Brewed Fresh Daily

13 Responses to “Congress votes itself a raise?!”

1. John Ettorre Says:
   December 31st, 2008 at 11:57 am

   Hard to believe what tin ears they must have, and around the holiday season, no less, amid rising reports of massive shortages of food at hunger centers. But then, Obama had a similarly bad case of tin ear by vacationing in a $7-million house in Hawaii. Have these folks lost their minds? Or maybe just forgotten what recently happened to their Republican counterparts when they forgot about the appearances?

2. Derek Arnold Says:
   January 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am

   John,

   We can’t hate on people that have money just because there are others that don’t. That’s like being mad at someone who has six weeks of vacation to use when you only have 2-3 days.

   When you take directly from those that don’t have for lavish gestures (especially by fraud, not to mention any names *cough*Madoff*cough*) then there’s a problem.

3. John Ettorre Says:
   January 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am

   Derek, I wouldn’t think of arguing with the idea that one shouldn’t hate someone simply because they’re well-paid. Not sure how that really applies in this case, though. What I think you’re not appreciating is how Congress is an utterly different animal than, say, Microsoft or Wal-Mart. They’re paid by us collectively. And when the country collectively is hurting financially, how in hell can its representatives, who are already paid something like three times the national household average salary (and don’t forget the scandalous way Congress has voted itself its own gold-plated retirement system, outside the one it imposes on everyone else, Social Security, to say nothing of the similarly gilded health care coverage and other perks it has voted itself, which effectively shove those salaries way higher) vote themselves a pay raise with a straight face?

   Am I missing something here, Derek? There is a qualitative difference between complaining about this and pointing to outsized salaries in the private economy, which I’ve never done, to the best of my memory. This is all public money, every penny of it. Meaning yours and mine. So the bar is simply much higher. And I haven’t even raised the related, but I think crucial, issue of the inherent irony of all this: much of the rest of the country is in challenging financial times in large part because these ninnies had the failure of spine to demand that the economy be regulated in responsible ways.

4. John Ettorre Says:
   January 1st, 2009 at 11:45 am

   By the way, Derek, I love your new blog (at least it’s new since last time I read it). Lot of good stuff to be found there. Happy new year.

5. Carole Cohen Says:
   January 1st, 2009 at 5:46 pm

   George, Happy New Year! And we are of like minds on this issue. Nancy Pelosi has been a huge disappointment (along with others). Is it too much to ask that our companies, governing bodies and us as individuals hold the line this year instead of expecting huge raises or benys. I mean, PNC allowing for golden parachutes to Nat’l City execs when really it’s OUR money not theirs; and then there is last night’s Viacom/Time Warner fiasco which apparently got resolved at the last minute. Does that mean TWC decided to give in and allow for the increase?

   Let’s hope 2009 is a prosperous year for NE Ohio and Happy New Year to all of you!

6. J Murray Says:
   January 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm

   Carole, National City executives had contracts–legally binding documents–setting the terms of their severance. Our economy would really crater if politicians began abrogating private contracts–no matter whether you agree with the contracts or not. The sanctity of private contracts is a significant difference between our historically robus economy, and those of Third World countries. One way to really set us back in that direction would be to allow legislators and bureaucrats to breach private contracts.

7. Ed Morrison Says:
   January 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 am

   Jonathan:

   I agree with you about the importance of contracts.

   But isn’t that what the Senate and White House trying to do with the auto bail-out? Abrogating contracts through a political process?

   (And the irony, of course, is that these industrial policy proposals were coming from a conservative Republican Senator and the Bush White House.)

8. John Ettorre Says:
   January 2nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm

   Touche, Ed. Great point.

9. J Murray Says:
   January 3rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm

   Ed, I’m in favor of letting the U.S. auto industry go through the necessary bankruptcy process. They’re bankrupt anyway. It isn’t clear that the bailout is abrogating contracts, though–rather it’s forcing all parties to realize that the choices are bankrupcty–where contract traditionally are altered–or new contracts.

   It will be interesting to see whether Obama has the stomach to face down the UAW–which is after all the only beneficiary of the bailout–or not. The shareholders of the Big 3 have already lost their equity; debtors are likely to get cents on the dollar. It’s only the UAW that believes it can maintain its existing contract.

10. John Ettorre Says:
    January 3rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    The UAW is the only beneficiary of a potential bailout? Did I hear you correctly? So you’re suggesting that none of the thousands of automotive suppliers, nor their suppliers (right down to operators of diners and shoe salesman and the like) would benefit from a bailout? I don’t necessarily agree that a bailout is what should happen, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to take the absurd position that a labor union and its members are the only ones who have a significant stake in this.

11. John Ettorre Says:
    January 4th, 2009 at 5:30 am

    Here’s a brief overview from the Brookings Institute of the impact of a Big Three implosion on the 50 most affected metro areas. This region ranks third, after only Detroit and Chicago:

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/1212_automakers_wial/automakers_wial.pdf

12. Ed Morrison Says:
    January 4th, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Jonathan:

    In our current business system, it is not the President’s job to “face down” the UAW.

    That responsibility belongs to management. (Peter Drucker, we miss you.)

    For decades, Detroit’s management and union leadership have failed to recognize the deteriorating competitive dynamics of their businesses. Government, with pliable energy efficiency regulation based on meaningless fleet standards, has been an unwitting accomplice.

    (Just so you know, I got off the UAW bus in 1974, when the union actively opposed our proposal to impose a vehicle excise tax based on fuel economy. At the time, I was legislative assistant two US Representative Charles Vanik, a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. Along with management and a strong congressional ally, Representative Dingell of Michigan, the union opposed our proposal and pushed for obtuse regulation that could be — and was — more easily manipulated.)

    What intrigues me in the current crisis is how quickly the Bush Administration has been squeezed into a corner. For over two decades, Republicans have pushed ideology as policy. Their proposals have been simple, compelling, and largely wrong.

    It turns out there’s no such thing as a “free” market. Markets require competent government regulation or they cannot operate. This “government as enemy” rhetoric blinds us to the more complex realities we face.

    Now, it turns out, Republicans and the Bush administration are confronting multiple “too big to fail” bankruptcies. Their response has been to launch the most aggressive industrial policy we have seen in our lifetime.

    Long-term, this ad hoc approach to industrial policy can have disastrous consequences for our country.

    The challenge for the Obama administration lies in restoring the appropriate role of government in a market economy. For its part, the UAW will adapt, or it will continue to die on its own.

13. Ed Morrison Says:
    January 4th, 2009 at 9:53 am

    erratum: two US Representative = to US Representative