I have only my wife as a witness, but when I first read the article, my reaction was that such bonuses, as well as a lot of the other absurdities of this particular bailout, ably explained here by Gretchen Morgenstern (who is, in my opinion, a fantastic reporter), could be avoided by putting this bankrupt business into bankruptcy, where these “contractual obligations” could be shed as quick as lightning. In addition, AIG’s counterparties would have to come forward and would get compensated rationally, if at all. It seems pretty clear that a bankruptcy judge would do a better job protecting the taxpayer’s investment than the Bush Administration did, or the Obama Administration is doing .
Yesterday, Nancy Wyman, Dan Malloy, Shirley Bysiewicz, and Jim Amann presented their “visions” for Connecticut to a packed house at the Groton Municipal Building. Dick Blumenthal was there too, but he just made some introductory remarks and then high tailed it to Hartford for a parade. Here’s the four, with our State Senator, Andy Maynard.
The most surprising thing about this forum was who was not there: the press. Ray Hackett was the one exception of which I was aware. Scott Bates, who has to be given a great deal of credit for organizing the event, told me that he let the press, including the Day, know about the event. The press absence was troubling for what it portends: as the newspaper business becomes less profitable the entire industry has entered a downward spiral, reducing reporters so as to reduce cost, which in turns reduces any incentive for people to buy and read the paper. Somehow, someone has to come up with an internet business plan that enables the press to make money for producing the raw reportage upon which us bloggers feed.
So, in the absence of the old media, this little backwater of the new media will do its best. I meant to post this last night, but was delayed by struggles with uploading to youtube, the precise nature of which there is no need to relate, I have finally got the opening statements of each speaker (can’t say candidate, three of them are exploring) on-line for anyone who wants to watch. All, unfortunately, except for Susan Bysiewicz. Her clip starts in the middle of her presentation. There’s a long story explanation for that; suffice it to say that I stepped into the breach with my camera when I had never intended to film the proceedings at all, so I only started recording after Susan had started. So, should she ever see this, I apologize for the fact that I don’t have her whole statement, but plead not guilty of any bad intent.
I will present all four without (much) comment. Due to youtube time constraints, and the fact that both Amann and Wyman went on longer than they were supposed to do, I was forced to cut each of them into two videos. Sorry about that.
Here is what I have of Susan’s statement:
Dan Malloy gets to go second, since he actually stayed within, more or less, the time constraints to which they all agreed. Sorry about the first few seconds. He was right after Susan, who spoke seated. When Dan stood up it took me a few seconds to pan back. However, I am not responsible for the folks who kept walking in front of the camera.
Next up, Nancy Wyman, Part 1:
Part 2:
Last, and least, Jim Amann. While he actually did not take as long as Wyman (by a few seconds), his statement, like his responses to the Q & A, seems interminable. Part 1:
Part 2:
Unfortunately, my memory card filled up just as the opening statements were finished, so I don’t have any of the Q&A. Each town chair, or designee, got to ask a question. The expected issues, such as property tax, transportation, regionalization, etc., came up. No one said anything incredibly stupid, even Amann, unless you count his insistence that he’ll be running against Fideli in 2010. Based on what they all had to say about Rell’s job performance, it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t run again. She gets a full paycheck for what, for her, is at most a part time job.
Again, Scott Bates deserves a lot of credit for putting this together. So far as I’m aware, it’s the first time this election cycle that all potential candidates (unless Ned jumps in) have been together.
Any thinking person who watched the recent Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer confrontation could come away with no other conclusion but that it was a complete disaster for Cramer. Not only did Stewart make him look like an idiot, he produced clear evidence that he was also, during his trading days, a criminal.
Mr. Stewart made his feelings clear. “I understand you want to make finance entertaining,” he told Mr. Cramer. “But it’s not a game,” he said, using an additional adjective that was bleeped out. “When I watch that, I can’t tell you how angry that makes me.”
Part of Mr. Stewart’s frustration may stem from the fact that while he clearly won the debate, Mr. Cramer and CNBC stood to profit from the encounter. In today’s television news market, that cable network and its stars are like the financiers they cover: media short-sellers trading shamelessly on publicity, good or bad, so long as it drives up ratings. There isn’t enough regulation on Wall Street, and there’s hardly any accountability on cable news: it’s a 24-hour star system in which opinions — and showmanship — matter more than facts.
…
Mr. Stewart kept getting the last word, but Mr. Cramer may yet have the last laugh.
It is hard to see how Ms. Stanley could come to the conclusion she did. This may be a case of journalistic wagon circling. That might be understandable, if the people she is protecting were real journalists.
Unbelievable that they can still sing this song. According to the youtube entry, this was recorded live in 2008.
There’s an interesting story about this song. It was written by a poverty stricken African who remained poverty stricken for the rest of his life, while the song made millions for the folks who bought the rights for less than three dollars. His descendants managed to rectify the situation a bit, but too late for him:
Millions of dollars in royalties from the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” will go to the heirs of the late South African composer Solomon Linda, who died in 1962. In 1950, when blacks had few negotiating rights under apartheid, Linda sold the song, written in 1939, for fewer than two dollars. His three surviving daughters live in South Africa.
It’s unlikely that the Tokens had anything to do with this injustice, so we are free to enjoy what is the classic American version of this song.
I just received word that Blumenthal will be joining Nancy Wyman, Susan Bysiewicz, Dan Malloy and Jim Amann here in Groton on Saturday. It’s not clear if he’ll be here as a potential candidate or in some other role. It really looks like this event will be the kick-off for the gubernatorial campaign.
Place: Groton Municipal Building 295 Meridian Street Groton Time: 10:00 AM
Today’s Mystic River Press (which is not on-line, so no links), has an article about a local residential designer named Michael Sullo, who has come up with a design to turn what he aptly describes as a “big hole” in downtown Mystic into a public space.
For those not from the area, a little background. Almost an entire block of downtown Mystic burnt to the ground in March of 2000. Downtown Mystic is a major tourist attraction. John Rowland, then governor, rushed down to pledge that he would have the space back to normal within (if memory serves) two years. He was never heard from again.
The site is a strange one. There is almost no land. The old buildings were on a concrete dock that extended over the Mystic River. It’s a difficult spot to build on. There are building codes now. Complicating things further, the owners had no insurance. I was on the Town Council at the time, and the owner basically came to us and asked us to bail him out, using the implied threat that he would do nothing if we didn’t do so. We called their bluff. I suggested we take the place using eminent domain, but several Republicans on the Council almost had heart attacks, so that idea didn’t go anywhere. I can’t remember if I proposed using the place as a public space on the record to the council, but I’ve been saying it to anyone who would listen (and not many do) for years.
After we turned their bailout request down, the owners went in search of someone stupid enough to dramatically overpay for what is essentially building rights over a river. They found someone (actually a group of someones), who gave them a million dollars. In order to recoup their investment, the new owners needed to build very expensive condominiums on top of a retail bottom floor. Problem: absolutely no parking, and no ability to create any. The town kicked in a few spaces, to which the hypothetical rich condominium dwellers would have to walk, but I don’t think it was nearly enough. It’s now been nine years, and the space is still empty, not only an eyesore but a drag on all the other merchants in the downtown area.
Mr. Sullo’s idea looks like a good realization of what I’ve always felt we should do with the space. He envisions a roofed pavilion, in which “concerts and performances like Shakespeare” could take place. Other uses suggest themselves, such as art shows, political events, etc. If something like this were built, the events held there would attract people to Mystic, where they would no doubt spend money in the local establishments. If we do nothing I believe I shall be a very old man before anything occupies that space. If the space were dedicated to this sort of public use there could be no question about the propriety of the use of eminent domain, and I would suggest that the fair market value of that property, in this market, and for a rational buyer, is far less than the million dollars paid by the current owner.
Sidebar: One of the odd things about the above saga is the fact that the council didn’t bail out the former owners. I think the reason we didn’t do it was because they were local guys, and didn’t have insurance, which everyone found offensive. If they had been the Marriot corporation, we probably would have been more amenable. Witness the council’s recent willingness to give a tax break to a hotel developer as an incentive to build a building that had already been built.
I highly recommend this column in today’s Times, by David Leonhardt, in which he argues that today’s financial crisis was caused by people who knew they were free to ruin the economy, making big bucks for themselves in the process, because they knew the government would step in and bail them out. In a word, he says they were “looting”. That would be us, the taxpayers that they were looting, by the way.
I was struck by this paragraph:
Mr. Bernanke actually took a step in this direction on Tuesday. He said the government “needs improved tools to allow the orderly resolution of a systemically important nonbank financial firm.” In layman’s terms, he was asking for a clearer legal path to nationalization.
It made me realize how quickly we have legitimized the use of what is, in this very odd country of ours, a loaded word, namely “nationalization”. I think I’ve used it myself, so I’m not criticizing Leonhardt, but it’s testimony to the Republican spin machine that this bogey man word has entered common parlance as it has.
I lived through the Savings and Loan debacle, and as a I recall, failing banks back then were put into receivership. In fact, many banks have failed this year and last, and they have been put into receivership. It’s only the banks that have not yet been put into receivership about whom we use the word “nationalization”. My online dictionary defines the term thusly: “transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.” At least by that definition, it’s an all or nothing proposition; if you don’t nationalize all the banks, you haven’t nationalized at all. But if we grant that you can leave some private actors standing, the term still implies a degree of permanency that no one wants and no one is advocating. So why the easy shift from “receivership” to “nationalization”. It certainly harmonizes well with the so far quaint Republican attempts to revive fears of “socialism”.
I had an English teacher in high school who was fond of quoting this line from Alexander Pope:
Be not the first by whom the new are tried, nor yet the last to lay the old aside
She was an old biddy, and perhaps because I disliked her intensely, I have ignored Alexander’s advice, sometimes to my cost. I love new gadgets and I invariably download beta upgrade versions of software that is working perfectly reliably, often with disastrous results.
Not this time, or at least not so far.
Today I downloaded the new version of Apple’s browser, Safari 4.0 beta. At first I felt I had brought on another disaster, but I kept my head. The program was hanging up, but I suspected that a plug-in that I use and love was responsible. Once I installed the new version of the plug-in (I had to use Firefox to get it, since it had put Safari out of commision), the program worked great. Web pages do, as Apple claims, load faster. The ITunes like history browser is cool, as is the Top Sites page, though in truth I’m not sure how often I’ll use that particular feature.
Anyway, highly recommended (so far), at least for use on the Mac. At work, on my pedestrian PC, I’m sticking with Firefox.
Scott Bates writes to say that Susan Bysiewicz has now agreed to appear at a gubernatorial candidate’s forum here in Groton on Saturday, joining Dan Malloy, Jim Amann and Nancy Wyman, all of whom had previously committed.
Scott says that means all the potential candidates will be there, but unfortunately Scott is shooting at a moving target, since Ned Lamont has also been making noises about running.
Nonetheless, this puts Southeastern Connecticut in the forefront. It will be the first time all these candidates have appeared together, and it should be interesting.
Place: Groton Municipal Building 295 Meridian Street Groton Time: 10:00 AM
