Monday, January 19, 2009

Farewell to George W. Narcissus


Last week, George W. Bush waved his official Bye Bye to all of us UnDeciders. What strikes me most about Bush’s farewell address is that it seems to be a plea to the American people to like him, even just a little bit. Because, as we've all been told time and again over the past eight years, it is all about the W.

He’s had a grand old time in office. Oh, yes, there was that 9/11 thing, but "This has been a joyous experience being the President.” When I heard that, it sounded to me like a kid saying that it was a lot of fun riding in the fire truck and ringing the bell. I got to be a fireman! I got to be President! Yippee!!

Oh, it's not all been fun. Oh, well, mostly it has. When asked in 2006 whether he was frustrated about the course of events in Iraq, he answered “Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy,” followed by, ah, “but war is not a time of joy.” No, not for most of us. Some high-profile media outlets edited out the happy talk from that sound bite. (CBS, NBC, I’m looking at you...)

And Bush has spoken of how grateful he is for the families of fallen soldiers. Because they make him feel better. How very sweet.

So in his farewell address, Bush’s vision remained firmly affixed on the reflection in the pool. “While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack.” Really? What world do you live in, W? If you measure “gravest threat” by those things that loom largest for most of us - things Bush has never personally had to worry about - we are not safer. The gravest threat to most of us is more likely food poisoning from an ineffective USDA, or the side effects of a new drug fast-tracked by a bought-and-paid-for FDA, than a terrorist attack. How about the loss of a job, or health care, or both? Half a million Americans will die in a single year from cancer, far more than have ever died from terrorism. That's pretty grave. What do you suppose the National Cancer Institute could do with the War on Terror’s annual budget of $370 billion? But for Bush, never mind any of that. He’s the Decider. So terrorism is not just a threat. It’s not even just a grave threat. It is “the gravest threat,” because that’s the only way he’ll have any kind of legacy worthy of a Presidential Library.

Bush further reflected that “Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks.” “I have experienced setbacks.” Not “we as a nation,” or even just “we.” “I.” That message has always been clear: “This is my Administration, not yours. You just sit back and think about your next shopping trip.”

But mostly he wanted us to know that his intentions were - well - intentional. “You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.” He wants us to appreciate that he was willing... to... do... what? What does “willing to make the tough decisions” mean? What the Hell does being President mean, if not a willingness to make the tough decisions? Isn’t that an entry level requirement for the job? So he’s saying “I hope you can agree that I was willing to be President.” Yes, George, I have to agree with you on that. And I’m willing to drive the fire truck and ring the bell, but that does not make me a fireman.

Finally, W wrapped up his self-congratulatory monolog with a touch of plagiarism (thank you, Ronald Reagan): “And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other - citizen of the United States of America.”

And we will be honored to let you return to that status. Not to mention quite relieved.

Friday, January 9, 2009

While the fat cats play, the mice will pay


GM CEO Rick Wagoner gets a salary increase, to make up to $2.2 million (plus stock options), while his company is losing money, so much so that we now need to bail them out.* (OK, it’s a LOAN, but it’s government assistance nonetheless.) As part of this deal, Wagoner does not have to give up his millions, but the workers have to promise not to strike, and to take a pay cut. Chrysler has a similar no-strike provision in its loan agreement. Ironically, it is the workers, in the form of taxpayers, who are giving the loan to Mr. Wagoner and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli. Yes, those "greedy workers," who are finally getting what's coming to them for asking their company to honor the contract to which the company agreed. If the auto companies have to continue honoring their contracts with the workers, how are Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Nardelli supposed to feed their koi?

In truth, even if the CEOs do work for the much trumpeted single dollar, the money saved would not rescue GM and Chrysler. But if nothing else, the pressure on the UAW to bear the brunt of this bailout, while allowing Wagoner and Nardelli to keep their jobs - even for a dollar - just looks bad.
Maybe it’s a done deal, but if there is anything that can be changed before this agreement goes into effect, then it should be changed. And if it can’t be changed, then there should be hearings on how this came about, so it won’t happen again. Otherwise, the conservatives will get exactly what they want: an end to the UAW, and the beginning of the end for unions in general, all courtesy of the US taxpayer, who are being asked to foot the bill for their own financial demise. This is taxation without representation, which, if I recall, was the basis of a revolution some years ago. In the name of enlightened self-interest, Congress and the millionaire Detroit CEOs might want to ponder that point.

* See: