"things are unfolding as they want and expect, but they'll pretend to be outraged if that seems necessary." -- Bingo. (4.00 / 4)

what they want -- not at all what we want or need.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:33:28 PM UTC

also -- it's "nobody could have imagined" all over again, too -- (4.00 / 3)

and we're not buying it.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:42:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a tautology (4.00 / 5)

Those who could -- and did -- imagine are nobody. By definition.

---

by: William Timberman @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:46:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did you ever wonder what kind of courage (4.00 / 8)

--or desperation-- flowed through the veins of the people who assaulted the Ancien Regime with murderous force?

I mean, one day you're grumbling about the Stamp Act, and the next day you are bayoneting active duty soldiers, or kicking down the bedroom door of the local Marquis.

We owe those people.

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:38:19 PM UTC

You're completely right (4.00 / 4)

but I don't actually care which one it is.

If they are screwing people through incompetence or by design, the result is the same for us.  "I didn't do it on purpose" is no defense - public officials should be held accountable for how they exercise the authority they wield, not what is in their hearts.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:45:09 PM UTC

The Democrats are wrecking their brand (4.00 / 7)

  The Democrats, even in the worst of times for the party, have always had the reputation of caring more about the little guy. That's essentially the reason the party even exists.

  The Obama/Summers/Geithner triumvirate, in a few short weeks, is permanently demolishing that reputation. It's pretty pathetic when they're letting Republicans run to the left of them...and they don't even seem to care, or perhaps even notice.

  During the darkest moments of the Bush presidency, I feared that America would devolve into a one-party state. Little did I expect that a Democratic administration would come much closer to making that happen.

  Obama is a smart man. He HAS to know that Summers and Geithner's Wall Street protectionism is toxic to his administration...and his agenda. The fact that he's doing nothing about it raises serious questions about his judgement.

  Yes, McCain would have been worse. But he wouldn't have wrecked the Democrats' hand in the process.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:46:00 PM UTC

both (4.00 / 3)

There are only two explanations for this persistent pattern of screwing working class interests. One is that the most politically connected people in the country know less about what's going on than we do. The other is that things are unfolding as they want and expect, but they'll pretend to be outraged if that seems necessary.

I think it's both. I think they genuinely don't understand that we can't go back to the way things were five years ago. If you assume it's possible to fix the old system, and you think that system was working pretty well, then the way things are unfolding seems pretty much the way you might expect - including the anger and impatience of a population that's currently suffering. Really - they're just looking out for everyone's best interests - it's just that most people don't get how the economy really works....

Replace Geithner with Hoenig!

---

by: MadScientist @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 21:49:37 PM UTC

Answer? (0.00 / 0)

Have you figured out a way those particular bonuses could have been blocked? Please do tell us!

---

by: Semblance @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:35:46 PM UTC

Ask the UAW (4.00 / 2)

.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:43:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't ruin the narrative. (0.00 / 0)

Geithner and Summers are black-hearted, intellectually dishonest lackeys of the monied interests.  None of them care about the average American.  

It's a waste of time to pick each issue apart separately, when you have the opportunity to explain everything with straightforward morality tales.

---

by: kanzeon @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:44:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Marcy .... (0.00 / 0)

...explains

---

by: trillian @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:44:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's no answer at that link (0.00 / 0)

I await an answer, since apparently it's obvious, according to numerous Open Left diarists today.

Perhaps Open Left should call up Geithner and tell him you figured it out!

---

by: Semblance @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 22:48:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's ample reason to think they could have been blocked (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure there's a case yet that would stand up in court, but the facts haven't all come out yet.

Here's one piece of the story: http://firedoglake.com/2009/03...

The circumstances of the contracts under which these bonuses were paid is also still not settled to everyone's satisfaction, including the Attorney General of NY: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

So there are reasons to think it may have been possible to block them. You're right - we don't know that yet. And AIG has the right to a presumption of innocence. At the same time, they have been accused and they have a responsibility to disclose all relevant information, which they have so far been reluctant to do despite being (or perhaps because they are) under the protection of the Federal Government.

On top of that, the bonuses are really just a symptom of the real problem. For a good, succinct diagnosis of that problem, try this: http://robertreich.blogspot.co...

---

by: MadScientist @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 23:03:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They could have gotten a law passed (4.00 / 4)

Sen. Dodd wrote a law that would have fixed this. Obama and Geithner said it wasn't necessary, they had it under control.

Privately written employer contracts should not be allowed to supercede federal lawmakers and the interests of the entire nation. A legal solution was offered, Geithner rejected it, as then did the congressional conference committee.

And how the bleep do you justify paying bonuses to people who nearly bankrupted their employer? In what universe does that a) make sense or b) justify keeping a business afloat that rewards failure in that way?

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Tue Mar 17, 2009 at 23:24:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Been drinking the KoolAid, eh? (0.00 / 0)

Listen, all the talk about the sanctity of contracts and lack of legal avenue for blocking these bonuses is pure uncomposted fertilizer. You really ought not drink KoolAid that has been brewed from such stuff.

From http://www.rgemonitor.com/us-m...

Quote: Any financial collapse worth its salt runs into contracts that might have been a good idea in good times, but now look disastrous because they threaten either widespread economic distress (mortgage and securitization contracts), or gross political embarrassment (bonus commitments).  Every government fighting a crisis thus faces a choice whether to enforce such contracts.  Enforcing contracts where private parties have no money means either suffering default and firm failure, or using public funds to pay up on the parties' behalf.  The alternative is using government power to rewrite the contracts.

There is no doubt that the U.S. Congress has such power aplenty.  In an article coming out in the Southern California Law Review, Adam Levitin and I examine Supreme Court jurisprudence assessing the veritable extravaganza of contract rewriting in the New Deal.  In opinions spanning over two decades, the Court was unequivocal:  the government's power to regulate the economy, not just to manage economic emergency, trumps private contracts.  In an opinion stripping payment-in-gold clauses from private debt obligations, the court observed colorfully:

There is no constitutional ground for denying to the Congress the power expressly to prohibit and invalidate contracts although previously made, and valid when made, when they interfere with the carrying out of the policy it is free to adopt. ... To subordinate the exercise of the Federal authority to the continuing operating of previous contracts would be to place to this extent the regulation of interstate commerce in the hands of private individuals and to withdraw from the control of the Congress so much of the field as they might choose by "prophetic discernment" to bring within the range of their agreements. (Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)).

Moreover, while the Constitution constrains states from freely mucking with private contracts, Supreme Court jurisprudence gives them considerable power to suspend enforcement to address economic emergency.  (Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934) (suspending foreclosures in Minnesota)).

More where that came from. Next!

---

by: Romberry @ Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:01:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"two explanations" (4.00 / 1)

Let me offer a third: Lack of imagination.
These people never doubt that they know "what's going on" and they never fully realize, in a concrete, empathetic way, the consequences of "what they want and expect." They are just not able to conceive of realities other than their usual context. If you've ever spent much time in the company of MBAs, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 02:10:50 AM UTC