The Spectacle Blog
Hot on the dug-in heels of certain Cardinals opposed to the enforcement of immigration law comes this little DC church parking/double parking imbroglio -- and once again certain religious folk are up in arms about the enforcement of the laws. The DC double-parking laws, along church-heavy streets, have not recently been enforced, although they've duly been kept on the books. They certainly cannot be said to have lapsed -- particularly now that Logan Circle area residents really need them. The habitual violation of the double-parking law, however, is inaccurately advertised by disgruntled churchgoers as "a minor inconvenience." Convenience isn't the point.
Fr. Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, didn't end the controversy over the Vagina Monologues with his flaccid "closing statement." (Read more from AmSpecBlog on it here.) He has succeeded in emboldening those who wish to water down ND's Catholic identity, and in alienating those who wish to preserve the traditional understanding of a Catholic university.
One of the voices in the latter crowd includes philosopher Professor Charles Rice. Rice concludes that Jenkins' surrendering closing statement also marks the closing of his presidency, and calls on him to resign in today's Observer.
A short blurb in the Wash Post this morning reports that a House "lobbying reform" bill is finally headed to a floor vote this week. Gee, whiz. Whatever. It turns out that this version of "reform" does NOT require lobbyists "to keep track of their contacts with lawmakers and report fundraising activities." In other words, less and less actual reform. Now I'm not one who says that lobbyists are evil; far from it. But the public does have a right to transparency when lobbyists and money (either for lunches/trips/favors or for campaigns) are tied together with lawmakers. Saying that lobbyists can't have access would of course be unconstitutional. But for PAID lobbyists who ALSO donate money to lawmakers to do so without disclosure is to invite corruption. Even in the wake of the Abramoff scandals, it amazes me that the House doesn't seem to understand this.
If this story is to be believed -- and I hear it is indeed accurate -- then Tony Snow will be the new White House press secretary, and a particularly powerful one at that...while the unrelated Treasury Secretary John Snow will be out the door. Let's take the latter first. John Snow isn't exciting, but he actually has done a good job with the nuts and bolts at Treasury, and he has worked his heart out. The knock on him is that, despite his best efforts, he hasn't been an effective salesman. That may be true -- but, on the other hand, it is tough to be a good messenger when the overall communications apparatus for the whole administration hasn't been effective. If the president can get somebody with a superb combination of policy skills, management skills, AND political/communication skills, then by all means replace John Snow. But don't replace him with somebody else who isn't already well known and who doesn't within two minutes create a "Wow" factor.
It's more than just talk at this point. I have heard half a dozen playings of a new PSA on radio from (I believe) the DOE, offering a toll free number and soliciting complaints of price gouging for (so says the PSA) government action. So something has been budgeted to the issue -- on the wrong side --, and something has been done. Runaway bureaucracy?
Dave, Quin: A $400 million retirement packages is "obscene" and "wrong" and "greedy?" Nonsense.
There is no moral content to an individual's income or networth. All you can do with money is spend it, lend it, or invest it. We do not live in a zero-sum economy, where accumulation of wealth amounts to deprivation of others.
As Milton Friedman has argued, the social responsibility of a corporation -- that is, its moral obligation -- is to provide the best possible return for its stockholders. If you think a company is spending more on its executives than their services are worth, don't buy stock in that company. It's as simple as that. As to the argument that corporations have an obligation to limit executive compensation because it "gives the libs a perfect target to get government involved in all kinds of mischief": Isn't that like saying that permitting religious pluralism incites Islamist rage? I'm not equating economic leftism to terrorism, but you'd better think hard before accepting a line of logic that you'd surely reject in a different context.
Quin, as a matter of morals, a $400 million paycheck is awfully greedy, and greed is wrong.
But a matter of public policy, it's not. And when Hastert deems that compensation "unconscionable" to the press, he's saying so in his office as a Congressman and Speaker of the House. If he's saying that to preface remarks along the lines of "while this is unconscionable, it's none of our business," fine. But alone, it appears that he wants to do something about it, namely a price gouging investigation. Or worse.
Dave -- As a matter of government interest, exhorbitant salaries should be off limits. But I see nothing wrong with jawboning these execs. A $400 million golden parachute, as with the Exxon exec, is obscene. In fact, there is plenty of merit in the complaint that American corporate execs get paid so much more than do, say, Japanese ones. The compensation structure is all screwed up. In fact, the DESIRE for wealth over and above a certain point, except to do good with it (charity, etc), is a character flaw and deserving of ostracism. There's a difference between ambition and greed, and when execs get too greedy they open up a can of worms because it gives the libs a perfect target to get government involved in all kinds of mischief to correct the "imbalances" in compensation. OF course, government should NOT step in, but that doesn't mean the greed is morally defensible.
That point aside, though, I agree with everything else in your post, except that the anti-price gouging thing may only merit point nine or ten on a ten-point list. :) Meanwhile, your last question is appropriate: What DOES Hastert have to show for himself?