Contrabamadiction

Those nasty AIG bonuses have just stuck themselves in nearly everyone's craw. While I have no problem with them, countless others do. But the math is really interesting, and so is a glaring contradiction.

If we accept the numbers as given, we know that AIG has received $190,000,000,000 in government loans and has distributed $175,000,000† in bonuses. Hence, we can rightfully conclude that the total amount of money distributed as bonuses is less than one thousandth of that $190 billion, at .00092 or .092 percent. In strictly percentage terms, the amount given to employees in the form of bonuses is utterly trivial.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats (and a few Republicans) are fomenting outrage over this infinitesimal distribution of "taxpayer" money. But compare this current outrage to Mr. Obama's own defense of alleged pork in his stimulus bill; read what he said on February 3, 2009, in an interview with Katie Couric. Mr. Obama rebuffed critics who claimed his bill was filled with "pork":

So, what's happened, and this is what tends to happen in this town is people have plucked out this program or that program that doesn't look particularly stimulative, the contraceptives issue being a primary example. If you add all that stuff up, it accounts from less than 1 percent of the overall package. Now that doesn't mean that the package can't improve and that's what I said to the leadership last night, "Let's improve it. Let's make this a package that is big enough for the moment, and is really focused on the American people." But I also wanna make sure that people don't get some notion which I think has been systematically promoted out there that this is full of silly spending 'cause it's not.

In other words, Mr. Obama is content overlooking trivial amounts of "taxpayer" money used for porky or pet projects. But he is not so tolerant when someone else tries to get away with something similar, even if one factors in the very real fact that AIG IS A TAXPAYER! All AIG is doing is distributing its own tax money -- refunded in a set of loans -- to its employees (who will then be taxed on it). Yet Mr. Obama has a problem with that.

No doubt such absurd behavior by a government leader is precisely "what tends to happen in this town."


Peace through dissent.

†It is reported that the Connecticut attorney general has determined that the total amount of the bonuses is $218,000,000. But this hardly changes the math.
©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Gail Collins' Grizzly Journalism

Contratimes readers should take a few minutes to read Gail Collins' "McCain's Grizzly Politics." I think you will find it stunningly patronizing ... and wrong. And maybe, just maybe, even a little bit absurd.

The surprising revelation over the last nine days of political news is that the McCain-Palin ticket has Democrats in a panic. And not just in a panic; we're talking about cornered dogs in a kennel. There is snarling and snapping of jaw aplenty. I applaud Ms. Collins' article because it is exceptional in one way: her snarling is rather subtle.

Ms. Collins -- who was the Times' first-ever (and that is important here) female editorial page editor -- begins her op-ed with a most-subtle slam:

'“There is only one man in this election who has really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death,” Sarah Palin told a crowd in Wisconsin on Friday. John McCain, standing behind her, shifted restlessly as she went on and on about his idealism, his leadership and — did you know he was a war hero?'

To Ms. Collins, John McCain "shifted restlessly" as Gov. Palin's apparent loquacity taxed the poor senator's patience and strength. But notice the tedious trope Ms. Collins drags out in her sniping question: "Did you know he was a war hero?" A unique thinker Ms. Collins is not.

Of course, she needs John McCain to be teetering on the rostrum. She doesn't want you to think too much about Barack Obama. Attentive readers know what I mean:

"Did you know Barack Obama was once a community organizer -- on the south side of Chicago?"

"Did you know Barack Obama was once the editor of the Harvard Law Review?"

"Did you know Barack Obama is eloquent? That Barack offers a message of hope?"

I could "go and on" until each of you begins to shift "restlessly," I suppose, but I won't.

That Ms. Collins observes Gov. Palin went "on and on" in praise of John McCain intimates that Gov. Palin is an unsubmissive woman, incapable of shutting up in the presence of her ruling man. That must explain why Ms. Collins wrote the following (please note what's in bold):

'“Isn’t this the most marvelous running mate in the history of this nation?” asked McCain, when he finally got a turn at the microphone.'[emphasis added]

Ah, yes, Ms. Collins, Sarah Palin is a bad woman, talking too much, upending the traditional values to which she's supposed to submit. Doesn't Sarah Palin know her place? (I find no mention in Ms. Collins' piece about Ms. Palin's first-ever status -- a boorish omission.)

The "grizzly" part of Sen. McCain's big mistake in politics has nothing to do with what the title of Ms. Collins' essay suggests. That title is really there, or so I believe, to convey to readers the idea that Sen. McCain turned his candidacy hopelessly red-state predatory when he put the pro-gun, pro-hunting ALASKAN woman on his party's ticket. But I digress. What irks Ms. Collins is Sen. McCain allegedly obsessing about a $3 million earmark that made it through the legislative process; such earmarks are anathema to Sen. McCain's view of a sane, rational and SMALLER government. Ms. Collins is quite tired of Sen. McCain constantly (allegedly) reminding voters of his battle against pork-barrel politics.

Notice what Ms. Collins does:

"[McCain] continues to use [a joke about the grizzly bear earmark] even though it has been established that the bear project was an extremely useful attempt to figure out how many grizzlies Montana has and whether they need continued protection as an endangered species. But even if it was the biggest waste of $3 million in history — even if it was money to sedate grizzlies so hairdressers could apply attractive red tints to their fur — do we want a candidate for president of the United States obsessing about it?" [emphasis added]

Note the slam of Sen. McCain's doddering old charm: He's "obsessing." He's that old man known to perseverate on pointless things. But notice too that Collins never contextualizes what McCain is doing, namely, he's mounting a defense of the charge that earmarks are bad for America because A) they are part of the mechanics of wasteful spending and indicate an engorged government which he as President will dis-engorge; and B) that such spending is the devil's lair for special interests, corruption and even extortion, where senators and representatives steal from the nation's coffers in order to appeal to voters in their respective states and districts. A rational and fair person, then, would respond to Ms. Collins' inanity by saying that, "Yes, I do want a president wildly attentive to such things if he or she is committed to reducing government bloat, abuse and power."

It is risible that Ms. Collins then launches into a rather didactic paragraph about American reluctance to elect a senator for president...as if the country has a choice this year. (You will find only the slightest revelatory note in Ms. Collins' essay that Barack Obama is a US senator -- Oh, by the way, did you know Barack Obama is a junior senator from Illinois?) But that Sen. McCain, who is truly a senior senator and knows the games in the esteemed Senate perhaps better than anybody, is somehow dismissed as a viable candidate for president because he is "obsessing" about earmarks is not just patronizing: Ms. Collins' argument is the stuff of high-school journalism.

I am all for debating whether Sen. McCain is known for really cutting government spending, at least when it comes to actual bills on the floor which are grotesquely inflated irrespective of the porky earmarks attached to them. But to suggest in any sense that Sen. McCain's experience in the US Senate precludes him from leading the country is foolish, primarily because Barack Obama virtually has NO experience not only in the US Senate, but anywhere else, and yet his Senate experience is worth noticing.

A quick look at Ms. Collins' last paragraph proves that pablum can be passed off as gristly red meat, at least in the Times:

"The problem with the Senate is that the skills you need to thrive there — even if you thrive as a maverick — aren’t the ones you need to be president. If McCain wants to convince us that he can adapt and widen his vision, he can start by vowing never to mention the bridge [the infamous Bridge to Nowhere] or the bears again."

To Ms. Collins, Sen. McCain could only elevate his campaign if he would just stop mentioning his experiences in the Senate, as the skills necessary to achieve there (apparently the same skills acquired by Hillary Clinton) are unnecessary to the job of President of the United States. But am I to conclude then that Ms. Collins believes Barack Obama should refer to himself as CO. Obama -- Community Organizer Obama -- and not Senator Obama, since the skills acquired working in the Senate are hopelessly irrelevant to the presidency?

Absurd.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

[originally posted at NH Insider]