Hiding the debate rules, a tin cup for wounded vets, and the Bear Stearns legacy
1.Â The remaining debates: Tell us the rules
Two weeks ago there was an interesting story in the Huffington Post about how the rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates are likely to be highly detailed, down to the permissible lighting and camera shots, how the moderators are supposed to ensure a balance in each candidateâs allotted time during any back-and-forth, and even a provision for the screening of notepaper the combatants could bring to the podium (to make sure it was blank).
The HuffPo report drew on a leaked 31-page contract the commission executed with the campaigns of President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry in 2004, and noted that âeighteen good-governance and media watchdog groupsâ have now demanded that this yearâs contract be publicly disclosed.
But why is the press waiting for the commission and the campaigns to disclose what they obviously want to keep under wraps? Why hasnât some reporter pried loose the text or at least the highlights of the 2012 contract? There must be a half-dozen or more operatives in each camp, plus at least as many debate commission officials, who know.
With the controversy over moderator Jim Lehrerâs allegedly too-laid-back performance in the first Obama-Romney debate, the actual rules seem more relevant now than ever. This is especially true because the second presidential debate, on Oct. 16, has a town hall format. That means that beyond the moderatorâs stipulated role, there are all kinds of issues related to the choice of the audience, the nature and selection of the questions they can ask, and what kind of follow-up is allowed from the citizen-questioners or the moderator. Any of these dynamics could be pivotal, which is why the 2004 contract included a whole series of special clauses governing only that town hall format.
These are the electionâs most important events. Canât one of the hundreds of reporters covering campaign 2012 find out what rules have been negotiated and what the moderator is supposed to do if they are violated?
2. Why do wounded vets need charity?
Lately Iâve been seeing lots of compelling television ads soliciting contributions for Wounded Warrior Project, Inc, a Jacksonville, Florida-based non-profit that, according to the ads and its mission statement, supplies financial aid and rehabilitative services to âhonor and empower wounded warriors.â
No, this is not a suggestion for a story investigating whether the charity is a rip-off. Yes, the annual Form 990 that this and other charitable organizations file with the IRS reveals that Wounded Warriorâs top executive, Steven Nardizzi, made $341,000 in the fiscal year ending September 2011, and seven other officials made in excess of $160,000 each. And the non-profit actually recorded an operating income of $16 million on $74 million in revenues, including donations â or 22%. But these salaries seem appropriate for an organization of this scope, and this kind of surplus is normal for a growing non-profit. Moreover, Wounded Warrior has attracted a blue-ribbon board of directors that includes decorated veterans of all ranks and former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, who is unpaid.
Rather, for me the very existence of the organization and its activities raise a more fundamental question: How did it come to be that the people who have so selflessly served our country have to rely on private charity for the kinds of rehabilitation and social work services that Wounded Warrior provides? Indeed, as I was watching one of its commercials pitching for donations to help the thousands of veterans who have been blinded or paralyzed or who must learn how to live in wheelchairs or with prosthetic devices, I imagined that sitting next to me was someone from another country. How embarrassed would I be explaining that our government doesnât provide all of these services in full â and, therefore, that our veterans had to form an organization to pass a tin cup around?
Whatâs the Obama administrationâs explanation for Wounded Warriorâs existence? How about the Republicans who control Congress? If itâs the case that the Wounded Warrior Project is centered on important and laudable supplemental services (such as âfamily supportâ or the âstress relief eventsâ for hospital doctors and nurses described in the IRS filing) on top of the billions the government already provides, then someone needs to explain the seemingly basic services, such as physical therapy and counseling, that dominate the commercials and that are also described in the IRS filing.
Beyond that, if these are predominantly supplementary services meant to provide aid beyond what government can do, then why not put the arm on those in the private sector who profit the most when our soldiers go off to war?
Wounded Warrior spent $57.7 million in fiscal 2011, according to its IRS report. The Defense Department spends about $350 billion a year on all private contractors. That produces one of the most prosperous sectors of the private economy, yielding, for example, much of the $3.8 billion in operating income enjoyed last year by Lockheed Martin, the nationâs largest defense contractor.
If those contractors kicked in, say, five one-hundredths of one percent of what they get from the Pentagon â a nickel for every hundred dollars â the Wounded Warrior budget would be quadrupled. Why not ask some of the defense contractor CEOs if theyâd be willing to do that?
3. Why wasnât JPMorgan indemnified for the sins of Bear Stearns?
New York State Attorney General Eric Schneidermanâs sued JPMorgan last week over alleged fraud by its Bear Stearns subsidiary in the marketing of mortgage-backed securities leading up to the Wall Street meltdown. Since then, the general narrative of JPMâs defense has been that the bank had bought the sinking Bear Stearns at the behest of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, which hoped to avoid a systemwide meltdown. Thus, from JPMorganâs perspective this is an example of no good deed going unpunished.
However, as Bloombergâs William Cohan argued on Monday, another thread of the JPM-Bear narrative has to do with how hard JPMorganâs Jamie Dimon bargained to get a fire-sale deal when he took over Bear. Therefore, according to Cohan, Dimon and his bank should be responsible for the risks they took on along with the valuable assets they got at a lowball price.
Leaving aside whoâs right, I have one basic question that I hope a reporter asks Dimon: If the government was so desperate for you to rescue Bear, why didnât you insist that it indemnify you from suits exactly like this one? Did you and your lawyers screw up? Or, as I suspect is more likely, if you tried to get indemnification but couldnât, how can you argue now that you didnât willingly assume the risks?
PHOTO: Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney shakes hands with President Barack Obama as moderator Jim Lehrer gets up at the end of the first 2012 U.S. presidential debate, in Denver, October 3, 2012. REUTERS/Michael Reynolds/PoolÂ