Price Tag on Attention

By Rob Michael
Spring 2009


Does the attention span of Americans have a price tag? It may sound too subjective to answer, but I would approximate it at $165 million. If this number sounds familiar, that's because it is how much AIG executives will be receiving in bonuses. This seemingly large amount of money is currently causing outrage in Washington, DC. Democrats and Republicans seem to agree when the issue is raised; action must be taken. Action, however, would require ignoring the legal powers that contracts hold in our society. If our government decides to do this, it will be up to the people to cry out about the dangers associated with such a powerful government.

The situation is more complex than the unmoral gift of $165 million. Afterall, how could intervention by the state be wrong if its only meant to serve the people? The answer is that it can be much more dangerous than it appears. These bonuses were given as part of contracts, which are legally binding by definition. If the government steps in to breach these contracts, it will disregard one of the most fundamental notions of our free, capitalistic society. If contracts are stripped of their ability to bind agreements in certainty, the health of the private sector will be placed in jeopardy.

The impact of foresight like this is lessened every day as people are continually fed the idea that capitalism has failed us. The AIG bonus gifts have been chalked up to the greed of capitalists. However, any amount of investigation leads to more educated explanations. It was, in fact, the government that is responsible for the survival of the AIG bonuses. Specifically, it was Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) who added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The amendment disallowed taxation on the bonuses by making an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009." Why in the world would Mr. Dodd include such a thing? Might it have anything to do with the $103,100 he received from AIG during the election cycle? No, no... of course not.

Worst of all is that the outrage being created about this legal $165 million is a drop in the bucket when compared to the waste in the stimulus bill. After all, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) says that "the American people really don't care" about pork. Interesting then that this $165 million is grabbing the attention of all the media outlets. By focusing on this legal $165 million, people are surrendering their attention as to forget about the actual corruption involved in the stimulus bill. The friendliness of our Democrats and Republicans up on the Hill is nice to see, but it would be a lot sweeter if there wasn't so much as stake.

So how much does it cost to destract the public? In this case it seems to be $165 million. As we worry about this legal blunder, we seem to be ignoring something Glenn Beck brings to light. Of the billions of dollars alloted to AIG, the amount of money AIG gave to banks overseas is larger than the amount given to American banks. This means that in the case of AIG, our stimulus money benefited other countries more than it did the US. While everyone else is wondering about the $165 million, it might serve you best to wonder about the $1 trillion that is being spent in other places.

Rob Michael is a sophomore at Rutgers University.