data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/50b69/50b69fccce3a207948602549613fff3a1e4db713" alt=""
As the AIG controversy progresses we're seeing more and more anxiety from the right. They seem to feel that AmeriKa has been transported into a
Red Dawn nation. That the country is unraveling because a charismatic scary black man is in charge. Recently we've seen
Glenn Beck melting down on his show about his lost America. My friend
KT seems to feel that the rule of law will be abolished because Washington might interfere with a handful of bonuses going to bankers who don't deserve them. Its that slippery slope thing the right loves so much. And that the productive people of the nation will jump ship - i.e.
John Galt. And then there are apologists such as
Rick Santelli who defends the AIG bonuses because its only one tenth of one percent of the bailout. These folks seem to be missing the point.
Its puzzling actually that these folks seem to have no memory of eight years under the Clinton's, or the economic policies of a member of their own party named Nixon. Regardless, the little point they ignore is the AIG is under fire for one reason and one reason alone, because it accepted bail out money. The right is trying to argue that a significant share holder of AIG stock, ( i.e. the Unite states), has no right to interfere with how the company is being run. Because certainly AIG has done such a wonderful job that they've in the mess they are currently in. And if the company had gone through bankruptcy instead, there is no doubt that the court would have installed handlers who would have reigned in any AIG's excesses. So is what the Obama adminstration proposing really that different?