Old Dogs Could Learn Some New Tricks

People say I'm obsessed with Chanel. That's probably because they didn't raise a pup. Now I've had other dogs, and I've loved other dogs, but Chanel is the result of my hard work, money, sweat, tears, and sometimes blood. If she is a bad dog it's my fault and responsibility to teach her a new trick, or to curb that behavior. So yes, I do spend a lot of time thinking about her, loving her, and talking about her.

Last night I was sitting in my room and watching an episode of Nip/Tuck (great show btw). And Chanel was content just sitting right next to me and chewing her bone. The point? It takes very little to make a dog happy. Though they need food, water, and sometimes treats and toys, what they appreciate the most is love and affection.

Today I sat at work and read what AIG CEO had to say about their bonuses. And while it's clear that the blame should not be shifted completely to AIG, that the people they have contracts with should also be held accountable for accepting the funds when they know they came from a bailout (taxpayer money). I have to wonder, after a certain point, why do you need that much money?

In the letter, which btw, if you haven't read it the letter to the President and the lesser known 'white letter' the CEO tells the President two key things (well I'm sure he thinks otherwise, but here is what I took away from it). The first thing is that top AIG officials will only be paid $1 for the remainder of the year. And the second thing is that these bonuses are necessary to retain the best and the brightest.

The problem I have with the first point is that he believes that this shows restraint and control by AIG. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against top officials of companies making the big bucks. I do believe if they are making the company run, they should get compensated accordingly. And I believe a company is entitled to bonus out whomever they want, when it's their money. The problem is not that they are giving themselves large paychecks or bonuses, it's that it's being done with U.S. Citizens money. Money that could be going towards increasing the salaries of teachers, people who educated and mold our youth. But instead are going towards crooked businessmen.

Again, I understand that acquiring and keeping the biggest, brightest minds requires throwing some cash at them. However, I don't see how there couldn't have been an arrangement made that once the taxpayer money is paid back the bonuses will be paid out plus interest. Probably would have cost AIG more in terms of money, but less in terms of reputation.

My question to you is, would you trust your money with AIG? Even if they are worth billions of dollars it is obvious to me that their money management for day to day expenses, their liquid cash if you will, is at great risk. That if they are as flagrant with the government's money as they have shown us to be, what will they do when they aren't under the media's microscope?

And to be fair, it's not only AIG that is carelessly spending money on retreats and bonuses. Northern Trust spent $12 million dollars to have Sheryl Crow come and perform for their company to 'boost morale'.

Cutting back isn't easy for anyone, especially this shopaholic. However, we could all take a cue from Chanel and just be happy with the basic needs covered, a good bed, good food, and good company. Who needs private jets when you've got friends and family who love you?