Jim Hightower's Common-Sense Commentaries

BANKER CHARITY

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

"Banker" and "morality" are not concepts you would ever expect to find paired together, but some of the biggest bankers in Europe are rushing out to insist that, at heart, they are all about morality.

This unprecedented public profession of personal ethics has been prompted by the ongoing outrage that Europeans are expressing about the economic collapse bankers caused and the obscene bonuses that they're now paying themselves. Americans are furious about the same thing here, but in Europe, the greed is seen as a fundamental moral failure. The Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England, has even called on bankers to "repent" for their ethical sins.

Incredibly, several bankers are defending themselves by asserting that their outsized bonuses allow them to donate to charity, thus proving their moral soundness. This has generated nothing but guffaws and hoots of derision from the public.

Their charity defense reminds me of a story from Earl Long, former-governor of Louisiana. It's about a rich man who died and showed up at the Pearly Gates, demanding entry into heaven. But you can't just walk in. An angel stands out front of the Gates and reviews your life. Then St. Peter decides who gets to come in.

The Angel found that this rich man had been a selfish no-good, so-and-so his whole life. But, the man said, "Wait a minute, I actually have a consistent pattern of charitable giving." He said he'd once tossed a nickel in a beggar's cup. Plus, a poor woman he encountered needed help, and he gave her a nickel. Then there was the time that he put a nickel in the Salvation Army kettle.

Hearing all this, the angel turned back to St. Peter and asked, "What in the world are we going to do with this man? And St. Peter said: "Give him back his 15 cents and tell him to go to hell!"

That's a story that every big shot banker needs to hear... and ponder.

MONOPOLIZING AMERICA'S VOTING SYSTEM

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

When you cast a vote, should it be counted just as you cast it? Well, of course, you shout! After all, voting is sacrosanct. Why wouldn't every single one of our votes count just as each voter intended?

They should. But during the past decade, state, and local election authorities have ever-so-quietly allowed a little intrusion to come between the casting and the counting of our votes. The intrusion is called "privatization."

Balloting, which has historically and properly been a purely public function in our country, now relies largely on electronic machines that are made and controlled by a handful of corporations. There have been beaucoup problems with those corporate machines – they're easily hacked, they break down on election day, they divert votes from one candidate to another, they drop votes, they mysteriously add votes – and, they're expensive.

But the greatest problem is with the privatization concept itself. Voting is not a commodity or industry, it's a democratic right. To allow private interests to control the balloting mechanism (including their refusal to reveal the software code for tallying ballots) is a sacrilege that destroys public trust in electoral integrity. Yet, this privatization is about to be made geometrically worse by monopolization. The largest purveyor of voting machines, ES&S, intends to buy out the second largest, now owned by the notorious Diebold Corporation. This sale would give ES&S monopoly control of the voting systems in the vast majority of our cities and states.

Anti-trust officials must stop this monopolization of America's most basic democratic process. More fundamentally, though, we must restore full public ownership and management of our voting systems. For more information, call the reform group, Fair Vote: (301) 270-4616.

TWO GOOD IDEAS FOR BANKING REFORM

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

If either party in Washington were to get serious about reining in Wall Street greedheads, here are two good ideas for achieving that.

The first comes from Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who, ironically, has introduced a bill that is the essence of classic capitalism. His bill's title pretty well sums up its content: The "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act."

If a financial institution gets so big that its collapse would threaten to bring down the entire banking system or wreck our economy, Sanders' proposal would require the treasury secretary to break it up – if you're too big to fail, you're too big. Period. Rather than the present policy that guarantees a taxpayer bailout for such behemoths, Sanders would cut them into smaller pieces and decentralize their parts to eliminate their threat and increase financial competition. Good for you, Bernie!

Now to England, where bank regulators don't seem afraid to, you know... regulate. Hector Sants, head of Britain's Financial Services Authority, has gone to the core of the banking industry's problem by addressing the culture of executive greed and the lack of ethical accountability. Rather than hiring executives whose primary motivation is to produce huge rewards for themselves, applicants for senior banking jobs are being evaluated for their ability to "set a strong ethical framework" and to foster a marketplace culture that is sensitive to the proper treatment of customers and the larger public.

Already, notes the regulator, the push for a broader sense of responsibility than bankers' own self-interest has caused a number of applicants to withdraw. Excellent. Good for you, Hector!

Hey, Washington – if you really want a financial system that serves the common good rather than uncommon greed, grab these two ideas and go with them.

MCCHRYSTAL IN FANTASYLAND ABOUT AFGHANISTAN

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

If wishful thinking makes good military policy, then we'll be in great shape in Afghanistan.

General Stanley McChrystal – the top U.S. commander there – has been running a political and PR campaign for weeks to force President Obama into a major escalation of the war there. In September, the general called for sending up to 85,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan in order to secure the country and rapidly train the Afghan army and police force to take over the fighting.

Let's just deal here with that last component of McChrystal's "plan." He says we must recruit, train, and deploy 44,000 additional Afghan soldiers in the next year, and also add another 68,000 trained Afghan officers to the police force. This dramatic increase is vital to his strategy, McChrystal says.

Good luck with that. A series of status reviews of the Afghan Army and police, written by U.S. military officers involved in training them, reveal that the general is operating in fantasyland. The reports mock McChrystal's assurances of a quick fix, pointing to mass illiteracy, endemic corruption, profound culture differences, very little will to fight, and "a lack of competent and professional leadership at all levels."

One report notes that while 92,000 Afghans are in the police force, only 24,000 have completed formal training. Even trained, only 10 percent of police units can function independently of U.S. support and direction. Also, one out of every four policemen quit each year, thus requiring massive recruiting and training just to maintain the current force level.

The best military assessments say it will take 10 years – not one – to raise Afghan security forces to a level of basic competence. Why should our troops spend a decade and lose lives to do that? And why is Gen. McChrystal not being honest?

ECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR REAL PEOPLE

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

How's our economy doing?

Most economists, media outlets, and politicos judge economic performance by such statistical indicators as the Dow Jones Average. Aren't there better indicators than stock prices?

Forbes.com has found several that it says could be more accurate – such as the size of restaurant garbage piles. The bigger the pile the better, for more garbage indicates more customers, says Forbes' analysts, who report that things are picking up from last year's severe downturn, with garbage now amassing to the telltale point that "this summer it was stinky again."

I think Forbes is onto something by using sociological observations to determine economic well-being, but its love-the-rich bias causes it to overlook even more telling indicators of how things are going for the un-rich. For example, its "stinky index" would've been enhanced by a count of the number of people rummaging through those garbage bins to find something to eat.

Forbes also put a lot of stock in the autumn sale of wines at Christie's, the toney auction house. Wine bidders, reports a Christie's official, are often speculators looking to buy low and sell high. At this year's autumn wine auction, sales nearly doubled last year's low volume – a clear sign of an improving economy, Forbes tells us. Well, maybe for the swells who're into wine speculation, but what about ordinary folks who buy wine to, you know... drink? A good measure of their status might be in whether the buyers of "Two Buck Chuck" have moved up to some of the five-dollar wines.

The Forbes indicators are fun, but like the Dow Jones Average, they miss the economic realities experienced by the workaday American majority. That's why I think we need a Doug Jones Average. Yeah, an index to tell us how Doug and Darlene are doing. Now that'd be economic information worth knowing.

THE RICH WORRY ABOUT YOU

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

You'll be comforted to know that the rich are concerned about you. Not concerned about your joblessness, lack of health care, or anything else about your economic condition. No, no – it's your psychological state of mind that has them worried. In particular, they are troubled by what you think about them. With the rich, you see, it's always about them.

They sense a disquieting psychological mood among the hoi polloi – an anger at what Wall Street has done, a feeling that the rich are greedy and get unfair advantages. To think such thoughts, they say, is unhealthy for you emotionally. After all, says a wealth management advisor for high-dollar bankers, "To revile the rich is to revile the American dream." So, turn your anger into appreciation and view the rich as your role models.

Besides, your negative vibe is upsetting the extremely well off. "They feel mischaracterized," says a Merrill Lynch wealth manager. Many give to charity, and some even get buildings named after them, making donations to universities and cultural centers. As the Merrill Lynch advisor put it, "Then to be characterized as not doing their fair share begins to wear on them." See, you've made them sad.

So lighten up on the rich, and just be happy. Otherwise, explains a financial psychologist, we'll create "a generation that distrusts investing and associates wealth with greed." Oh? And how irrational is that? Well, says the financial shrink, young people "have watched their parents lose their money, and now they think, 'you can't trust banks.' We need to do work around that,"

Get real! It's not hard-hit, workaday folks who need to be stretched out on the psychiatrist's couch – it's the wealthy elites who've made a mess of our economy and now want to feel better about themselves by blaming us for being a wee bit angry at their narcissism.

SICK LEAVE POLICIES SPREAD SWINE FLU

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Sometimes, being mean to people can turn around and bite you on the butt – even if you're a corporation and, physiologically speaking, have no butt.

One of the meanest and stingiest workplace policies is the denial of paid sick days for employees – a reality faced by almost 40 percent of private sector workers. These people are mostly in lower-wage jobs and cannot afford to miss even a single day's pay. So, the result of the corporate minginess is that tens of millions of coughing, wheezing, sneezing, vomiting, employees are on the job, rather than calling in sick and staying home. These include food handlers, health care workers and others who deal directly with the public.

While this corporate approach saves money for employers, ill workers pay a heavy price – and their contagious illnesses can easily spread to co-workers and customers. This has always been a public health problem, but with a swine flu pandemic sweeping our country, it has become a national health threat.

In addition to workers who get no paid sick days, millions more are employed by such outfits as Wal-Mart that aggressively discourage any use of the benefit. This retailing behemoth runs a "Points System" –use one sick day, and you get one demerit; accumulate five or more, and you can be fired.

This minginess is now biting corporate butts. Because of swine flu, executives are demanding that ill employees stay home, yet workers get no pay or get demerits if they do stay home, so they don't. Instead, they're at work, greeting customers with: "[cough-cough] May I [cough-cough] help you [cough-cough]?

Meanwhile, these same companies are fighting a legislative requirement to provide a mere seven paid sick days a year. The new company slogan could be: Wal-Mart – Spreading Swine Flu, One Customer at a Time."

BANKERS GONE BONKERS

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Wall Street bankers are mad – in both senses of that word.

It starts with banker anger. Many financial executives are downright huffy, because they say you and I are not showing them the love they deserve. These are the very same Wall Street whizzes whose casino scams collapsed, plunging America's Main Street economy into a painful recession that has eliminated millions of jobs. The whizzes whizzed on us, so why do they think we owe them any love?

Because, they say, we're now making tons of money again – so much that we have returned to the gilded days when we financial geniuses raked in multimillion-dollar bonuses. Indeed, Goldman Sachs says that it will dole out more than $16 billion in bonus pay to its bankers at the end of this year.

But, wait – you want us to applaud your self-aggrandizement? Yes, they snap angrily. Don't you get it? Big bank profits and garish executive bonuses are proof that we are geniuses after all! While the rest of the country struggles, we're back on top of our game, so not only are we entitled to be richly rewarded for our business success, but also celebrated with high-fives and hugs from the hoi polloi.

Well excuse me, Your Majesties, but your being mad at us for not cheering your narcissism shows just how bullgoose mad you really are. In fact, if you get one smidgen goosier, you'll be flying south every winter.

When you hear Wall Streeters honking about their banking successes – remember they wouldn't even have a bank today except for the $13-trillion in public funds they got in the past two years to shore up their failures.

None of these Welfare Kings should get a dime in bonus money, much less our applause. To the contrary, they should be paying bonuses to us taxpayers – while also apologizing and saying the words we've yet to hear from these banksters: "Thank you."

DYING FOR KARZAI

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Good grief. Just when you think America's prospects in Afghanistan couldn't get any bleaker, the Obamacans get hammered by Hamid.

Hamid Karzai is president of that fractious, impoverished country, and his government is infamously corrupt, incompetent, and despised by the people. So, naturally, our political and military leaders have been backing him.

Indeed, Karzai has come to be the key factor in deciding whether to spend still more American treasure and blood in the Afghanistan war. To "succeed" in stabilizing this inherently unstable land, we're told we must first establish a legitimate national government that's competent enough to manage an army and end corruption. A "reformed" Karzai was said to be our best hope for this, and the U.S. supported him for a second term in August's presidential election.

Some reformer. In the election, he openly used government money to bribe tribal war lords to back him, his vice presidential choice was widely known to be a drug trafficker, and his ballot-stuffing crew was so blatant that nearly a million of his votes were tossed out by his own handpicked election commission, forcing him into a runoff.

But the runoff election was so rigged that his opponent withdrew, refusing to sanction the charade. Yet, our leaders continue to dance with Hamid, reconizing him as the election winner and bizarrely insisting that his "victory" – achieved only by massive corruption – is legitimate under the Afghan constitution.

Karzai-the-Reformed now asserts that he will clean up the corruption. How? No comment. Would some of the corrupt officials in his government be ousted? "These problems," he responded, "cannot be solved by changing high-ranking officials."

How can Obama and the generals even think of sending more Americans to die under the pretense that this guy's "government" is worth saving?

AIRLINE INNOVATIONS

sitehelp AT jimhightower DOT com (Jim Hightower) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800

For those of you who, like me, travel a lot on airplanes, there is good news: Airline executives have become much more innovative in the past year!

The bad news is that all of the innovation has been in dreaming up new fees to charge us customers.

After eliminating tens of thousands of helpful employees, shutting down hundreds of flights in order to jam travelers into less convenient schedules, dramatically increasing the percentage of flights that arrive late, and generally going out of their way to make flying as irritating as possible, the geniuses in charge of these corporations have noticed – to their utter amazement – that they've had a precipitous drop in customers.

Their response? Increase the irritations.

Irritant number one is the imposition of an ever-growing list of fees. With less revenue from ticket sales, airlines are making up for the loss by socking us with billions of dollars in baggage fees, seat-reservation fees, rebooking fees, using-an-airport fees, and just-for-the-hell-of-it fees. Out of the blue, for example, American, Delta, United, and US air recently joined together to whap their passengers with a $10 surcharge if we book flights for the days after Thanksgiving and the New Year's holiday. Why? Well – just because. Because they can.

Meanwhile, in mid-October, federal regulators fined two airlines about $9 million for failure to maintain the safety of some of their flying machines. US Air, for example, made 855 flights on a plane that did not even meet the company's own rules for engine maintenance. Likewise, United made more than 200 trips on a plane that was not in airworthy condition.

So, I'm sure we can look forward to paying a new airplane maintenance fee soon. Hey, your ticket gets you a seat, but if you want safety – that'll cost you extra.