A MoPIRG email, unreasonable expectations
Julie Wells
– Sr. Copy Editor –
MoPIRG, a student-funded organization that operates on the STLCC-Meramec campus, sent out a mass email March 20, 2009. This organization is spending money to rally students to their political cause but is only giving one side of the argument, and they aren’t even giving it very well. The title of the email read “Unacceptable” and the email asked students to “sign [a] petition now to demand that AIG stop paying bonuses with taxpayer money.” Unfortunately, MoPIRG’s outrage was based on misinformation so the anger was misdirected.
Contracts are contracts, binding intentionally. At least they used to be. The government has no right to ask for the money back from AIG. Congress entered into an agreement with the companies they lent money to and bound the American public to the same contract as well. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the premise, their representatives obligated them to this payment. Instead of signing petitions to stop payment, the public should contact their representatives to express that no one read the contract they committed us all to.
MoPIRG deemed the bonuses unacceptable and asked in the email “How can we give multi-million dollar rewards to executives whose business decisions bankrupted a company and destabilized our economy?” To MoPIRG and many Americans, AIG spending .165 percent of the total borrowed money from the government to pay employees reflects poorly on the company.
First, Congress knew the bonuses were to be paid. Second, the Obama administration knew, but most crucially, America knew.
Senator Chris Dodd admitted March 18 in an interview with FOX news that “Treasury officials forced him to make [changes in] the language that appears to have created a loophole.” This language caused a flash of confused outrage when it was first discussed because limits on bonuses would not apply to companies who had received assistance prior to the recent stimulus.
Truly, the outraged Congress is expressing is an admission of ignorance. The men and women elected to represent the people did not even read the document they signed, a document that is estimated to cost every man, woman and child more than $30,000.
MoPIRG made one other mistake. According to the same email, they assume the bonuses were going to “the same executives whose bad business decisions drove AIG and our economy into the ground.” The majority of the money was promised to men and women hired to help prevent further decline of the company. Even if they failed in their attempt, they did not cause the decline.
Let’s say there is a miniature corporation, or “club” on the Meramec campus that was partially funded by students. We’ll call them MoPIRG. Each student contributes $7 per semester to MoPIRG unless they specifically opt-out. The club then uses that $7 as they see fit with no oversight from the students who loaned the money. (It truly is a loan because student donors expect their money to be used by other students for the club, and campus life. Any events would then be the return on the original investment.)
If MoPIRG then does a horrible job managing their money and is no longer able to perform the duties students agreed to pay for, would students then have a right to demand money back? Would MoPIRG have to give the money back? The answer is no.
Moreover, MoPIRG is supposed to be an unbiased organization. Their intent is supposed to be to inform, not persuade people to vote one way or the other.
This latest wave of emails full of language like “This is unacceptable!” “If you’re not ready to pay up, please click here to sign our petition,” and “It’s our generation that will be forced to pay for these mistakes for years to come,” and follows a week later with an email to call in support of President Obama’s $2 trillion budget proves that action@mopirgstudents.com is anything but neutral, and also that they have not been very careful about gathering logical, accurate information.
