Bush’s Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent
Here’s an example of one of the corporations that the Republicans are so concerned about not increasing marginal tax rates on — the “job creators”. Sure, let’s get them more tax cuts, so they can pay out ridiculous bonuses to themselves and their executives while laying off more American workers. Why not?
When Craig Dubow resigned as CEO of the nation’s largest newspaper conglomerate amid health problems last year, he ended a six-year stint that “was, by most accounts, a disaster.” Gannett, the parent company of the USA Today and 80 other American newspapers, had seen its revenue plummet $1.7 billion and its stock price fall 86 percent, from $72 a share to just over $10.
To counter those losses, Gannett shed jobs, and a lot of them. Industry estimates say the company has laid off at least 20,000 workers since 2005, reducing its workforce from 52,000 to roughly 32,000. Despite those losses, Gannett awarded Dubow a severance package worth $32 million, NPR reports:
Dubow’s final compensation package includes $12.8 million in retirement benefits, $6.2 million in disability benefits and a $5.9 million severance payment, according to the filing. Gannett stock options and restricted stock, which Dubow had accrued during his years of employment with the company, were also part of the package. Those stock awards are valued at nearly $7 million.
Separately, Gannett will pay $25,000 to $50,000 annually for a $6.2 million life insurance policy covering Dubow and another $70,000 annually for benefits such as health insurance, home computer and secretarial assistance and financial counseling. He will receive most of these benefits for three years unless he goes to work for a competitor, according to the filing.
Only in the United States of White Male Corporatism can you be a complete failure, put 20,000 people out of work, get a $32 million severance package, and still get an entire political party to fight to get you even more — while convincing the plebeians to take even less.
“This is a sign of what happens when you have government getting in bed with big business like the bailout of the auto companies. The leadership of the auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patrons. I was, frankly, offended by it. I’m a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics. And the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.” — Karl Rove is ‘offended’ by Eastwood’s inspiring Super Bowl commercial
As David Edwards at Raw Story points out,
Although Obama did sign off on $85 billion in aid to the auto industry after taking office, Rove’s former boss, President George W. Bush, also provided over $17 billions in loans in 2008.
Rove’s objection to the commercial is a clear sign that Republicans are worried that the auto bailout will benefit the president’s re-election effort.
So, whatever, Turd Blossom, and the rest of you Fox “News” rightwingnutjobs — here in “America,” most of us like seeing a comeback, a turnaround, a happy ending. And most of us are celebrating that a US company which ACTUALLY PRODUCES SOMETHING WITH U.S. LABOR is successful again.
Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and the rest of the assholes in the Republican Party could learn something from the phrase, “Imported from Detroit,” don’t you think? Yes, the auto bailouts worked. You want to make the life or death of the American manufacturing industry about politics? Please do. Go for it. There are many of us who are fully aware of which side you’ve been on for the past three decades…
2012 Chrysler Bowl Commercial – It’s Half Time America
“Obama asked Congress to reach a bi-partisan solution that would put the country’s debt situation on a sustainable path to recovery. “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts,” said Obama from the White House’s briefing room, adding “the only way to get rid of those cuts is to get Congress to come together and work on a deal.” — Yesterday after news of the supercommittee failure
The party of NO just became the party of Wait… what now?
Why? Because failure to negotiate adequate terms of cuts and revenue (something we now expect from the Republican party) automatically triggers an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. The Party of NO just painted themselves into a corner.
JM Ashby explains further:
The highly ironic, and hypocritical, thing is that a failure of the Committee would appear to be the most beneficial outcome if you’re really concerned about the federal deficit. The Bush Tax Cuts are the single largest contributor to the federal deficit, as the graph above clearly demonstrates, and the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to extend them.
President Obama is not a dummy, nor is the Democratic leadership in congress. They knew the Republicans would never sign off on genuine tax increases, therefore the only way to achieve that was through trickery. And if the Super Committee fails, President Obama’s “Rope-a-Dope,” as Lawrence O’Donnell called it, will have come full-circle.
It would be amusing if the Republican party weren’t a reality we all have to live with, as is — pledged to Grover Norquist, until 2012.