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.
Monday, March 23, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
State of the Presidency
Before I read or listen to any commentary (and stay up way too late doing so), let me get my own thoughts down untainted.
1. Obama rocked it. ROCKED it. It was a trophy winning oratory. I don't think he's a superhero or "the one" but I do think he's even smarter than we realize. I think that while we're all hyperventilating over one thing or another, he's a few chess moves ahead of us. Not a bad quality for a leader. Not bad at all.
2. For me, with one exception, he made the case. He make his priority agenda clear to anyone even half listening: energy, health care, and education. He connected each of them to the stability of our economy, the one thing that he knows is on everyone's mind. Everytime he asked the congress to bring him a bill, he gave them the respect they deserve and gave millions of Americans a gentle civics lesson. (The president can say "I want to do this" all he wants, but congress has to enact the laws. Something Bush's laundry list State of the Unions never seemed to acknowledge.) He didn't let us off the hook -- imploring us to be better parents, better neighbors, better citizens. He refrained from name calling or finger pointing, but rightly observed that he did not create the deficit we're saddled with. And he refrained from the kind of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric that leads to ... we all know what that leads to.
3. The one exception? TARP, or financial stabilization, or whatever they're calling it now. And this could be entirely due to my own ignorance on the subject. I would welcome any research that would help me understand it better. The reason I'm skeptical -- or rather, still skeptical even after Obama acknowledged that we're all skeptical -- is this idea that the banking crisis is about a lack of credit. That if we can get banks lending again, we'll be back on track. At the risk of sounding like the people who deny global warming whenever it snows ... I walked into a Best Buy on Sunday, and within 10 minutes was approved for $4600 in credit, and for 36 months with no interest at that. I wisely decided not to use all of it, just to purchase the TV I'd budgeted for, but there it was. Credit. No problem. Few questions asked. My FICO is good, but it's not perfect. So what's the story? Is the problem with the banks frozen credit, or is it solvency? If it's frozen credit, why are banks still spending money to advertise their home mortgage products?
4. Bobby Jindal: If this is the best they've got ... well it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot after all those years that progressives couldn't muster anything better than Mondale and Dukakis. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice enough guy. But he's lousy at reading cue cards, and even lousier at sounding like he means it. Even when telling his personal stories. By the way, can anyone find a single hospital in today's Louisiana that will allow someone to negotiate a payment plan for delivering a baby? Never mind, it's beside the point. The point is that his argument against health care reform -- "we believe medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not bureaucrats" -- was neither a refutation of anything Obama proposed nor a rational statement, given the fact that millions of Americans have their medical decisions made by insurance company bureaucrats everyday. The point is that the only thing he could call out to complain about in the stimulous bill was $300 million for adding fuel efficient cars to the government fleet -- never mind that it represents only .03% of the bill's spending, and less than 14% of the regular annual budget for car purchases, and that if, as he suggests, we'll soon be seeing $4 gas again, hybrids will save the government a bundle in fuel costs. Never mind all that. Americans can do anything, after all. Oh, wait. Obama already said that. And he said it much better, and with more conviction.
1. Obama rocked it. ROCKED it. It was a trophy winning oratory. I don't think he's a superhero or "the one" but I do think he's even smarter than we realize. I think that while we're all hyperventilating over one thing or another, he's a few chess moves ahead of us. Not a bad quality for a leader. Not bad at all.
2. For me, with one exception, he made the case. He make his priority agenda clear to anyone even half listening: energy, health care, and education. He connected each of them to the stability of our economy, the one thing that he knows is on everyone's mind. Everytime he asked the congress to bring him a bill, he gave them the respect they deserve and gave millions of Americans a gentle civics lesson. (The president can say "I want to do this" all he wants, but congress has to enact the laws. Something Bush's laundry list State of the Unions never seemed to acknowledge.) He didn't let us off the hook -- imploring us to be better parents, better neighbors, better citizens. He refrained from name calling or finger pointing, but rightly observed that he did not create the deficit we're saddled with. And he refrained from the kind of "you're with us or against us" rhetoric that leads to ... we all know what that leads to.
3. The one exception? TARP, or financial stabilization, or whatever they're calling it now. And this could be entirely due to my own ignorance on the subject. I would welcome any research that would help me understand it better. The reason I'm skeptical -- or rather, still skeptical even after Obama acknowledged that we're all skeptical -- is this idea that the banking crisis is about a lack of credit. That if we can get banks lending again, we'll be back on track. At the risk of sounding like the people who deny global warming whenever it snows ... I walked into a Best Buy on Sunday, and within 10 minutes was approved for $4600 in credit, and for 36 months with no interest at that. I wisely decided not to use all of it, just to purchase the TV I'd budgeted for, but there it was. Credit. No problem. Few questions asked. My FICO is good, but it's not perfect. So what's the story? Is the problem with the banks frozen credit, or is it solvency? If it's frozen credit, why are banks still spending money to advertise their home mortgage products?
4. Bobby Jindal: If this is the best they've got ... well it's nice to see the shoe on the other foot after all those years that progressives couldn't muster anything better than Mondale and Dukakis. Don't get me wrong, he seems like a nice enough guy. But he's lousy at reading cue cards, and even lousier at sounding like he means it. Even when telling his personal stories. By the way, can anyone find a single hospital in today's Louisiana that will allow someone to negotiate a payment plan for delivering a baby? Never mind, it's beside the point. The point is that his argument against health care reform -- "we believe medical decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not bureaucrats" -- was neither a refutation of anything Obama proposed nor a rational statement, given the fact that millions of Americans have their medical decisions made by insurance company bureaucrats everyday. The point is that the only thing he could call out to complain about in the stimulous bill was $300 million for adding fuel efficient cars to the government fleet -- never mind that it represents only .03% of the bill's spending, and less than 14% of the regular annual budget for car purchases, and that if, as he suggests, we'll soon be seeing $4 gas again, hybrids will save the government a bundle in fuel costs. Never mind all that. Americans can do anything, after all. Oh, wait. Obama already said that. And he said it much better, and with more conviction.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Perspective
Today I woke up to reports that Treasury Secretary Geithner had shouted down David Axelrod in a meeting last night, insisting that the plan for disbursing the next $350 billion (a figure that shouldn't seem as small as it suddenly does) of the TARP funds couldn't come with any strings attached. Or at least that's what it sounded like to me.
And I was pissed.
I was shouting in the car, calling for his resignation. I was seething throughout the day. I had time for a quick peek at HuffPo on my way out of the office, where I read Cenk Uygur's insightful column. I read the first few comments--never a good idea--and found myself in an echo chamber of my anger at Geithner. I needed to shut down my computer, but--inspired by fellow angry people--I went to Whitehouse.gov and fired off a diatribe against Geithner. I was going to print it here, but I don't want it end up forwarded throughout the right-wing blogosphere as their new manifesto.
Especially because now that it's past my bedtime, I've actually read what was released today (and Paul Krugman' s blog on the subject) and I'm just not as angry. Sure the plan's a little vague, but it's more than we ever got from Paulsen & co. And from what I can tell, the $500K pay cap still applies, along with other regulations on allowable dividends and mandates for transparency. Now, I'd still like to see us nationalize the banks, the auto industry, and the airlines, but I'm just one pinko commie radical howling at the moon. It might not be what I'd do, but it also might not be as bad as I thought.
And I was pissed.
I was shouting in the car, calling for his resignation. I was seething throughout the day. I had time for a quick peek at HuffPo on my way out of the office, where I read Cenk Uygur's insightful column. I read the first few comments--never a good idea--and found myself in an echo chamber of my anger at Geithner. I needed to shut down my computer, but--inspired by fellow angry people--I went to Whitehouse.gov and fired off a diatribe against Geithner. I was going to print it here, but I don't want it end up forwarded throughout the right-wing blogosphere as their new manifesto.
Especially because now that it's past my bedtime, I've actually read what was released today (and Paul Krugman' s blog on the subject) and I'm just not as angry. Sure the plan's a little vague, but it's more than we ever got from Paulsen & co. And from what I can tell, the $500K pay cap still applies, along with other regulations on allowable dividends and mandates for transparency. Now, I'd still like to see us nationalize the banks, the auto industry, and the airlines, but I'm just one pinko commie radical howling at the moon. It might not be what I'd do, but it also might not be as bad as I thought.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Overstimulated
I'm trying to slog through the stimulus bill, and between the different versions, I've gotten through about 2/3 of it. Through page 122 or so, I've compared the first Senate version with the amended version. I wish I had more expertise, or even experience, in this area. I probably sound like an idiot to my lawyer friends. Still I have a few observations:
Economically, Krugman takes the words out of my mouth. Or puts them in my mouth, I suppose, since since he has a Nobel prize in economics and I can barely balance my checkbook. At any rate, everything he's written about this bill's weaknesses makes sense to me. Except that I don't think any amount of salesmanship on Obama's part could have gotten the bill we need through the senate. The bill we need probably would have imploded and festered like the last attempt at immigration reform. The November elections didn't fix all of the broken elements of our political system. Or even convince the small government idealogues that their theory has its flaws.
Economically, Krugman takes the words out of my mouth. Or puts them in my mouth, I suppose, since since he has a Nobel prize in economics and I can barely balance my checkbook. At any rate, everything he's written about this bill's weaknesses makes sense to me. Except that I don't think any amount of salesmanship on Obama's part could have gotten the bill we need through the senate. The bill we need probably would have imploded and festered like the last attempt at immigration reform. The November elections didn't fix all of the broken elements of our political system. Or even convince the small government idealogues that their theory has its flaws.
Speaking of those adorable republicans, I still can't find this "pork" the GOP is screaming about. It's not there, and those senators know it, but they throw the accusation out there to make it sound bad. It's a rallying cry for the kool-aid drinkers. They get away with it because most people flunked civics and don't know what "pork" really means. It doesn't mean "spending." It means some item in the bill that benefits just one representative's district or one senator's state. These projects, even without the factor of campaign donations, assure relection by constituents happy that their rep is bringing home the bacon, so to speak. It's objectionable because it's paid for federally but only benefits people in that state or district. Somebody tell me where that is in this bill. Seriously, where? I'm not a genius, so point it out to me.
Perhaps the HuffPo editors had a similar thought. I noticed that on their "help us read the Stimulus Bill" page--the page that motivated me to do this--they finally changed the question from "watch for anything that looks like pork or wasteful spending" to "Then again, this is not all about waste. If you identify items that lack enough funding to be effective, please identify those cases as well. The point of the bill, after all, is to inject money into the economy to put people back to work." I was glad to see that, but the problem is that very few of us know how much is sufficient. Including the senate, apparently. Even the people who are supposed to know something are scratching their heads. Like Bob Herbert and so many others, I believe Obama is one of the smartest, most confident people in this country. I can't think of anyone else better equipped to take on these challenges. But watching tonight's press conference, I think he's lacking for answers and he knows it.
One last ramble in this long ramble about a long ramble: I notice that the proposed additional funding for the Department of Defense was not cut at all in the revised bill. Not a penny. When just about everything else got at least a little slice taken off. Coincidence? Based on a careful analysis that shows those programs are more necessary or will put more people to work? Somehow, I don't think so. Show me said analysis and I'll back off. But my hunch is that it's because these cuts--all of them--are political, not practical, and no one wants to be accused of de-funding the troops. What about de-funding schools, nurses, firefighters, police officers? What about de-funding food stamps for the millions of unemployed? Why isn't that an accusation to fear?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)