a semi-regular column of Truths, Half Truths, and Mostly Truths by Semi.
Volume I, Issue 12 · posted May 2, 2001
In my previous column, I posited that what our country experienced as a result of the 2000 elections was nothing less than a hostile corporate takeover (Vol. 1, Issue 11, "Business as Usual").
I concluded by rhetorically asking "...is that so bad? After all, the business of America is business. What's wrong with having an actual MBA in charge instead of a bunch of media-loving, bleeding-heart whiny liberal lawyers?"
Let us examine the principals and the set of corporate ethics that they bring to governing:
Leading the list, of course, is Vice-President Dick Cheney, who used his government contacts to become the CEO of Halliburton, an oil and energy services company. Under his tutelage, the company gained $2 billion in government contracts to clean up damaged oil fields in Iraq (which, of course, became damaged during Operation: Desert Storm while Cheney was Secretary of Defense under "Poppy" Bush) and provided supplies for peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia.
Fast on his heels comes current (and, under President Gerald Ford, former) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield who, between government positions, has been a CEO or Director of drug companies (Amylin Pharmaceuticals and a subsidiary of Pharmacia), telecommunication providers (General Instrument, now a part of Motorola), biotech companies, media holding companies, and, of course, defense contractors.
Next in importance comes George W. Bush himself. Using his father's oil connections, he survived for years as a private businessman in Texas, profiting chiefly from investors who gave him money because of government tax breaks for the oil industry. While his father was Veep, GWB borrowed $600,000 from a bank in Midland where he once was a director, to become a 2% owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Not satisfied with owning a low-status team playing in an old minor-league field, Bush and the new owners threatened to leave Arlington, TX unless the city would build a new stadium for the team. The city spent $150,000 on an advertising campaign to persuade voters to finance the stadium through a sales tax. Between the sales-tax revenue, state tax exemptions and other financial incentives, Texas taxpayers handed the privately owned Rangers more than $200 million in public subsidies. When one family refused to sell a 13-acre plot at half its appraised value, Arlington condemned the land for the stadium project. The Rangers then leased the stadium in a rent-to-buy agreement for $60 million — the equivalent of 12 years' rent — and the value of the club tripled. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush's initial investment turned into $15 million.
Remember, these guys campaigned as self-made businessmen who believe in cutting taxes and advocating free market capitalism without government interference.
Onward...
Chief of Staff Andrew Card, came to the White House from a posting as a vice president of General Motors. Previous to that position, he was CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, an auto industry lobby shop which fought against stricter fuel emissions standards.
Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, while CEO and chairman of Alcoa, the world’s largest aluminum manufacturer, successfully lobbied for an exception to Texas state environmental regulations (under Governor George W. Bush) that allowed his company to continue emitting 60,000 tons of sulfur dioxide annually into the air. The company's partner in this campaign was the Austin law firm of Vinson & Elkins, the number two contributor to the Bush campaign according to a list at OpenSecrets.org. (The number one contributor was MBNA America, the third largest issuer of Visa© and MasterCard© credit cards.)
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, before she resigned as a member of the board of directors of Chevron, had an oil tanker named after her (I'm not making this up — the US Merchant Marine website lists a Bahaman-registered oil freighter called the Condoleeza Rice). In a San Francisco Chronicle article, a Chevron company spokesperson points out — apparently without any hint of irony — that other tankers have also been named after prominent politicos, including Carla Hills (U.S. Trade Representative under former President George Bush and principal U.S. negotiator of the North American Free Trade Agreement) and former Secretary of State George Shultz. Ms. Rice has also been a director at brokerage firm Charles Schwab and is a member of J.P. Morgan's International Advisory Council.
Commerce Secretary Don Evans, former Chairman and CEO of oil giant Tom Brown Inc. and board member of its subsidiary TMBR/Sharp Drilling, has been friends with GWB since their early days in the oil business and is a longtime political supporter, serving as national finance chairman for the 2000 campaign. As Commerce Secretary, Evans oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has direct jurisdiction over the national coastline. Are those oil derricks I see on the horizon?
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, previously a one-term senator from Michigan, has received more campaign contributions from the auto industry than any other member of Congress. He was also the leading benefactor of an industry lobbying group called the Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which opposes federal fuel economy regulations. While in the Senate, he tried repeatedly to abolish the department which he now leads, and he has earned the lowest possible rating from both the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. He also pushed for legislation to suspend federal taxes on gasoline, favored drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, voted against reform of the federal system that allows oil companies to pay minimal royalties for oil from public lands, against increasing home heating assistance for low-income families, and against increased funding for solar and renewable energy. In an interview on ABC's This Week, responding to a question about the White House proposals to cut funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, he told Sam Donaldson that the administration is "reevaluating how we spend our energy dollars so that we can give the taxpayer a better return on his investment.”
The list goes on and on — I haven't even touched on Karl Rove, longtime Bush advisor and now chief strategist who sold his Texas firm and direct mailing outfit after it was discovered that he had worked for the tobacco industry at the same time he was advising governor Bush on an industry-supported tort reform proposal to limit consumers' access to the court system.
So here is what we have acquired: after eight years of unceasing hostility from reactionary critics regarding Bill Clinton's supposed lack of a personal moral compass (an objection to which I have admitted some sympathy), we now have an executive administration that takes it own moral cues from the avaricious corporate culture that values profit over people and justifies its own actions through short-term cost-benefit analyses.
In crafting this examination, I am also attempting to understand the mindset of those that support this Weltanschauung (literally, "world view"; a comprehensive philosophy of the world or of human life). I do not believe, as some have suggested, that either corporate America or the Bush administration is inherently evil. I trust that they think that what they are doing (or undoing) is right, even if it is not necessarily what "the people" desire or understand. Simply put, they think they know better than we ... and they are wrong.
In all the polls I have seen, Americans still place a higher value on supporting government services than lowering the tax rates for the wealthy. I will openly confess, I am no economist, but even a simple middle class moke like me can see overall trends, and the lessons of the past twenty years are pretty clear:
Republicans stay in office, give tax breaks to the rich, drive the national debt up to mammoth proportions, the economy goes to pot.
Democrats come into office, target tax cuts to the middle income taxpayer, give the working class a break, reduce the national debt, the economy soars.
In his first hundred days as "President", Bush is following his own playbook as governor of Texas, advocating a pro-business agenda of deregulation, tax cuts, and protection of companies against lawsuits while de-emphasizing environmental protection, relief for the underprivileged, and protecting the rights of the working class.
Maybe I am hopelessly out of touch with modern values, but I just don't think that this is what the voters had in mind when they elected Al Gore.
what do you think? email me
The Democratic National Committee has created their own site observing the first hundred days of the new administration. Their slogan: "Bush/Cheney 100 Days: It's Not What They've Done, But What They've Undone!". Check it out at http://www.100daysofbush.com.
Follow the money at OpenSecrets.org, the website of The Center for Responsive Politics. Most of the information that I presented above regarding the corporate connections of Bush appointees and advisors came from their searchable table at http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp.
Of related interest, CorpWatch "counters corporate-led globalization through education and activism. We work to foster democratic control over corporations by building grassroots globalization--a diverse movement for human rights, labor rights and environmental justice" at http://www.corpwatch.org/
In These Times is a newsmagazine "committed to extending political and economic democracy in the U.S. and around the world and to opposing the dominance of transnational corporations and the tyranny of marketplace values over human values". It makes for interesting reading at http://www.inthesetimes.com/
The Center for Public Integrity is a "non-profit, non-partisan educational organization whose mission is to provide the American public with the findings of its investigations and analyses of public service, government accountability, and ethics-related issues via books, reports and newsletters" at http://www.publicintegrity.org/ (also, see their online newsletter at http://www.public-i.org/).
As usual, all definitions have been liberated from Dictionary.com. This week's words all have to do with Greed.
avaricious\av`a*ri"cious\, a.; actuated by avarice; greedy of gain; immoderately desirous of wealth or gain.
covetous\cov"et*ous\, a.; culpably desirous of the possessions of another.
parsimonious\par`si*mo"ni*ous\, a.; excessively unwilling to spend.
penurious\pe*nu"ri*ous\, a.; sparing in the use of money.
miserly\mi"ser*ly\, a.; giving or spending reluctantly; stingy.
niggardly\nig"gard*ly\, a.; grudging and petty in giving or spending. [Middle English nigard, perhaps from nig, stingy person, of Scandinavian origin.]
Usage according to Merriam-Webster: The avaricious eagerly grasp after it at the expense of others, though not of necessity with a design to save, since a man may be covetous and yet a spendthrift. The penurious, parsimonious, and miserly save money by disgraceful self-denial, and the niggardly by meanness in their dealing with others. We speak of persons as covetous in getting, avaricious in retaining, parsimonious in expending, penurious or miserly in modes of living, niggardly in dispensing.
(Personal usage note: despite its apparent Scandinavian roots, I would generally caution against actually using the word niggardly).
If you can't annoy somebody, there is little point in writing. --Kingsley Amis
All Contents (except the stuff I stole) Copyright © 2001 S.M.
McCord.
Redistribution allowed, provided you cite http://www.semitrue.com.