Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.
The current system "leaves nearly half of all the teams in college football at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to qualifying for the millions of dollars paid out every year," the Senate Judiciary's subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights said in a statement Wednesday announcing the hearings.
Under the BCS, some conferences get automatic bids to participate in series, while others do not.
Obama and some members of Congress favor a playoff-type system to determine the national champion. The BCS features a championship game between the two top teams in the BCS standings, based on two polls and six computer ratings.
Behind the push for the hearings is the subcommittee's top Republican, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. People there were furious that Utah was bypassed for the national championship despite going undefeated in the regular season.
The title game pitted No. 1 Florida (12-1) against No. 2 Oklahoma (12-1); Florida won 24-14 and claimed the title.
The subcommittee's statement said Hatch would introduce legislation "to rectify this situation." No details were offered and Hatch's office declined to provide any.
Hatch said in a statement that the BCS system "has proven itself to be inadequate, not only for those of us who are fans of college football, but for anyone who believes that competition and fair play should have a role in collegiate sports."
In the House, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a football game a "national championship" unless the game culminates from a playoff system.
#6
Specter gets a hardon if the Eagles lose a Super Bowl, Hatch gets one if Utah gets screwed in the BCS, Barton gets one if Texas isn't in the championship game.
They're acting like a bunch of ten year olds. Again.
Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Program He Is Now Pushing Through Congress
In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.
During those two years, the Joyce Foundation gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself "North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide."
One of those gases is carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas and the focus of the most far-reaching -- and contentious -- efforts to combat "climate change." On Monday, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency declared carbon dioxide a public health threat.
The President of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, when the foundation made its first grant to the Climate Exchange, was Paula DiPerna, who is now executive vice president of the Chicago Climate Exchange in charge of corporate recruitment and public policy, as well as president of CCX International.
DiPerna left the foundation in November 2001 and joined the Exchange. It was the same year in which the foundation gave its second and much larger grant to the exchange. The Exchange finally launched in 2003.
Reached at her office in New York, DiPerna said President Obama, who in 2000 was a candidate for Congress, was involved as a director of the foundation and voted on the proposal but declined to detail that involvement other than that "he read the proposal and voted on the grant."
She referred subsequent questions to the exchange's communications office.
In response to questions from FOX News about Obama's relationship to the project a White House spokesman said "the President has long believed that a market-based cap-and-trade system is the best way to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and to promote our energy security. The success of the cap-and-trade approach in reducing acid rain demonstrates that providing incentives for companies to reduce their emissions is effective."
Obama's espousal of cap-and-trade, a system that is intended, among other things, to increase the price of fossil fuels and force their replacement by energy sources that produce less greenhouse gases, has drawn fire from many economists as a huge energy tax that will weigh heavily on an economy that is already in steep recession. The price tag has been put high as $2 trillion dollars over eight years. That figure, nearly three times higher than originally projected, was given in a White House briefing to Senate staffers last week and reported by US News and World Report and the Washington Times.
The scheme has also drawn attacks from 28 U.S. Senators, including West Virginia's Robert Byrd and Michigan's Carl Levin, both Democrats, who have criticized Obama for floating the idea that he would attach the measure to the current budget reconciliation process, to avoid a filibuster in Congress.
#2
Eh, the money'd be followable if Obama was still involved in the carbon trading exchange or stood to gain financially from it. This just reads like he has a political investment in the idea, which is pretty much expected political behavior.
And I say that as someone who thinks the carbon trading scam is apocalyptically rotten. It's now pretty clear from the European example that in practice it's rent-seeking of the first water. But that wasn't as obvious in 2000-2001. Hell, I think my company was involved in the prospective development of a carbon-trading scheme back in the late 90s, before I was hired.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/26/2009 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
(Washington, D.C. -- March 25, 2009) Jon Cannon, nominee for Deputy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, released the following statement:
"Today I am voluntarily removing my name from consideration to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It has come to my attention that America's Clean Water Foundation, where I once served on the board of directors, has become the subject of scrutiny. scrutiny resulting from EPA audit report finding that the Clean Water Foundation screwed up $25M in grants
While my service on the board of that now-dissolved organization is not the subject of the scrutiny, I believe the energy and environmental challenges facing our nation are too great to delay confirmation for this position, and I do not wish to present any distraction to the agency."
#3
"I can no longer face life as an Obama cabinet nominee. I throw myself beneath the speeding Greyhound, knowing that I go on to a better place."
Posted by: Mike ||
03/26/2009 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
There's room under the bus for you
There's room under the bus for you
Though millions voted wrong, there's room for one more donk
Yes, there's room under the bus for you.
#5
Can Bambi's vetting process identify anyone who has a clean past?
Perhaps a greater problem is that anyone with a clean history wants to keep it that way and not end up circling the bowl when the good ship Hopey Change goes down.
More than 3.3 million acres of public lands in Arizona gained permanent protection as part of a sweeping bill that passed the House on Wednesday and now goes to the president for his expected signature. After years of congressional wrangling, the House passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act by a vote of 285-140.
Most Republicans opposed the legislation because it will lock away vast expanses of land in other states from development and restrict hunting, fishing and energy exploration.
The legislation designates more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine other states and establishes or expands several national parks. Some of the largest protected areas include California's Sierra Nevada, Oregon's Mount Hood, Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park and some of the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia.
Continued on Page 49
There are more and more calls for a "State Lands Restoration Act", to strip from the federal government all stolen lands except for Indian Reservation, Military Posts, and a small handful of "national treasure parks" like Yellowstone and Yosemite.
The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group's financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G. Well worth reading the whole thing.
#1
Interesting point; he was working for $1, expecting the company to follow through with what now sounds like a lump sum annual salary payout, previously identified to us in the general public as a bonus. That doesn't sound like a 'bonus' to me now. This may be a critical bit of information.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
03/26/2009 6:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To a lesser extent the same thing was true for everyone who agreed to stay in exchange for those bonuses.
The Atlases/John Galts are starting to shrug and I'm not at all sure that the mob who made a stink about the bonuses are prepared for the consequences. Not only in the finance side, but in DOD (uniformed and civilian) and elsewhere a small but increasing number of people who otherwise would work like crazy for the common good are getting fed up and walking away.
#3
The word "bonus" implies extra money based on performance. Every job I've ever had has dangled the promise of "bonus" money if I work extra hard. And every year I worked extra hard but when payout time came the company always would make some kind of excuse about how they couldn't afford to pay any "bonus" that year.
I think most people have had this experience.
The very idea of a failed company like AIG paying multi-million dollar, taxpayer-funded, "bonuses" is simply offensive to any rational person.
If someone is guaranteed a certain income, then it's not a "bonus".
If this smart guy accepted a salary of $1, but was counting on a "bonus" gravy train from a failure like AIG, then he made a very bad decision and $1 is all that he's entitled to.
A salary is what you're guaranteed. A bonus is optional, and can be rescinded at the whim of your employer. A commission is a share of profit based on actual performance.
A bonus is not a commission, and this exec didn't sign up for commission-based compensation. If he didn't understand that, he's a fool who needs a dictionary. On the other hand, if a bonus is not a bonus, you need to use a different word.
#4
The very idea of a failed company like AIG paying multi-million dollar, taxpayer-funded, "bonuses" is simply offensive to any rational person.
Then you've never had to run a failing company. If the company is going in the tank, why should they hang around? They can always get a good job for a good wage. It's the beauzeaux who will hang on till the last paycheck because they know how hard it is going to be for them to find a job.
The way you deal with it is to tell good people, we need you to stay till date x. If you're still here on date x you get a bonus for hanging around. If you leave or get fired for significant cause, you get nothing. It's an incentive to stay on board a sinking ship to make sure it goes down gracefully. If you don't like the word bonus, that's a semantic problem. The incentive is commonly called a retention bonus.
#8
Nimble, are you taking a shot at me? Your comment seems neither civil, nor well-reasoned. Putting aside bonus for a moment, how do I misunderstand the meaning of salary or commission??
Back to AIG, I think most taxpayers would agree that paying a competitive salary to key employees should guarantee a reasonable level of professional responsibility. The legal, financial and semantic games of these "bonuses" seem very suspicious, and if there is no other way for the company to function, we're probably better off without it.
We will be without AIG in the future. The question is whether it is dismantled in an orderly fashion that preserves as much value as possible or just demolished in a day with no regard for the consequences to insureds, markets or creditors. The easy way is bankruptcy. But it's messy, long, and contentious. The alternative is the FDIC model for supporting a failed bank. That is what Geitner is tryinig to pull of with AIG. But the laws aren't in place to allow him to do it, so he's bending them like crazy. The retention bonuses were put in place, probably with his knowledge as President of the NY Fed, to keep the necessary players on board.
#10
Lets not forget that the guy was assured, over and over again, that the 'bonus' would be paid - even after A.I.G. took them money from the Feds.
This isn't a case of 'you take money from the FEDs - you should consider your contract renegociated'. The CEO put in place by the FED - as well as The Obama Administration and Congress (by law no less - they did put that part in the bailout bill - and Bambi did sign it) assured them that they was going to receive their bonuses.
#12
The semantics are all that matters to some.
I worked for a company as a consultant where ~33% of my income came from "bonuses".
This was paid on the basis of a formula where the key variable was the number of hours that I billed. If the companies other lines of business were not performing well, but I worked well over the "bonus" cut-off should I lose everything?
If you get hung up on the word bonus think of it as variable salary. Ball players often have incentives written into the contracts where if they play in x number of games they get paid more. Is that a "bonus"?
#16
call it what u want. Bottomline, congress legislated these "bonuses" - then crowed about it and basically intimated putting forth a pseudo bill of attainder on private citizens in order to get the money back - even when those citizens did nothing illegal in the first place. Liddy is a coward, most of congress is corrupt and feckless, Obama is in way over his big head. This will not end well.
#17
I am far, far more outraged that Congress and various Attorneys General have seen fit to use thug tactics to get the money out of these guys.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
03/26/2009 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Not bad. $1M+ for 6 month's work.
Let's use the professional sports as an anology. People like to complain about the "big money" pros make.
Say 50 million people are physically able to play a sport. Of that 10 percent or 5 million actually play it at a level where they can play it at a lower academic level. Of that, maybe five percent or 250,000 can play at the higher acedemic level. Of that, 1 percent or 2,500 can play professionally. Of that, maybe 5% or 125 play at a level that allows them to dictate terms under which they'll play. Still think the big money is unfair?
Perhaps executive VP jobs should be put out for bidding on an open market.
Sure, if executive VPs with the necessary qualifications and proven track records were as numerous as the ignoramuses that have commented on Rantburg lately.
#19
With reference to Sea's comment, this isn't the first time we've bailed out Europe. We'll likely do so again in the not-too-distant future.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2009 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#20
A retention 'bonus', in spite of the name, is money paid to keep an employee around either for a fixed time period or until a specific task is finished. It does not depend on the company's profitability.
The issue here is that the government is attempting to interfere with a private contract and is doing so via an ex-post facto law - something rather unconstitutional, if I recall ninth grade civics correctly.
#22
as a devoted worshipper at the church of snark, I think Sea was making a donation
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2009 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Most of the money we spent ended up there.
It is my understanding (and granted, most of this stuff is well beyond my understanding) that the European banks and financial institutions were even deeper into the obscure money-eaters than the American firms were. So it seems to me that the money they received from AIG likely passed immediately through to wherever it was owed. Quite possibly it will eventually makes its way back home, clearing line items in various books along the way.
Mr. Wife and I have been arguing about the bonus thing. It is his contention - and his own approach to the bonus portion of his salary - that anything labelled "bonus" is completely at risk to the company situation at the time it is to be paid out... and CEO Liddy should have known that, regardless what promises might have been made to him, regardless by whom, some DC politician would be unable to resist grandstanding, and then all would be toast. As, indeed, events did unfold. Perhaps Mr. Liddy should have gotten the promises in writing; that would have made the Senate inquiry quite interesting.
Let's use the professional sports as an anology. People like to complain about the "big money" pros make.
Sure. Let's have tryouts just like the athletes. Open it up, let the candidates show their stuff and find the real supply/demand balance.
Instead the US system has become a closed "royal" system of hiring relatives, buddies and sons of buddies. We have an elite who buy political servants and ensconce themselves in rent seeking enterprises and crooked gambling with trillions of made up money. Where winnings accrue to themselves and losses (and what losses!) become a terrible burden on 200 million taxpayers and citizens retirement accounts.
So now America is in a situation where in the last 30 years, the top 1% have tripled their income and the bottom 50% have remained flat (actually, the bottom 80% incomes have been doing worse than the economy's growth rate). We have income and wealth distribution that looks very much like that right at the dawn of the Great Depression. Then US got FDR (at least his allegiance was American), a World War and 20 years of socialism. Today America has fragmented multicultural fiefdoms, a very pissed off majority, a Marxist Obama and the trauma is just beginning. Ignoramus indeed.
Posted by: ed ||
03/26/2009 23:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Everyone from President Barack Obama on down to fans has criticized how college football determines its top team. Now senators are getting off the sidelines to examine antitrust issues involving the Bowl Champion Series.
In 2000 and 2001, while Barack Obama served as a board member for a Chicago-based charitable foundation, he helped to fund a pioneering carbon trading exchange that is likely to fill a critical role in the controversial cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme that President Obama is now trying to push rapidly through Congress.
