Cashman Unveils Yankee Decadence

I never thought that a sports franchise could personify all of the things wrong with American culture; that is to say before I saw Brian Cashman, the GM of the New York Yankees, speak at a lecture at Southern Connecticut State this past week. Here is a man who helped usher in a distinct new era: the opening of a $1.5 billion stadium (which might as well be called a cathedral), spending over $420 million in the free agent market, while somehow managing to reduce, in Peter Gammon’s words, “a people’s game,” into one of statistics and arm angles coupled with bat speeds. If one were to look at the current Yankees and nothing else, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that it was still the 1990s, where the budget was balanced and people weren’t being forced from their homes and losing their jobs at a record pace.

At this lecture, Cashman frequently joked about how the Yankees spent money, saying , “the New York Yankees are America’s team and America expects to win. The have the highest payroll for that reason; America and tradition will not accept anything less and that’s never going to change.” He even joked that he had the prefect name for being the GM for the Yanks in “Cash-Man.”

Neither Peter Gammons, who was conducting this lecture/interview, or anyone else in the audience bothered to remind Cashman that The United States was founded by immigrants, the underdogs of the world. The average American is not about money; they cannot spend over $2,000 on a seat to Yankee stadium to see them lose 22-4.  It’s also worth noting that even Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball has taken notice of the Yankees actions and is beginning to step in, speaking with Team Officials regarding ticket costs.

At this point you might be wondering why I am writing about the New York Yankees in a blog specifically tailored to domestic and international political affairs. I mention this because this is the way much of the world is still viewing America, especially with the failing bailouts and recently with Chrysler filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Even in times of great economic stress, 5% of the US is still living overly-lavish lifestyles, oblivious to those suffering. A country run by such narcissistic men and women cannot be expected to lead fairly and it would be a terrible disservice to the international community, which looks up to the United States, to even consider following the United States’ path, which is apparently one consistent with looking back on more stable times and longing for it instead of taking steps to fix the current economic issues and status world-wide.

Since the late 1990s, the Yankees have been known as an evil empire. Now it seems the United States is accepting this label willingly.

Welcome to the new Empire.

Has The Government Gone Too Far With General Motors?

While listening to NPR’s Planet Money the other day an interesting notion was presented. While disguised in slight economic language, the question posed was whether or not the United States, through its actions with GM, be considered a private sector owner and therefore be entitled to all rights pertaining to that group?

This is a new idea, at least to me. The most common assertion I have heard people say is that President Obama is ushering in a new era of socialism (such cynics fail to point out that President Roosevelt initiated similar government control over private industry during the Great Depression). My view is that the government has a right to step in and be in control of private industry (acting as an investor) if the industry involved is essential to the nation’s economic infrastructure.

President Obama has made no secret regarding his economic and energy plans, which are intertwined. Clearly he as well as his economics advisers and Treasury Secretary thought General Motors and Chrysler were making substandard efforts to justify government loans and as a result new leadership was needed and consequently initiated by the government.

To be clear to everyone, I want to point out one very important thing: NO JOBS WILL BE LOST as a result of Chrysler merging with Fiat nor will the firing of GM’s CEO cause layoffs of blue-collar laborers.

In actuality, the government’s decision to force GM’s CEO to resign was a very direct measure to hasten positive change and correct significant dysfunction in the auto industry.

Some people have asked why the government is being so direct with its actions against the auto industry and not Wallstreet of Banks. The answer to that is in two parts: 1) Both the Banking companies and Wallstreet have provide adequate justification for the funds they are requesting from the government to save their businesses. 2) The banks are already under tremendous governmental oversight.

After all is said and done, Obama cannot be called a socialist. Rather he is a pragmatist who understands that the role of any government is to help stabilize its country’s economic and social catastrophes. Turning a blind eye and allowing billions of dollars to be spent recklessly or with no regard for fostering positive change is wrong. Doing so would only harm the American people, exploiting their dependence upon CEOs and the corporate institutions that employ them.

If anything, President Obama’s actions are anti-socialist and I challenge anyone to prove my argument wrong.

AIG Revisited: Can America Lead Again?

Great news! The AIG employees and ex-employees alike are not all keeping their ill-begotten funds. It is a sad state of things when the United States government will settle for the literal theft of fifty million dollars right out out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

While I stated in a previous entry that the one-hundred million dollars being debated over was actually quite small, the fifty million paid back is important. It is a symbol that men and women can be motivated to alter their actions, even if it means days of government bickering and threats from the Treasury Department.  However what remains a concern is how the President will close the very loopholes that allowed AIG to take advantage of the American people.

After all, free enterprise is the cornorstone not only of America’s economic policy, but is also tied into the country’s very belief structure. America is supposed to be the beacon for change, the light that which ships at sea could follow home.

AIG’s actions and the government’s subsequent inability to effectively craft legislation in a fast manner to prevent this crime, shows that these ships (now countries), while following America’s light, may wind up shattered against the rocks.

And make no mistake, what AIG has done is a crime, even if they were to pay back all the money and say they are sorry. Such a statement is meant to sound pathetic because that’s exactly what such a gesture would be.

No. I stand by my initial critique that AIG must refund the entire one hundred million dollars it used for bonuses in addition to the billions it received in government aid.  Some may argue that what has happened is indeed great news. That people are finally taking responsibility for their actions. What I see, however, is another round of political maneuvering meant to simulate progress.

The government must act and it must act now. I will not sit idly by and watch my money be paid to people who fly around in private jets and have perhaps too many homes to count.

As a citizen of the United States, I demand that the government propose and pass legislation that is in the best interest of the people and one that will yet again show that America is worthy to be the world’s guiding light.

To read more about this, please visit the New york Times Website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/business/24bonus.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

AIG Bonuses: Questions Loom Ever Larger as Assigning Blame Accomplishes Nothing

I wrote previously about the AIG bonuses fiasco. What amazes me now is how people, whether it be journalists, politicians, economists, or businessmen and businesswoman are more concerned with who is to blame for the lack of oversight in terms of how the taxpayer money has been dispersed than resolving the issue.

On National Public Radio’s Planet Money, economist Adam Davidson suggested that the primary issue regarding the AIG payouts involves the question of government regulation and whether or not it has jurisdiction to invalidate the contracts which AIG is allegedly paying off with the bailout funds.

Even with a 75% ownership, the government’s actual influence seems limited. Politicians are shying away, many of them rather vehemently, from taking responsibility for the misappropriation of funds, claiming that AIG acted unethicly. Conversely, those on Wallstreet are blaming the government for not recognizing that the bailout funds were always intended to satisfy pre-existing contracts that would have sunk the company.

As an aside, these contracts involve a simple agreement: AIG agreed that if the housing market were to fall, its investors would not see a drop in their shares’ worth. Personally I question the legal legitimacy of such a contract as well as the logic employed when it was constructed; this seems like a recipe for debt since the economy is generally very dynamic.

Mr. Davidson also made a point to explain just how insignificant $100 million dollars is within the context of the national bailout plan. AIG’s actions in themselves are not the problem; what they symbolized is.

Why should taxpayers support bailout plans to reward those men and women who helped crash the American economy? Doesn’t the American citizenry deserve some sort of regulation to safeguard their money, making sure it is used to actually stabalize the economy?

Regardless of who is to blame for AIG’ s misuse of funds, these are questions President Obama and his economic team need to answer because as of this moment there is nothing preventing other companies from taking direct disadvantage of the funds delegated to them through the government bailouts.

Right now the government’s economic credibility is at risk. And as I mentioned before, this affects the welfare of all Americans. Fear is a powerful motivator and it is further strengthened by these failed stimulus deals…this perception is something that the United States cannot afford.