictures of cute animals, but this is important.

Monday's Washington Post reports on a leaked ICRC report that documents torture of detainees at CIA prisons.

This just drives home how badly we need a truth and reconciliation commision, like the one proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy. As much as I'd like the administration and the legislature to focus on fixing the economy, heathcare, and energy crises--not to mention dealing with our foreign policy messes like responsible adults--I think we need to do this. As much as I would rather look at pictures of cute animals, I think we all need to come to terms with our role in this as citizens. Yes, you. And me. Whatever benefits we derive from our citizenship--and the benefits are many--we have a responsibility to pay attention to what our government's doing on our behalf.

So before you click to something more palatable, there's one simple action you can take: sign Senator Leahy's petition. We need our history books to reflect the truth of the last eight years. It would serve us well if the chapter concluded with a national dialogue that restored the world's faith in the United States as a defender of human rights. It would serve us well if our children can believe their presidents when they say, "We do not torture."

Please add your name to the petition calling for a non-partisan truth and reconciliation commission.