I have to admit, the constant news of greed, ignorance, and a total disregard for interdependence—which seems to keep trickling down from the upper echelons of our society like some slapstick nightmare—is giving me one good old-fashioned case of populist rage. Seriously. I’m about to smack an executive upside the head with a zafu.

(which one would I rather be right now?)
Last week’s straw that broke my camel’s back was news that Wall Street firms managed to give out $18 billion in bonuses at the end of 2008 (the 6th largest year of bonuses on record), mostly using taxpayer funds from the federal bailout. Citigroup alone gave out over $4 Billion in bonuses, which apparently wasn’t enough for some employees, according to the NY Times:

I feel like I got a doorman’s tip, compared to what I got in previous years,” said a 30-something investment banking associate at Citigroup’s offices in Lower Manhattan.

At Daily Kos, blogger Buffalo Girl had the best response to the above beauty of a statement:

Yes. It IS your doorman’s tip. From HIS FREAKIN’ TAXES. If you CAN’T FREAKIN’ HANDLE IT, then WHY DON’T YOU GIVE IT BACK TO HIM? He could probably use it, you F!*@#&(!*.

Well said. Of course, there’s the counter argument that these folks live on a line of credit year round on their $180,000 salaries, paying $4000 a month in Manhattan rent, and rely on big expected bonuses at year’s end to get them out of credit card debt. With smaller than normal bonuses, they can’t make ends meet. Have some damn empathy for investment banking sentient beings!
Um, Suspect?
Meanwhile, Senator Claire McKaskill of Missouri introduced an interesting piece of legislation last week, piggie-backing on this anger and ridiculousness to try to change funding rules. Here’s the youtube of her on Rachel Maddow’s show, but if you don’t have time to watch, the basic premise of her brilliant argument is summarized below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onoSQgVqzIE
As soon as a financial institution takes bailout funds, they become a public entity beholden to the taxpayers. That is, they are part of the public sector. The highest paid public servant in the USA is the president, one Mr. Barack H. Obama, who brings home about $400,000 in kosher bacon to Michelle and the girls. As long as they are using bailout funds, executives at financial institutions cannot be paid more than public servant numero uno. Pretty airtight logic, and pretty damn hard to argue against.
President Obama adopted a version of this idea and decided to cap executive pay at $500,000 for companies receiving bailout funds. Executive Dudes and dudettes (but come on, mostly dudes) who make a couple million a year find this to be a draconian measure (and I’m sure the legislation has tons of comfy loopholes like all great laws). To me it sounds like a great idea.
I have a lot of thoughts on this matter, lots of links to share, but I want to get the conversation going first and will share more in the comments.
Let’s take it even further than just bailout funded companies. Can someone tell me when ANYONE, EVER needs an income greater than $500,000 per year? I mean, whether they work in the public or private sector? I will probably gross $45,000 for the first time in my life this year, and I find that (without kids) I have everything I need. Kids will change the picture for sure, but I’m not going to be buying any 24-karat teething rings.
I feel like community building, teaching, and writing constitute a good and honorable livelihood, and I feel confident (but maybe I’m super arrogant, you’ll have to weigh in) that my work adds more value to my community than most folks who work on Wall Street. There, I said it. Is that arrogant? Don’t you feel the same about what you do? Honestly?
Can I get $500,000 a year, Mr. Summers?
Those of us who try to work to promote an understanding of interdependence have been living in the shadows of the yacht-and-jet-setters who could give a *$!&%$ about interdependence and lovingkindness for far too long. Viva la revolucion de compasìon!
I am not, by the way, advocating Socialism, so please don’t throw that word around. It’s tired and lame, and I was shocked that conservatives actually thought the American people would react badly to “sharing the wealth.”  Socialism involves the government controlling all aspects of production, determining what gets made, traded, and sold in society, and to whom. This, on the other hand, is a capitalist income cap. Buy what you want, the markets are still “free” (whatever that means), but no one needs to make out like a bandit anymore.
Seriously, I’m mad this week. I feel like our world’s being flushed down the toilet by cynical ignorant people who can’t expand their awareness beyond their own noses or neuroses. I hope this feeling inside me is that vajra-type anger I keep hearing about.
Whatcha think?