Robert Benmosche, the CEO of American International Group (AIG) recently offered some blunt advice to college graduates searching for work.
“You have to accept the hand that’s been dealt you in life,” Benmosche said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “Don’t cry about it. Deal with it.”
As is typical of one-percenters, Benmosche blames willing-to-work college graduates for the refusal of rich employers to offer jobs instead of excuses.
AIG’s way of “accepting the hand that’s been dealt you in life” was to go crying to the Federal Government for a bailout loan–which eventually ballooned to $182 billion.
If college graduates should “deal with” the hardships of finding a responsible, hiring-inclined employer with a stiff upper lip, as Benmosche advises, the same advice should work wonders on greed-fueled CEOs.
Greed-test CEOs for future government loans.
After all, drug-testing welfare recipients has become the new mantra for Republicans.
Some bills have even targeted people who seek unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence that the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs.
The concept of background screening is actually sound. But Republicans are aiming it at the wrong end of the economic spectrum.
Since 2008, the government has handed out billions of dollars in bailouts to CEOs of the wealthiest corporations in the country.
The reason: To rescue the economy from the calamity produced by the criminal greed and recklessness of those same corporations.
In 2008, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before Congress about the origins of the Wall Street “meltdown.”
He admitted that he was “shocked” at the breakdown in U.S. credit markets and said he was “partially” wrong to resist regulation of some securities.
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity–myself especially–are in a state of shocked disbelief,” said Greenspan, who had ruled the Fed from 1987 to 2006.
As a disciple of the right-wing philosopher, Ayan Rand, Greenspan had fiercely held to her belief that “The Market” was a divine institution. As such, “it” alone knew what was best for the nation’s economic prosperity.
“Enlightened self-interest,” he believed, would guarantee that those who dedicated their lives to making money would not allow mere greed to steer them–and the country–into disaster.
As he saw it, any attempt to regulate greed-based appetites could only harm that divine institution.
Greenspan proved wrong. And the nation will be literally paying for such misguided confidence in profit-addicted men for decades to come.
So if Republicans want to protect the “poor, oppressed taxpayer,” they should demand background investigations for those whose addiction truly threatens the economic future of this country.
That is–the men (and occasionally women) who run the nation’s most important financial institutions, such as banks, insurance and mortgage companies.
Thus, in the future, all CEOs–and their topmost executives–of financial institutions seeking Federal bailouts should be required to:
- Undergo “full field investigations” by the FBI and IRS.
- Submit full financial disclosure forms concerning not only themselves but all members of their immediate families.
- Be subject to Federal prosecution for perjury if they provide false information or conceal evidence of criminal violations.
- Periodically submit themselves for additional background investigation.
- Be subject to arrest, indictment and prosecution if the background investigation turns up evidence of criminal activity.
In addition:
- If a bailout-seeking financial institution refuses to comply with these criteria, it should be refused the loan.
- If a CEO and/or other top officials are judged ineligible for a loan, the company should be asked to replace those executives with others who might qualify.
- Those alternative executives should be subject to the same background investigation requirements as just outlined.
- If the institution refuses to replace those executives found ineligible, the Government should refuse the loan.
- If the Government is forced to take over a troubled financial institution, its CEO and top executives should be replaced with applicants who have passed the required security screening.
The United States has a long and embarrassing history in worshipping wealth for its own sake. Part of this can be traced to the old Calvinistic doctrine that wealth is a proof of salvation, since it shows evidence of God’s favor.
Another reason for this worship of mammon is the belief that someone who is wealthy is automatically endowed with wisdom and integrity.
Following these beliefs to their ultimate conclusion will transform the United States into a plutocracy–a government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy.
Every day we see fresh evidence of the destruction wrought by the unchecked greed of wealthy, powerful men.
When they–and their paid shills in Congress–demand, “De-regulate business,” it’s essential to remember what this really means.
It means: “Let criminals be criminals.”
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
ABC NEWS, CBS NEWS, CNN, DRUG-TESTING, EMPLOYERS RESPONSIBILITY ACT, FACEBOOK, FISHER INVESTMENTS, HERMAN CAIN, KENNETH FISHER, MEDICAL INSURANCE, MITT ROMNEY, NBC NEWS, REPUBLICANS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER, UNEMPLOYMENT, WAL-MART, WEALTH GAP
OUTLAW THE JOB-KILLERS: PART ONE (OF THREE)
In Business, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on September 10, 2014 at 12:22 amKenneth Fisher, chief executive officer of Fisher Investments, has a uniquely CEO view of jobs: “Believe it or not, I’m for fewer jobs, not more.”
In the Christmas Eve, 2012 issue of Forbes, he asserted: “Job Growth is Overrated.”
“Believe it or not, I’m for fewer jobs, not more.
“Throughout 2012 we heard politicians and pundits of all stripes yammering endlessly on the need for job growth—that we don’t have enough jobs. It’s pure rubbish.”
Kenneth Fisher
According to Fisher, jobs are actually signs of weakness in the economy. Fewer employees can produce more products–and that’s good for us all.
For Fisher, the template for future economic success is Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer: “With Wal-Mart you get an awe-inspiring company at 13 times my January 2014 earnings estimate, with a 2. 2 % dividend yield.”
Of course, it’s easy for Fisher–a billionaire–to take a “What? Me Worry?” attitude about the unemployment problems facing millions of willing-to-work Americans.
And it’s certainly easier for him to identify with his fellow billionaire boys club members, the Waltons, than with the low-paid employees of Wal-Mart.
In December, 2013, Wal-Mart announced that it would deny health insurance to newly-hired employees who work less than 30 hours a week.
Walmart eliminates healthcare coverage for certain workers if their average work-week falls below 30 hours–which regularly happens at the direction of company managers.
You can be certain that Fisher doesn’t have to worry about getting top-notch nedical care anytime he thinks he needs it.
Another thing that Fisher clearly admires about Wal-Mart: Its gross profit in July, 2014, stood at $128.08 billion.
C. Douglas McMillon, who became the president and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores on Feb. 1 2014, saw his total compensation skyrocket 168% to $25.6 million
On the other hand: Most Walmart workers earn less than $20,000 a year. According to Bloomberg News, the average Walmart Associate makes just $8.81 per hour.
But there is probably one thing about Wal-Mart that Fisher doesn’t want to talk about.
Since 2008, Walmart has fired or lost 120,000 American workers, while opening more than 500 new U.S. stores. Many workers quit to find better-paying jobs.
As a result, turnover at Walmart has been correspondingly high.
Recently, Wal-Mart has been forced to launch a massive PR campaign to counteract its notoriety for low pay, employment of illegal aliens, lack of health benefits and union-busting tactics.
In 2011-12, Walmart spent $1.89 billion on self-glorifying ads.
And Fisher conveniently ignores the huge emotional role that being employed plays in the United States.
The majority of Americans–especially men–derive their sense of identity from what they do for a living.
Ask a man, “What do you do?” and he’s almost certain to reply: “I’m a fireman.” Or “I’m a salesman.”
To be unemployed in America is considered by most Americans–including the unemployed–the same as being a bum.
And Republicans are quick to point accusing fingers at those willing-to-work Americans who can’t find willing-to-hire employers.
According to Republicans such as Mitt Romney and Herman Cain: If you can’t find a job, it’s entirely your fault.
And when Republicans are forced–by public pressure or Democratic majorities–to provide benefits to the unemployed, these nearly always come at a price.
Those receiving subsistence monies are, in many states, required to undergo drug-testing, even though there is no evidence of widespread drug-abuse among the unemployed.
But America can put an end to this “I’ve-got-mine-and-the-hell-with-you” job-killing arrogance of people like Kenneth Fisher.
How?
The answer lies in three words: Employers Reponsibility Act (ERA).
If passed by Congress and vigorously enforced by the U.S. Departments of Justice and Labor, an ERA would ensure full-time, permanent and productive employment for millions of capable, job-seeking Americans.
And it would achieve this without raising taxes or creating controversial government “make work” programs.
Such legislation would legally require employers to demonstrate as much initiative for hiring as job-seekers are now expected to show in searching for work.
An Employers Responsibility Act would simultaneously address the following evils for which employers are directly responsible:
Share this: