Caruso-Cabrera Continues To Be Amused By Cali AG's "Spitzer Post Sneeze Nose Wiping" Lawsuit
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera asks hard hitting questions, and provides even more hard-hitting post mortems. Case in point: today the Power Lunch anchor escalates her argument that the whole lawsuit by California Attorney General Brown against State Street is a cheap "Spitzeresque" ploy to generate brownie points for a meager penalty:
On closer inspection this looks more like a naked attempt at boosting a
Brown run for Governor than it is about protecting fire fighters'
Michelle, ever aware of the need to provide dramatic visuals to entice readers (and viewers), provides the following allegory why $56 million is a joke, and why to be taken seriously (by CNBC producers and anchor), Mr. Brown should have asked for at least a gajillion:
$56 million is a lot of money (with penalties,
California is seeking $200 million from State Street). But in the
context of a state that is $26 billion in the hole, and state pension
funds of nearly $300 BILLION in assets, this smacks of Attorney General
Brown trying to make headlines.
million over 8 years? In a state of 36 million people, that works out
to 19 cents per person per year. Brown wants another $144 million in
penalties too. That’s another 50cents [sic]. Shoot, in his heyday, Elliot
Spitzer would have used this lawsuit to wipe his nose after sneezing.
Can't you hear Spitzer now?: "Jerry, how quaint. Let me show you how
it’s really done when you want to be governor."
As to an explanation for why CNBC dares to invite people who are not pushing their stocks, promoting a picture of the economy that all is well based on hope (not facts), other CNBC employees who use the station to pitch their wares, and overall GE-friendly sycophants, Michelle was comparably as visual:
[Brown] countered by asking why we invited him on in the first place. It’s a good question. Here’s why.
Brown's office started leaking the night before that he would be making
a BIG announcement Tuesday about a lawsuit against a "major bank" which
had committed "massive" fraud. His office wouldn't say which bank; it
was a big secret to be revealed at a press conference. But we took him
at his word and invited him on CNBC. You’d do the same thing if you
were running a business-news network and an attorney general says he’s
going to file suit against a major bank.
A business-news network? How about a biased, propaganda channel, which is rapidly losing its viewership (we will post latest Nielsen ratings shortly) as it only promotes views directly and indirectly favorable to the well-being of General Electric and its toxically-frothy balance sheet? It really is time CNBC changed its slogan to "The butt of financial propaganda jokes worldwide" before the station loses any more brand value and instead of being packaged in the Comcast-NBCU sale, the new owner decides to simply scrap it. Alternatively, if CNBC is open to friendly M&A discussions with the greater Zero Hedge media empire, the TV station knows how it can reach us (it should, however, not expect a premium valuation on ads for incontinence and GE engines).
In the meantime, we hope Michelle continues her deeply probing, no-nonsense journalism. In fact, we refer readers to another free-flow form of insightful analysis from another of MCC's recent blog posts: Why Chicken Feet Matter To Business News.