Rough Week

Washington Post sports reporter and ESPN co-host Michael Wilbon to Indy Racing League Champion Tony Kanann on Pardon the Interruption this past Monday afternoon; “So, what was it like to be on fire?” You know you’re having a bad week when…

The feel-good story of the week is the release of captive American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for North Korea following a visit from former president Bill Clinton. Well, feel-good for everyone not working at Fox News. It took Fox about four minutes following the announcement of the release to find some way to spin the end of a hostage situation into some bizarre, baseless theory that Obama had sold out the country for a photo-op. Without a shred of evidence, every guest and commentator on the network decided there had been some super secret quid pro quo that will prove to be disastrous to the nation in the coming months or years. Their braying reminded me of the story of a previous administration after insisting it did not negotiate with terrorists, covertly traded weapons to a hostile Iranian regime in exchange for American hostages, then lied about it to Congress. It might even be funny if the Reagan administration official responsible for orchestrating the whole sordid affair didn’t host his own show on said network.

The other major story seemed to be the government’s “cash for clunkers” program. Remember the stimulus package? You know, the 787 billion dollar spending package the opposition claimed was a dismal failure – even though it isn’t, and only about 10% of the funds have been distributed? Yes, well one billion dollars worth of stimulus funding was set aside to offer an incentive of up to $4,500 for new car buyers to trade in old gas guzzlers for new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The White House expected the program to run through September. But since it began last week Monday, over 200,000 vehicles have been sold under the program, bankrupting it in less than a week. The most popular trade-ins were older trucks and SUVs, while the most popular purchase turned out to be the Ford Focus, averaging 35 highway miles per gallon. Due in large part to the success of program, Ford Motor Company posted its first profit in two years. The numbers for “cash for clunkers” are slightly misleading, since many car dealers had already been selling vehicles under the program several weeks in advance of its start date. Never the less, the point was made – and in dramatic fashion. Federal stimulus does work. Perhaps too well.

Anxious to glom on to any positive economic news, the House rushed to divert $2 billion additional dollars previously allocated to clean energy research to keep “cash for clunkers” alive, then left for August recess, leaving the fate of the program in the hands of the Senate. In Canada we refer to our Senate as the chamber of sober second thought. Sadly that’s can’t be said for Washington. Faced with the prospect of admitting that at least a portion of the stimulus package they refused to support was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, Republican opponents – as they had so deftly accomplished with the rationalization for the Iraq war – simply changed the debate. Instead of acknowledging their misstep, they attempted to ridicule the program, suggesting that perhaps the government should institute “cash for cluckers” to get people to eat more chicken. Sigh. Maybe we should look into passing a “sense for Senators” program to help stimulate common sense.

And what is this business about August recess. Is Congress a collection of first graders that they need time to go play outside? Why not add nap time and hot lunches too?

In the spirit of equal opportunity criticism, Democrats proved against last week that Republicans have no monopoly on stupidity. In a speech to industry insiders, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner indicated that to date the government has recovered an eight billion dollar profit on money loaned to failing financial institutions – money many critics insisted the taxpayer would never get back. This led an intrepid reporter to ask Senate Democratic leaders what they planned to do with these unexpected profits? Now, in case you’re wondering, the answer to this question is very simple, and should be painfully obvious to a party driven to paralysis in paranoia about record and rising budget deficits. Use the profits from TARP to pay down the budget deficit. But no. Instead of providing the logical, fiscally responsible, confidence-building response, Democrats suggest using the afore-mentioned profits to perhaps modify more home loans or extend unemployment benefits. There’s a reason the Democratic Party has a reputation in some circles for being unable to control their spending. Sometimes, they can’t. For crying out loud, try not to screw this up.

This week’s musings on healthcare are brought to you courtesy of the media. Every television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight agrees – without exception – that the leading factor in the death of healthcare reform in 1993 was the fact that the White House drafted a bill behind closed doors at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, took it up to Capitol Hill and demanded they sign it. They all agree that President Obama learned from the mistakes of the Clinton administration by giving Congress a set of guidelines and letting them work out the details. Yet every single television, radio, newspaper and new media pundit in the lower forty-eight now insists that the President needs to take a larger roll in crafting the healthcare bill stumbling through Congress. Hmm. So, in order to save the healthcare bill, the President must engage in the very same behavior that killed the previous attempt at healthcare reform, so that he can then be blamed for falling to learn from the mistakes of the previous administration. I guess you have to fill the remaining 23 hours and 53 minutes of the news cycle with something.

It’s that time again. Corporate bonuses are due. Stories surfaced all over the media last week regarding the amount of money financial institutions had set aside to pad the pockets of their talent. The story garnering the most attention was that of the Citi Group trader reportedly due a $100 million bonus come the end of the fourth quarter, a bonus he fully expects to receive. Many people are upset at the idea that even after the last round of bonus outrage, a corporation partially responsible for the financial collapse with hundreds of billions in bad decisions, thousands – if not millions of layoffs by proxy and owing tens of billions of dollars to the American taxpayers would even consider paying out a nine figure bonus to one man. But I think those people fail to grasp the concept of bonuses in the same manner the corporations did prior to the meltdown. The argument is, has been and should be that financial sector bonuses should be given based on performance. The Citi Group trader in question made over $2 billion for the company. Anybody earning $2 billion for his employer deserves a bonus, and $100 million isn’t all that much in comparison. People should be rewarded for good performance. The problem with the first round of bonuses is that corporations were paying billions in bonuses to the very same people who bankrupted the company. Rewards for positive performance, penalties for negative performance. It’s a pretty simple concept. Isn’t it?

Finally, an amusing side note to the recent debate over the trimming of the defense budget. The President threatened to veto any bill containing funding for additional F-22 fighters beyond the 187 units already contracted for. Republicans – and some Democrats – with a financial interest in the production of additional F-22 units insisted on more of them, even though the defense department has repeatedly stated its desire to replace the jets with the much less expensive F-35 joint strike fighter. There are plenty of reasons to discontinue the F-22. First and foremost, we have 187 of these bad boys that we have NEVER used in either combat or bombing missions. Oh, and on top of that, according to air force documents, the F-22 is vulnerable to rain. That’s right, rain. The most technologically advanced aircraft in the world cannot be flown through a thunderstorm, an April shower or anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. How is that even possible? Aren’t these things assembled in Seattle? Do they have to shrink warp the planes in order to transport them across country? If we ever get into a war with any country not dominated by desert, we are screwed.