Citi bailout brings out the idiots

OK, so I haven't posted in a while. Then again, since the additions of Putz and K-Rod the Mets haven't done much other than sign Tim Redding. No Manny, no Ollie, no Sheets. Just a lot of rumors, and when people have too much time on their hands, you know what happens.

You would think that Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe would be plenty busy, what with a new administration in place and a laundry list of problems to attend to, chief among them the financial mess. But if they think forcing the new treasury secretary to get Citigroup to end its naming rights deal with the Mets is constructive use of their time, they're crazy.

Then again, they are Congressmen.

Of course, their grandstanding only serves as an invitation for sportswriters and columnists to saddle up their high horse and join in the madness, like Anthony Rieber of Newsday did today.

Their simpleminded formula is: Taxpayer money goes to government. Government gives money to Citigroup. Citigroup gives money to Mets. Therefore, taxpayers are giving money to the Mets, and that is a travesty of epic proportions.

Of course, it doesn't work that way. At all.

According to American Banker, Citigroup's third quarter marketing and advertising budget for 2008 was $515 million (that's down 33%, by the way). So figure their M&A budget is around $2 billion a year.

The naming rights cost Citi $20 million a year. Guess what percent $20 million is of $2 billion? I have a calculator, so don't sweat it -- one percent. A drop in the bucket.

So your hard-earned tax money is not piped directly into the Wilpons' pockets, as clowns like Rieber would have you believe. What Citi does with its bailout money is their business, but one thing is certain. They are not going to stop advertising, and whether you agree with the concept or not, companies who buy the naming rights to stadiums believe that it helps build their brand.

When Citi and the Mets signed their deal -- long before the financial collapse -- it looked like a positive for both sides. The Mets were guaranteed another revenue stream for 20 years, and Citi, which seemed as solid as Jessica Simpson's backside, was linking its name to a state-of-the-art sports showcase in the biggest city in the world.

Of course, a lot has changed. Does it look bad when Citi lays off 50,000 employees and has a stadium named after it? Of course. But what would these politicians have Citigroup do? Stop advertising? Is it their job to tell them where and how they can advertise and market their brand? And where does it end? Lots of financial institutions are getting bailout money and have arenas named after them. Do they all have to break their contracts, too?

It is in everyone's best interests for Citigroup to survive. A big part of that, from Citi's point of view, is to at least appear to be sound and successful. And to their way of thinking, having their name on the Mets' field helps. A year or two from now, once they've gotten back on track and this storm has (hopefully) passed, will the naming rights look so bad? Not at all.

But that kind of thinking requires some perspective and thought, which is in short supply with the hair-trigger crowd, which is made up of morons who like hearing themselves scream and yell, or seeing their byline on page three instead of in the back of the paper.

Better to aim your outrage at the $18 billion in bonuses these companies paid out to the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

$18 billion versus $20 million. You do the math.