creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Molly Ivins
Molly Ivins
28 Jan 2009
What Would Molly Think?

JANUARY 31, 2009, IS THE TWO-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF MOLLY IVINS' DEATH. THE FOLLOWING COLUMN WAS WRITTEN BY … Read More.

31 Jan 2007
Molly Ivins Tribute

MOLLY IVINS BEGAN WRITING HER SYNDICATED COLUMN FOR CREATORS SYNDICATE IN 1992. ANTHONY ZURCHER IS A CREATORS … Read More.

11 Jan 2007
Stand Up Against the Surge

The purpose of this old-fashioned newspaper crusade to stop the war is not to make George W. Bush look like … Read More.

Molly Ivins February 27

PORTLAND, Ore. — The Buchanan presidency now being quite as advanced as the Forbes presidency was just a few weeks ago, I have naturally been savoring the observations made about My Boy Buchanan. My favorite was by television pundit Morton Kondracke (we must give him credit for speaking wryly): "I think something important happened to Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire in 1990 when he discovered that people could be out of work through no fault of their own. At least white people." We are all grateful for this conversion experience on the road to Damascus — or at any rate, south of Dixville Notch.

You may recall (I know it's hard to remember this far back) that all this began with Bob Dole's response to President Clinton's State of the Union address (a performance that ineluctably brought to mind the words: "Somewhere in Transylvania, there is an empty grave ... "). Republicans began looking for Anybody But Dole.

Steve Forbes, the really rich one, bought his way into contendership for a spell. Poor charmless Phil Gramm finally saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out. (Ida Frankel of New York City suggests that the handwriting said: "Meanie, meanie, tekel, upharsin" — consult the Book of Daniel if you don't get the joke.) Lamar Alexander, the one in plaid, then surged, although "surge" is an awfully active verb for the white-bread Alexander. And then My Boy Buchanan came thundering in from the right, causing David Brinkley to inquire plaintively last Sunday, "What are all these people so angry about?" Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Now, regard the advance in political debate wrought by MBB. Newsweek's recent cover article on "Corporate Killers," the CEOs who fire tens of thousands of people and are rewarded with million-dollar salaries, is just packed with interesting items.

For example, when Chase Manhattan Bank recently merged with Chemical, Chase cut 12,000 jobs but kept all 36 outside directors, "who get fat fees and dandy retirement packages," Newsweek reported. In the midst of a sea of similar news nuggets was this throw-away observation: "A marvelous company like Motorola can have its stock smashed to smithereens, if its profits come in a hair or two below expectations.

Indeed, one reason that chief executives are meaner and greedier than they used to be is the 1980s: No company was safe from raiders if its stock price was depressed. If you didn't unload your losers and fire 'surplus' workers, a takeover troll would buy your company and fire everybody."

OK, what can we do about it? There's a lot we can do, and should have done long since.

— Amend the anti-trust laws to restrain mergers and acquisitions that result in layoffs detrimental to the public interest.

— Eliminate tax deductions for the expenses of mergers and acquisitions that result in substantial layoffs.

— Strengthen existing provisions in current law that limit the tax deductibility on interest on debt utilized in these transactions.

— Re-examine accounting methods that invite the restructuring of companies though massive layoffs.

OK, so these ideas come from a Democrat — to wit, Sen. Ted Kennedy. Has Clinton ever hesitated to steal an idea he liked from Republicans? Of course not! So why shouldn't the R's, or at least MBB, steal from Kennedy? Fair's fair, and there are no copyrights on political ideas. Besides, these aren't really Kennedy's ideas — he just listens to some bright economists.

You may not have been aware that current law actually subsidizes mergers and acquisitions, but so it does — a pernicious piece of folly. Which brings us to the inevitable Republican objection: Thou Shalt Not Interfere in the Marketplace. The answer is: We Already Do — But On the Wrong Side.

We get this same silly argument from the Free Marketeers every single time anyone dares to mention the public interest. We spend far more on aid to financially dependent corporations ($167 billion, according to Public Citizen) than we do on Aid to Families With Dependent Children (about $12.2 billion). To borrow a Grammism, it's time the corps got out of the wagon and make them help pull. But every time this heresy is suggested, we are told that would interfere with the magic of the Free Market. It is high time we responded with the Bronx cheer that the argument deserves.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. You can write to Molly Ivins at Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., #700, Los Angeles, Calif. 90045.

COPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
More
Molly Ivins
Jan. `09
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 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 30 31
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
John Stossel
John StosselUpdated 25 Nov 2009
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 25 Nov 2009
Brent Bozell
L. Brent BozellUpdated 25 Nov 2009

2 Jun 2000 Molly Ivins June 2

22 Mar 2001 Molly Ivins March 22

3 Oct 1996 Molly Ivins October 3