If You're Not Part of the Solution ...

How does a cliché become a cliché?

Those of us who write have been warned all our lives not to use clichés too much. If clichés are used infrequently, I was taught, they can be extremely effective. But they should not be used too often, or else the writer may come to be seen as unoriginal — and, thus, be viewed as irrelevant.

A cliché tends to come into existence as a nugget of truth. It may evolve into a stereotype that is unfairly applied, but it had a legitimate starting point and a reason for being in the first place.

I guess that explains why there are times when a person may hear something that is so perplexing that the immediate reaction is a cliché.

That was how it was for me when I heard that Citigroup plans to raise workers' base salaries by as much as 50% to make up for smaller annual bonuses.

My first thought was, "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

I'm sure that, at this point, I don't need to tell the Citigroup story in detail. What you need to know is that Citigroup received two federal bailouts because it mishandled things so badly.

And it is also worth mentioning that the federal government will soon assume more than one–third ownership of the company.

But, on some points, I feel confused, just as I did when I worked for a company that was purchased by Citigroup.

The assumption by many, I'm sure, is that Citigroup is plotting to raise executive salaries to get around the reduced bonuses. But, according to the news reports I have read, Citigroup can do what it wants in regard to salary for any employee who is not in the top 100 in compensation.

Therefore, this plan applies, as Eric Dash writes in the New York Times, to the "rank–and–file employees." That would make me happy for my former co–workers, if it weren't for the fact that Citigroup terminated about half of the people in my old office more than a year ago. I don't know how many people I knew are still there.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has some definite ideas about Citigroup and makes some good points in an editorial on this subject. But sometimes the Inquirer's reasoning escapes me.

"You can see the logic of greed at work here," the Inquirer writes. "If they're losing their fat bonuses, why not make up the difference by hiking base salaries? Merely switching bonus dollars to regular pay isn't fooling anyone. It's the logic of a company that still doesn't get the message of the bailout."

Excuse me, but am I missing something? Based on that paragraph, it seems to me that the Inquirer is suggesting that these salary increases are going to the executives whose bonuses have been reduced. But my understanding is that ordinary employees will see the salary increases, not the executives.

If anyone suggests that rank–and–file salaries will go up to offset reduced bonuses, they can't be talking about the office I worked in. The company I worked for was purchased by Citigroup in 2002, but the rank–and–file workers never received a single bonus from then until the time I left in January 2008.

Even so, it does seem to me that the bailout money wasn't intended for salaries, even if the salaries in question are the ones paid to the employees who have been doing the work they were instructed to do and not the executives who implemented the risky policies.

"Officials at Citigroup say they need to pay higher salaries to keep talent," the Inquirer says. "If the gene pool is so talented, how did the firm get into this trouble in the first place?"

Well, again, it seems to me that Citigroup's employees are the ones who will see the salary increases in this plan, not the executives. The employees were not behind the policies that wrecked the economy.

I may be guilty of misreading this editorial — and if I am, I apologize to the Inquirer — but my understanding is that Citi is trying to retain its best workers. That makes sense to me. Whatever top–notch employees there are at Citi would probably leave if they feel they cannot make as much as they would if they left and went to a competitor.

A friend of mine says he read an article that said Citi only intended to raise salaries on those with better–than–average performance reviews. That seems logical, but my guess is they will screw it up like they did everything else.

Dash is correct when he observes that "[t]he Citigroup proposals ... present a crucial test for the Obama administration," but he goes on to point out that "administration officials have little power to prevent the company and others in the industry from raising salaries for rank–and–file employees."

As a recipient of federal funds, Citigroup's activities will — and should — be scrutinized. Perhaps, after close inspection, we'll get some clarification on a lot of things — not just who is getting a salary increase.

Take Me Out to the Ballgame ...

(Contrary to the implication of the headline, this will not be about yesterday's Opening Day in major league baseball. Posts on that topic will be found at Tomato Cans.)

When New York's baseball teams take the field next week, they both will be playing in brand–new ballparks. The Yankees kept the name of their old ballpark — Yankee Stadium. But the Mets have a new name — Citi Field.

Citi Field, as you may have guessed from the spelling of the name, gets its name from Citigroup, which will be paying $20 million a year for the next 20 years for the naming rights.

Citigroup has been in the news a great deal in recent months. It was one of the companies that appealed for bailout funds from Congress last fall — then went ahead with its purchase of a new multi–million–dollar corporate jet.

Now it's going to spend $400 million in the next two decades for the naming rights to a ballpark.

It doesn't sound like the most efficient use of taxpayer funds to me. Apparently, Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe don't think so, either. Back in January, they co–wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner asking him to "intervene and demand that Citigroup dissolve the agreement they have with the New York Mets." Geithner declined to do so.

In February, the Wall Street Journal reported that Citigroup had considered breaking the deal but apparently thought better of it. Citi has asserted that no taxpayer funds will be used.

Even so, the appearance of the situation is dubious at best. And Citigroup hardly needs any more bad publicity.

Do you suppose Citi Field will have a special landing strip for corporate jets bringing high– profile visitors to ballgames?

What Americans Are Worried About

In today's economy, there are many things to be worried about. But one thing was clearly the priority in a recent CNN survey — jobs.

More than one-third of all respondents said unemployment was the most serious issue facing America today. As Paul Steinhauser observes for CNN, that is "almost three times higher than the 13% who felt the same way last April." The second-greatest concern, according to a comparatively sedate 20% of respondents, is inflation.

Small wonder. Nationally, unemployment — which stood at 8.1% when the latest figures were announced earlier this month (and which some experts predict will climb into double digits by the end of the year) — is higher than it has been in more than a quarter of a century.

In California, where the unemployment rate is already in double digits, approximately 10,000 people came to a recent job fair at Dodger Stadium.

With so many people looking for work, those who still have their jobs are, understandably, reluctant to spend their money as freely as they would in a stronger economy. Since consumer spending is the oil that lubricates the economic machine, this creates a perpetual downward spiral in which employers are more likely to cut jobs than add them, and many people wonder how we will ever reverse the trend.

All of which makes people angry when they see companies like AIG insisting on paying $165 million in bonuses and compensation after receiving more than $170 billion in bailout funds.

I can understand National Economic Council chairman Lawrence Summers' observation that AIG made these commitments before the economic meltdown. "We are a country of laws. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts. Every legal step possible to limit those bonuses is being taken by Secretary Geithner and by the Federal Reserve system."

But I also understand what Fed chairman Ben Bernanke was talking about when he said, "It's absolutely unfair that taxpayer dollars are going to prop up a company that made these terrible bets, that was operating out of the sight of regulators, but which we have no choice but to stabilize, or else risk enormous impact, not just in the financial system, but on the whole U.S. economy."

In many ways, it strikes me as being similar to Citigroup's purchase of a new corporate jet after coming to Washington seeking bailout funds. In all fairness, I have no doubt that Citigroup placed the order for the jet before the recession began. But, as I pointed out a few months ago, the prudent thing to do in the current environment would be to cancel the contract and swallow any losses. Even so, Citigroup insisted on going through with it — and has been paying the price in terms of poor public relations.

AIG, it seems to me, has made a similar decision, choosing to go ahead and reward people as promised in spite of the economic conditions.

I understand the argument against regulation. In some industries, I can see regulation being too burdensome and too costly.

But doesn't today's economy prove that regulation is necessary in other areas — in both good times and bad?

An Unemployment 'Bloodbath'

Julianne Pepitone writes, at CNNMoney.com, that the final week of January began with a "bloodbath for the job market."

As you may have heard, seven companies announced job cuts today that add up to 71,400 jobs.

More than 200,000 jobs have been lost since the first day of 2009, Pepitone reports. And, just to remind people that this isn't a recent phenomenon, she adds, "Nearly 2.6 million jobs were lost over 2008, the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945."

Pepitone quotes Robert Brusca, chief economist at Fact and Opinion Economics, as observing, "It's all about the consumer, and the consumer's been hit hard."

Meanwhile, the fallout over the revelation that Citigroup is spending $50 million on a new jet continues in the blogosphere.

• It's "plane stupid," Gateway Pundit writes.


• The Swamp says Citigroup "hits turbulence" and recommends that Citigroup's executives should "get your crisis-management people cranked up."


• The Washington Independent observes that "it looks like at least one bank is finding a way to spend that TARP money."


• DealBook speculates that "Citigroup could be in some hot water."


• Wall $treet Folly wonders, "How long before Citigroup has its wings clipped and is shamed into selling their brand new corporate jet?"


• "Congratulations, taxpayers," says Right Voices. "You just bought Citigroup a brand-new $50 million corporate jet."


• Blogging Broker just wants the "plane truth" and says that "if you give an executive a GOLDEN PARACHUTE … he will need a nice new corporate jet to bail out of."


• "What a pretty jet, Citigroup," says RedState. "I'll be needing it next week. After all, you bought it with my tax money."


• "Did Citigroup fire its public-relations department when it laid off those 50,000 people a few months ago?" wonders Daily Intel, which proceeds to offer a little advice because "no one seems to be managing their image."

It isn't good P.R., to say the least.

And it isn't only bloggers who are expressing their dismay. The Detroit Free Press says Michigan Sen. Carl Levin is "beside himself ... considering that when the heads of Detroit's automakers came to Washington in private jets to ask for aid they got blasted for it."

There's bound to be more in the days ahead. Stay tuned.

It's a Bird ... No, It's a Plane Outrage

I guess this sort of ties in with what I wrote earlier today in this blog.

Although, actually, I guess it really ties in better with what I wrote on Saturday.

I heard about this a little while ago. And I'm so angry about it that I'm literally shaking.

The New York Post — and probably others, although that's the only report I've read so far — is reporting that Citigroup — which, I regret to say, is a company for whom I worked for several years (through one of its subsidiary companies) — is using $50 million of its bailout money to buy a new jet.

The Post's Jennifer Gould Keil and Chuck Bennett summarize it this way in their lead paragraph: "Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet — only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed."

I guess, if there's anything good to say about this, it's that some talented wags are getting the chance to show off their linguistic skills with some clever wordplay.

To be fair, the order for the jet was probably submitted a couple of years ago — before the recession. But in the current environment, the best thing to do would be to back out of the contract and swallow any losses that result.

I don't know if there's much I can add to what the Post said about it.

There is, however, one thought that's been going through my mind. Next Tuesday will be the 50th anniversary of the plane crash that killed Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and the "Big Bopper" in an event that was dubbed "the day the music died" by Don McLean (as I mentioned in this blog on Saturday).

Just to briefly recap a little known part of the story ... Waylon Jennings, who went on to a legendary career in country music before his death in 2002, was one of Holly's musicians. He gave his seat on the plane to the "Big Bopper" because the "Bopper" was developing a case of the flu and didn't want to ride in the bus that was carrying the rest of Holly's entourage.

When Holly found out that Jennings would not be riding on the plane, he said to him, in jest, "Well, I hope your ol' bus freezes up." Jennings replied, "Well, I hope your ol' plane crashes."

Jennings admitted that he was haunted by that exchange for many years after the tragedy.

But I'll say this. If there is any poetic justice in the world, the bigshots at Citigroup will be flying in their plane in the vicinity of Clear Lake, Iowa, on that anniversary.

At night.

In an ice storm.

With a pilot who has trouble flying at night.

Preferably while the bigshots are dining on filet mignon and lobster tail — on the taxpayers' tab.

If that happens, I might, like Jennings, feel a little guilty. But, if I have to endure a few sleepless nights because of it, that's a price I'll pay — if I have to.

And my advice to the air traffic control people is this: If the Citigroup plane is overdue, don't bother sending out a search and rescue party until daylight.

No sense in risking innocent lives.