Banking on a Bailout

What's good for Bank of America is good for America, right?

Well, that's what this huge banking conglomerate is telling the White House and Congress. These bankers have quietly been circulating a proposal in Washington that they've dubbed the "Homeowners Preservation Corp." They assert that they are concerned about the little folks who've been caught up in the subprime mortgage collapse, so they're urging a government bailout that would allow these hard-pressed borrowers to refinance and keep their homes. Wow, what altruism!

Uh ... did I mention that Bank of America has several tons of these bad loans hanging over its corporate head? Did I mention that it has already pocketed huge fees for packaging billions of dollars worth of these risky mortgages into intricate, unregulated financial schemes that are now collapsing? Did I mention that Bank of America is presently taking over Countrywide Corp., America's largest huckster of these subprime mortgages, which will essentially be bankrupt if it doesn't get a bailout?

Corporate altruism, you see, starts at home.

Gosh, it seems like only yesterday that these high-flying bankers were working with George Bush and the Congress to deregulate their financial operations so they could engage in "financial innovations" like subprime mortgages. But — oops! — now that their laissez-fair adventurism is pinching their bottoms, they're suddenly pleading for a heavy dose of socialistic intervention into their free enterprises. Indeed, banking buccaneers are now telling Washington that some $739 billion of their home loans are at risk of defaulting. So, please, they cry, intrude!

Thousands of modest-income Americans were duped and even defrauded by such subprime pushers as Countrywide and Bank of America. The White House and Congress should be helping the dupees — not the profiteers who did the duping.

THE DELIBERATE DECEIT OF DRUG ADS

Four out of five doctors recommend that you not believe any advertising that makes claims based on the opinions of four out of five doctors.

Or, for that matter, ads based on the opinions of even one, well-known doctor.

Take Dr. Robert Jarvik, one of the pioneers in the development of the artificial heart. You might have seen him on TV throughout the past couple of years touting the healing power of Lipitor, a cholesterol drug made by Pfizer. The pharmaceutical giant has paid the doctor $1.3 million to shill for the drug. In one of the ads, Jarvik is depicted as an athletic rower, skimming in his boat across a mountain lake. The implication is that he is full of vigor, thanks to the cholesterol-clearing power of Lipitor.

Jarvik's endorsement of the drug oozes credibility — until you realize a few facts not mentioned in this $250 million ad campaign. One, that's not Jarvik rowing so robustly across the lake. It's a stunt man posing as the doctor, who apparently doesn't row at all. Second, while Jarvik touts the cardiovascular benefits of Lipitor, he is not a cardiologist. And, even though he has a medical degree, he is not licensed to practice medicine. What he is, is a marketable medical name, having been, as the ad put it, the "inventor of the artificial heart."

Oh, that's the third hicky on Jarvik's testimonial. He is not "the inventor." A large team at the University of Utah worked on the heart device back in the early 1980s, and they credit two others as deserving of the "inventor" honor — not Jarvik.

A top Pfizer executive says the corporation regrets that the ad led to any "misimpressions." But that's exactly what this direct-to-consumer ad campaign was designed to do. Drug companies spend some $5 billion a year on ads to "misimpress" us — and it's time to rein in their deceit.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.