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.

Looking Back and Looking Ahead

In a couple of weeks, the George W. Bush administration will be over.

It's not unusual, especially at the end of a full two-term presidency (as rare as they have been in our history), for people to reflect on the outgoing president and the imprint he leaves on the nation.

Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer reflects, on its editorial page, on "The Bush Years" and the Bush "legacy" that the president and the first lady care so much about.

The Inquirer decries the "familiar litany" of Bush's failures as president, then proceeds to recite them for us. But it does point out what I consider to be the greatest failing (among many) — "Bush eroded respect for the democratic principles that founded this country."

And, what may have frustrated me more than anything else has been his insistence that his actions have been intended to preserve the dignity of the presidency.

The Inquirer speaks about that, too: "[T]hat has to be about more than just avoiding the sex scandal that marred Bill Clinton's presidency," writes the Inquirer. "[A]cting as if the holder of his office is above the law — without regard for constitutional checks and balances — now, that was a major misstep."

I would call it Nixonian.

After briefly reviewing Bush's record in office, the Inquirer concludes, "It's been a rough eight years, no question. In November, voters thankfully signaled that they're ready to move on."

That's fine — but what, exactly, are we moving on toward?

The Economist seeks to answer that question.

This month, for example, The Economist observes that America "welcomes Barack Obama, its 44th president, to the White House. Americans will hope that he can revive the economy and lift the gloomy mood at home while improving the country's reputation abroad."

Again, that's fine — but it doesn't really answer the question of what we can expect in 2009, does it? I mean, we're all, in our own ways, hoping for an economic turnaround, a better national mood and an improved national reputation abroad.

Mostly, The Economist recites events that are scheduled to take place this year. No surprises there — unless unforeseen developments force the postponement or cancellation of any of those events.

The most telling part of The Economist's report may be the illustration that accompanies it — a cartoon depicting various national leaders (including, apparently, Obama) in individual motorboats, each of which appears to have sprung a leak and is rapidly taking on water.

The visible leaders have their backs to us so they can only be identified by the national flags on their boats (and, in Obama's case, by the color of his skin).

No one seems to notice the shark swimming between the boats.