The private sector (a tiny part of it, that is) meets accountability (sorta kinda)

Let me call your attention to the David Brooks column (what, him again?) that I chose for tomorrow's op-ed page, in which he chronicles the relatively new phenomenon in which honchos in the private sector are held publicly accountable for the kind of wasteful foolishness that they normally get away with completely and utterly:

    Then there are the Wall Street executives who were suddenly attacked from the White House for giving out the same sort of bonuses they’ve been giving out for years. Now there is Tom Daschle, who is being criticized for making $5 million off his Senate prestige.
    I’m afraid there are rich people all around the country who are about to suffer similar social self-immolation because they don’t understand that the rules of privileged society have undergone a radical transformation.
    The essence of the problem is this: Rich people used to set their own norms. For example, if one rich person wanted to use the company helicopter to aerate the ponds on his properties, and the other rich people on his board of directors thought this a sensible thing to do, then he could go ahead and do it without any serious repercussions.
    But now, after the TARP, the auto bailout, the stimulus package, the Fed rescue packages and various other federal interventions, rich people no longer get to set their own rules. Now lifestyle standards for the privileged class are set by people who live in Ward Three.

Mr. Brooks goes on to poke fun at the bureaucrats and others (who live in Ward Three in D.C.) who suddenly are in a position to pass judgment on the Fat Cats...

... thereby missing the larger point that what is happening here is that for once, the denizens of the private boardroom are being held accountable -- in the manner to which gummint is accustomed to being held accountable -- to people with a differing world view.

One of the great ironies is that the anti-gummint types I argue with here on the blog all the time largely hold the views that they do because we in the sin-stained MSM spend so much of our time telling them about the outrageous waste and foolishness in the public sector, whereas almost no one ever tells them about the equal foolishness and waste that is normally shrouded in the private sector. And why is that? Because we see it as our mission to hold the public sector accountable. But when the private sector wants a bailout, it needs to understand it will have to play by the same rules for once.

Once you go public, you don't get to make up the rules any more.

Comments

[Doug Ross]

Besides being the "house organ" for the SC Department of Education and whining about Mark Sanford, who exactly does The State hold accountable in the public sector?

Will Folks holds the public sector accountable. The State promotes a specific agenda.

[KP]

Will Folks? Not in a million years. He repeats things he knows to be lies (over and over until you can't stand it another second), he excoriates moderate Republicans no matter what they do, and he fawns mindlessly over ultra-conservatives -- unless through some unfortunate mishap they do something that's actually reasonable.

Seriously, people. Will Folks is a mile wide and an inch deep. Maybe the most willfully mindless political observer I've ever encountered.

[Capital A]

Will Folks, Doug?! They must have cropped you out of that now-popular picture of Michael Phelps.

Please list for me your reasons for supporting a physically abusive sycophant. Unlike the aforementioned offender, I'm open to debate.

[David]

This David Brooks character is apparently celebrating the nationalization of huge segments of private industries, and I think that says a lot more about his faulty worldview and silly shortsightedness than it tells us anything worthwhile.

He thinks it's a good thing that ignoramuses inside the beltway are now directing the management of huge banking and insurance conglomerates? What an idiot.

And no matter what a guy like Brooks may think about bonuses, CEOs and upper managers in these companies were answerable to shareholders. Issues like bonuses would be handled much more effectively by shareholders representatives in corporate boardrooms than they will be now by government bureaucrats who know essentially nothing about these industries.

And these industries have received criticism from the Whitehouse? Please. What large business did Obama ever run, pray tell? Who gives a sh*t what HE thinks?

David

[David]

Oops. I reread the piece by Brad and apparently Brooks is poking fun at the inept bureaucrats now in charge o nationalized businesses. Good for him.

Brad think businesses are now accountable. Everything I said above about Brooks applies to Brad.

Wrongheaded. Shortsighted. Unamerican.

David

[Bart]

As much as I resent government interference in the private sector and an elected bunch of incompetents setting standards and regulations, I have to agree with the premise that if you screw up, come to the government for a bailout, then you are subject to the rules set forth for taking the money.

I have no sympathy for those who didn't use common sense and thought they were not subject to scrutiny when it come to salaries, benefits, and perks. As a conservative and capitalist, I have a firm belief that corporate responsibility is an absolute must for the system to survive and flourish.

Either the private sector sets some guidelines or rules on their own or they continue down the road of absolute greed and suffer the consequences. Not all CEOs are greedy nor do they allow themselves to fall in the trap of excesses. Most are responsible but the few are the ones who give the majority a black eye.

As I posted previously, when my partner and I had our company, we did the right thing and if in the end, we had been able to pay ourselves a million dollar salary, it would have been earned. The difference is that we put up the money, took the chances, laid our assets on the line, and took responsibility for our actions. In the end when we had to close the business, we accepted the losses because we understood going in the chance we were taking. The big difference is that corporations with publicly traded stock, stockholders are entitled to accountability and expectations of honorable actions by the CEOs and officers of the corporation. In that end, I see no real objections to setting some guidelines for compensation and perks. There should be other guidelines set that not only reward a good CEO but at the same time, not reward the bad ones.

If you look around, CEOs are much like professional athletes. They go from one corporation to another and stay within the same corporate power circle. The bad ones are like bad doctors. Their peers almost never turn on them.

Private enterprise produces goods and services that make our economic engine run. We need to keep it that way but if we allow some elements to gain too much control, even the businesses that do the right thing will suffer because of the actions of a few.

Before we allow passage of this stimulus bill, we need to demand from each member of congress to take the time necessary and evaluate each and every aspect of the bill. Avoid overreaching for the sake of expediency and ideological gain.

In it's present form, it is a very bad bill. We can do better.

[Rich]

The stimulus bill is not a bad bill. On the contrary, it creates jobs and provides unemployment and health care protection to middle and working-class families that need the help through the recession.

This bill represents three propositions:

1) government management is more efficient than private-sector management. How so? you may ask. Simple. Public-sector employees are civil servants with limited salaries--not fat-cat wall-st. types who expect a government bail-out and yet still earned $18.4 billion in bonuses over and above salaries they earned for TANKING THE ECONOMY. Show me one federal, state, or local agency with incompetence and wastefulness on that level?

The fact is, the private sector is not fully subject to rule #1 of the capitalism: you will die if you mismanage your company, and maybe even if you don't. It all depends on supply and demand. Instead, we have huge banks with superbowl endorsements, jets, and all manner of perquisites for their employees--all the while accepting federal largesse.

We did indeed need to bail out the banks--but it should have come with restrictions on pay and government oversight of day-to-day operations.

2) Government is the answer: government is the people taking care of themselves. King George is dead. Parliament can no longer tax us without representation, and the Republicans lost the election and will indeed live with the consequences when their intransigence finally succeeds in pissing off the Democracy.

3) We just can't let people starve the way Hoover did! Face it, folks, we need Obama to be like FDR just to get through this over the next few years! I only hope it doesn't take a third world war to get us finally out of it!

[Bart]

Rich, for once, I am almost speechless. I have no words to come back at you because I cannot offer a rebuttal to anyone so completely immersed in fantasy and so totally delusional. And you actually teach in our school system? I demand an immediate investigation into the hiring practices of this state and any state willing to certify you as a teacher and allowing you to have a forum for your communist rantings.

I can only offer this observation. Legalized abortion is an absolute failure. Why you may ask. Simple, Rich is here isn't he?

[Birch Barlow]

Wow, Rich. I don't even know where to begin with that one. Do really believe that stuff?

Government is the answer: government is the people taking care of themselves. King George is dead. Parliament can no longer tax us without representation, and the Republicans lost the election and will indeed live with the consequences when their intransigence finally succeeds in pissing off the Democracy.

Wake up Rich. The deficit IS taxation without representation at its finest. The people that will pay for the borrowing, inflating and direct taxing resulting from this deficit spending cannot vote. They are children. They are future children of children. They have no voice. Your generation is stealing from the future of this country through the government.

You tout the benefits of this spending but you completely ignore where it will come from -- the pockets of defenseless children. To use some words you like to throw out, your generation, my generation -- we are the greedy ones. We are the selfish ones. We are the ones who think we are entitled. We are the spoiled heirs of a great fortune built by great men and we are ruining the legacy. What will the next generations get? Nothing. Because we inflated our standards of living at their expense and essentially made them our slaves laboring to pay off our debt

I object to your whole selfish line of thinking.

[p.m.]

Rich, FDR didn't fix the depression, government isn't the answer (or at least you didn't think it was the last eight years), and government is not more efficient than the private sector.

Would you dare compare per-student costs vs. results in private schools and public schools?

[Birch Barlow]

True accountability would be letting these corporations face the results of their business decisions without federal bailouts.

"Yeah, big shots, we're really sticking it to you now! No more jets and helicopters and golden parachutes for you! Who's the man now! Oh, by the way, here's your $7.2 trillion check."

Yeah, that'll show 'em.

Accountability -- what a farce.

[KP]

You're kidding, right? About costs and results in private schools versus public?

You can't even start to compare them. My daughter attended private school for two years and tuition was around $6,000 (not like at Heathwood or Hammond, where it's well into five figures). But they wouldn't take her until after she'd met their IQ requirements. If she'd had behavior problems, she'd have lost the privilege of attending.

In addition to tuition, of course, we had lots of very involved parents, rich grandparents who gave the school lots of money, and wrapping paper sale after bake sale after library drive.

You, too, could educate a wealthy child with involved parents for a mere $6,000 per year. And you could give them a really mediocre education and they'd do better on tests than other kids.

Actually, it probably doesn't cost my public school more than that amount to educate my children. But then there are all those other children who cost a lot more -- those who come to school not able to write their names or count, disabled kids, those with learning disabilities, those with behavior problems.

All those that private schools don't have to struggle with.

You might he surprised to know that even with all those advantages, private schools in South Carolina don't end up doing a better job relative to schools in other states. Our independent school SAT's are 50th out of 51. Thank God for Alaska.

[Lee Muller]

7.5% of Americans pay 70% of all the taxes.

52% of income tax filers pay 100% of all taxes. That is 55,000,000 out of a population of 285,000,000 paying all the income taxes.

That huge disparity of the Freeloader Majority is why we have clowns like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Hussein Obama elected president.

Government schools with socialist teachers like Rich lying to the students is another reason.

[Lee Muller]

I guess the press is not accountable because they don't consider themselves part of the private sector. Indeed, most of them act like just another branch of government.

[jessup]

Truth is things simply haven't gotten bad enough yet. When they do, I have feeling that many of these posters, aside from the hard-edged ideologues who are beyond persuasive thought will see a fairly large stimulus is needed. While parts of this economic crisis are new, the premise is quite old, and was determined during the years of the New Deal. The depression lasted a bit longer than necessary because Mr. Roosevelt attempted to rein in spending in 1937 thusly precipating another mini-recession.

Rich's point I think is in that goverment does seem to have the best track record for lifting growth; the GI bill created an entire generation of college students (which numbered my father in their ranks); the Interstate highway system made the economy more productive and the Internet developed by the DoD spawned Aol, goole and all the rest. And despite all of the government naysayers, spending by gov't (state local and federal) has dropped from 7 percent of the total GDP in the 1950s to about 4 percent now, all in context with a bigger country with more people who have more needs.

Right now Uncle Sam is one of the few entities today that can borrow at a low interest rate to raise the capital we need to transform this economy. Sure we'll have to borrow, and we'll have to pay it back. But I think Mr. Obama sees this stimulus as an investment for our future, not as a quick fix. That's as it should be. The US economy that we all grew up with gave an increasing share of the bounty to the middle class (that's all of us, by the way). That was a tremendous shift, an investment in the future. A similar shift is now necessary if this nation is to retain it's status, and it cannot be done halfheartedly or from a "what's in it for me" perspective.

[Lee Muller]

Government spending has a record of stunting growth.

The New Deal deficit spending, which began with Hoover, turned a recession into the Great Depression.

Unemployment not only did not improve, but every job created by government came at the cost of a higher-paying job lost in the private sector.

Wage and price controls, "excess profits" taxes, and trying to confiscate 100% of income over $100,000 led to lower investment. FDR was a fascist, and he failed.

Only WWII and drafting 10,000,000 men solved unemployment. Only the death of FDR and ousting of Truman set this nation on the road to real recovery.

[Lee Muller]

Obama sees crisis as opportunity for socialist economy

Last night, I was listening to NPR replay a morning interview with Robert Reich.
The show is called "On Point".

Reich was talking about how this was a golden opportunity to not restore the economy, but to radically restructure it, away from business as the major force. He said Democrats feared that the economy would recover on its own before they could use crisis to push through a new economy that would "cure the disparity of incomes", "replace our disfunctional healthcare", and "build a new economy based on climate change", with industry no longer :just able to make and sell whatever products they want."

It was like he was on Truth Serum.

[bud]

Rich, for once, I am almost speechless. I have no words to come back at you because I cannot offer a rebuttal to anyone so completely immersed in fantasy and so totally delusional.
-Bart

You offer no rebuttal because you have none. Your folks have been in charge and the whole sky is collapsing down on us. Who's delussional, the folks who want some oversight or those who worship at the free-market alter regardless of the evidence. And the damn arrogant bastards at the financial institutions are still wasting tons of money. Only now it's the taxpayers money. Check out the story today about the Wells Fargo Las Vegas junket. This crap needs to stop, NOW!

[beetrave]

zzzzzzzzzzz..... Brooks is taking a victory lap (in his own mind) for some of the arguments he made in his book, _Bobos in Paradise_. The Ward Three types represent a class of "resume gods" who make up what Brooks calls a rising new elite in American society: highly educated, meritocratic, socially liberal overachievers who populate places like Portland, OR, Brattleboro, VT, and (at least on the weekends) Asheville, NC.

I would laugh at his satire if the bigger picture weren't so sad.

[beetrave]

zzzzzzzzzzz..... Brooks is taking a victory lap (in his own mind) for some of the arguments he made in his book, _Bobos in Paradise_. The Ward Three types represent a class of "resume gods" who make up what Brooks calls a rising new elite in American society: highly educated, meritocratic, socially liberal overachievers who populate places like Portland, OR, Brattleboro, VT, and (at least on the weekends) Asheville, NC.

I would laugh at his satire if the bigger picture weren't so sad.

[Bart]

Lee, you forgot to mention that Reich, during another one of the hearings, 1-7-09, along with Rangel are NOT for including white males in the economic stimulus package when it comes to infrastructure jobs. This is not speculation but words direct from the mouths of these socialist Democrats.

[Bart]

bud, you and Rich belong to the tin foil hat society. Regulations? There have been regulations in place that potentially could have prevented some of this finacial fiasco we are going through now. But no, the genius' like Frank and Dodd kept the gates closed to enforcement and new regulations for over two decades.

When Bush tried to get legislation passed in 2003 to provide more oversight and accountability to the two institutions primarily responsible for this mess, the committee attacked those asking for more rules with charges of racism, lynching, bigotry, and every possible label they could dredge up. Nothing was ever brought to the floor for consideration because there was not enough votes there to get them passed. McCain in 2006 tried to get some accountability into the system but again, with a new Democrat majority, it was another failed attempt.

As far as the fat cats on Wall Street and those fat cat bankers you and Rich are always attacking, if YOUR people had been willing to let go of a "religion" so deeply embedded in your psyche for a moment or two, the regulations you are so desparately trying to enact now would have been in place and we wouldn't be where we are now.

NO, instead of actually trying to understand basic free market econonmics, you adhere to a philosophy of taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. The opportunities have been there but Democrats are just like radical Muslims in that aspect. They just don't know how to work with anyone who doesn't agree with their position.

The reason I didn't offer a rebuttal? How the hell can you reason with a totally dedicated radical? How can you reason with a suicide bomber who is convinced their way is the only way?

I do accept the fact that we need to enact more regulations even now that the damage has been inflicted by Democrats with their inaction. Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that most of the so-called "fat cats" are members of their own party. Democrats who want to tax the hell out of us but somehow manage to "forget" or "overlook" their own tax responsibilities. Democrats and liberals who zip their wallets shut during times of economic distress and expect the government to step in and carry the entire burden. No, all of us conservatives and Republicans are the ones who voluntarily contribute to charity, homeless shelters, and other programs for those who are in need by a much larger margin than you and yours do. All of us conservatives and Republicans who understand that it is by the efforts in the private sector producing that enables taxes to be collected and distributed to you and yours.

How can you argue or rebut ideologues so riddled with hatred they have no capacity left to be reasonable and rational? You and Rich fit that description perfectly. You once said I had no credibility with you. Thanks for the vote of no confidence. I now realize receiving your "no confidence" vote is actually a confirmation of how right I really am.

[Bart]

bud, you and Rich belong to the tin foil hat society. Regulations? There have been regulations in place that potentially could have prevented some of this finacial fiasco we are going through now. But no, the genius' like Frank and Dodd kept the gates closed to enforcement and new regulations for over two decades.

When Bush tried to get legislation passed in 2003 to provide more oversight and accountability to the two institutions primarily responsible for this mess, the committee attacked those asking for more rules with charges of racism, lynching, bigotry, and every possible label they could dredge up. Nothing was ever brought to the floor for consideration because there was not enough votes there to get them passed. McCain in 2006 tried to get some accountability into the system but again, with a new Democrat majority, it was another failed attempt.

As far as the fat cats on Wall Street and those fat cat bankers you and Rich are always attacking, if YOUR people had been willing to let go of a "religion" so deeply embedded in your psyche for a moment or two, the regulations you are so desparately trying to enact now would have been in place and we wouldn't be where we are now.

NO, instead of actually trying to understand basic free market econonmics, you adhere to a philosophy of taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. The opportunities have been there but Democrats are just like radical Muslims in that aspect. They just don't know how to work with anyone who doesn't agree with their position.

The reason I didn't offer a rebuttal? How the hell can you reason with a totally dedicated radical? How can you reason with a suicide bomber who is convinced their way is the only way?

I do accept the fact that we need to enact more regulations even now that the damage has been inflicted by Democrats with their inaction. Democrats who refuse to acknowledge that most of the so-called "fat cats" are members of their own party. Democrats who want to tax the hell out of us but somehow manage to "forget" or "overlook" their own tax responsibilities. Democrats and liberals who zip their wallets shut during times of economic distress and expect the government to step in and carry the entire burden. No, all of us conservatives and Republicans are the ones who voluntarily contribute to charity, homeless shelters, and other programs for those who are in need by a much larger margin than you and yours do. All of us conservatives and Republicans who understand that it is by the efforts in the private sector producing that enables taxes to be collected and distributed to you and yours.

How can you argue or rebut ideologues so riddled with hatred they have no capacity left to be reasonable and rational? You and Rich fit that description perfectly. You once said I had no credibility with you. Thanks for the vote of no confidence. I now realize receiving your "no confidence" vote is actually a confirmation of how right I really am.

[Lee Muller]

Democrats own this financial crisis.

Democrats created the corrupt mortgage loan programs for blacks and illegal aliens which broke the banks.

Democrats blocked regulation and oversight of FNMA and FMAC, while their appointees filed false annual reports in order to pay themselves millions in bonuses.

Democrats under Clinton pushed through the merger of commercial banking and investment banking. John Spratt was a leader.

Joe Biden was the lead man for the credit card industry, which is headquartered in Delaware because of the laws protecting them.

Democrats under Pelosi and Reid have controlled the budgets and the House and Senate for two years, and run up $1.2 TRILLION in deficits, with potential for ongoing costs of another $7 TRILLION.

[Lynn]

You're dead on right on this, Brad. Brooks missed the point. The CEOs and their boards aren't used to accountability to anyone but themselves. They haven't had the longer-term (more than annual bonus time) interests of anyone, including their shareholders, as a priority. (Greenspan thought that responsibility to shareholders would protect business from gross excess, but he was blind to what was right in front of him.) Because the CEOs and boards failed so badly, it isn't just Ward 3 bureaucrats who are now entitled to an opinion on their behavior, and it isn't just their stockholders, it is every American citizen.