creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
16 Feb 2012
Where Strength Comes From

This year for Presidents Day, instead of buying a new appliance, I'm urging all of us to mark the holiday by … Read More.

9 Feb 2012
The Long Haul

My first marathon was New York in 1992. I trained with a group for months but had never gone a full 26.2 … Read More.

2 Feb 2012
Transition Challenges

Transitional phases are never easy. Whether it's remodeling a kitchen, rearranging the furniture or cleaning … Read More.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Share Comment

The past few months have been unusual — but this week has taken the cake. The circus has come to town and does not seem to be ready to leave anytime soon.

While President Obama was flying to the West Coast to become the first sitting president to appear on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," Congress was voting to retroactively tax AIG bonuses. AIG received government bailout money, but legislation that could have prevented bonus payments was changed prior to the passage last month of the stimulus bill. Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the idea to change the provision "came from the administration."

AIG received U.S. government bailout money. AIG paid bonuses. The actions and sequence does give one pause and stir up feelings of outrage — how could this happen?

While the concept of paying out bonuses after receiving money from the government is outrageous, the contracts would have allowed for bonuses three times the size of what was paid, according to the White House transcript of Obama on "The Tonight Show." Obama continued with his opinion (remember he is a lawyer), "They were making a legal calculation, and their legal judgment was not necessarily wrong."

Based on Obama's statement, AIG was legally required to pay the bonuses — and in fact if they had not paid the bonuses, then the company was possibly facing almost $500 million in bonus payments, more than three times the $165 million that was paid.

The news story around these same facts could have been that, while Congress rushes the stimulus plan and and edits s provision that might have prevented $165 million in AIG bonuses, AIG executives saved $330 million by following the law.

While I am personally not thrilled with the idea of U.S. government money going to AIG executives, let us review the facts: There was not enough clear definition regarding how the bailout money could be spent, and the company was legally obligated to pay now or pay more later. It did what most companies do — it followed the law and paid the smaller amount now.

Good senior executives in companies obey the law and make decisions based on their understanding of economics.

First, you follow the law. Whether it makes you personally upset or offends your sense of fairness does not matter. If the bonuses were contractual, which according to Obama they were, then you have to pay. Second, you decide which legal decision costs you the least money.

If you have children, you may have run into this sort of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right scenario. Imagine you are shuttling your child to choir practice. It is Wednesday afternoon, and you are preoccupied thinking about a conflict at work. Your child speaks up from the backseat, "May I have five dollars?" You know he was given a weekly allowance and that the last part of the allowance was spent on snacks after yesterday's soccer practice. You say, "Yes," however, before your brain has even engaged in the conversation.

Choir ends, and your child uses part of the $5 to buy Skittles and Coke. When he gets to the car, you notice that he has spent the money on something you do not approve of — but you did not rule out for him — and you go ahead and confiscate the Skittles and Coke and consume them yourself.

The result? Your child cries, and you get a stomachache.

What should have happened? Best of all: You could have just said no to the request for more money. Your child's allowance was gone, and he received more cash. He now thinks that you will bail him out — and the importance of making a good financial decision has been reduced.

Second: If money was given and you did not want it spent in certain ways, then the restrictions should have been conveyed with the cash. "You can have five dollars, but you may not spend it on candy or soda."

The problem with retroactively changing the rules, even if the rules were not properly thought through initially, is that both sides get confused by which are rules that will stand the test of time and which will be changed.

Consistency is important, in parenting and in our economy. You have to follow the rules that were laid out for this particular event and then change them going forward. Otherwise, there is constant confusion — and the focus will switch from following rules to manipulating rules.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

To find out more about Jackie Gingrich Cushman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 JACKIE CUSHMAN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;...I don't know what your grasp of economics is, but even the name would suggest management, and management is one thing our capitalists refuse... Yet, they demand help when they have pushed business into criminality and ruin...Perhaps you can point out where it is written in the constitution that the government should prop up business every time it has sucked too much wealth out of the society to survive??? Of all the stated goals of our constitution; all are left unmet and unattended so the government can print up success by the bale for capital... It fails...It flunks... On the report card of life, capital has not, and will not last so long as feudalism which it is quickly becoming...It gets an F, and deserves to be trashed...You blame the political party in power, or the political system...Ma'am... You are ignorant to the situation as it stands... We think there is nothing better than our economy... And we think there is nothing better than our political system, and constitution...Our prejudice blinds us to the possibility that there might be something better...We are the collective prisoners of our prejudice... We cannot see the future for our forms that once seemed to work so well in the past... Sure they worked when our stupidity seemed as endeless as our resources... Now that we know both are limited; that we cannot forever be fools unless at the price of our lives and freedom, and now that we know we cannot survive as we do on the resources we possess, nor own those of others short of liquidating them, our choices seem sudddenly stark...To be free of the rotten influence of our wealthy we must be prepared to tax them into oblivion... That is our cure...They have ruined us; let them make us whole...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Jul 6, 2009 8:24 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jackie Gingrich Cushman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 19 Feb 2012

22 Apr 2010 The Summer of Our Discontent

12 Nov 2009 The Cost of Victory -- Seeding Defeat in 2010

6 Jan 2011 A Change in Power Now -- Optimistic Conservative Message Still Needed