AIG to pay $165 million in bonuses this year

[Lemur]

It's good to see people can still find humor in this mess.

[Xiahou]

After vehement denials, Dodd says "Yeah, I did write the language into the bill allowing the bonuses."

It gets better though... Conspicuously absent from the Politico's coverage was the part of Dodd's statement where he says that the administration pressured him to include the provision. To see that, you can go straight to the source of his comments, CNN.

Dodd acknowledged his role in the change after a Treasury Department official told CNN the administration pushed for the language.

Both Dodd and the official, who asked not to be named, said it was because administration officials were afraid the government would face numerous lawsuits without the new language.

And you know what? They're probably write. Those bonus contracts were legally binding and trying to retroactively change them would've likely spurred numerous lawsuits.

However, what really chaps me is the dishonesty involved in this. Instead of just explaining why the bonuses could not be blocked, the administration pleads ignorance and feigns shock out outrage over the bonuses that they pushed to be protected. I can tell that many here would've pitched a fit regardless, but I could have accepted a rational explanation. But instead, we got more amateurish lies and finger pointing from the administration. You can hear Obama himself explain how he's choked up with anger. This leaves me wondering if Geithner is going to be thrown under the bus for this one in the end. Time will tell....

In the meantime, Obama finds the time to give an interview to ESPN about his NCAA picks and is in California to make an appearance on the tonight show.

Edit:
Speaking of picks, anyone want to predict Dodd's reelection chances?

[KukriKhan]

... the administration pleads ignorance and feigns shock out outrage over the bonuses that they pushed to be protected

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!...

Latest street noise (from watching CNN, CSNBC & Fox) is: "OK, take the bonuses back; then go after the mortgage defaulters, who the taxpayers are also subsidizing. Get all the money back!"

[Fragony]

Is Obama going to give back the 100.000 dollar he got from AIG?

[Strike For The South]

They want to make the names public? I've got news for them. The names are already public all 535 of them.

This has to be the biggest deflection and witch hunt I've ever seen.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Is Obama going to give back the 100.000 dollar he got from AIG?

Remember, campaign donation $$$ = free speech.

[Major Robert Dump]

then you must not be familiar with Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, the ATF and Waco Texas.

[drone]

They want to make the names public? I've got news for them. The names are already public all 535 of them.

This has to be the biggest deflection and witch hunt I've ever seen.

The vitriol coming from Congress is just CYA outrage, they got duped into funding this mess. I've said it before, if there is ever a true accounting of where all the TARP and AIG bailout money actually went, there will be blood.

Edit -> Pelosi plays dodgeball

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The House is set to vote soon on a bill to tax millions of dollars in bonuses paid by AIG to its employees. At her weekly press conference this morning, Pelosi said the measure would "bring some justice to the situation and get taxpayers' money back." A reporter then told the Speaker that "you and your members are being blamed for these excessive bonuses," and asked where the fault should properly be assigned.

"I think you go right back to Sept. 16, when the announcement was made by the Fed ... that they would be making this big infusion of cash into AIG without any prior notification to us," Pelosi said. "That's when it all started."

As for her own culpability, the Speaker said: "You're the first person to tell me that I'm being blamed for this because I've missed that."

Pelosi said that House Democrats had been out front for months on the idea of cracking down on bonuses and executive compensation at firms that take federal money. "The CEO compensation issues were completely resisted by the Bush administration, so we are sweeping up after them," she said.

But what about the economic stimulus bill, which included language that permitted the AIG bonuses to be paid? Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) is in hot water after admitting that he amended the bill to allow the bonuses, though he says he did so at the request of the Obama administration. The point, Pelosi said, is that the House had nothing to do with it.

"This is Senate-White House language. ... This was never brought to conference," Pelosi said, even though the final language on bonuses was in fact in the conference report on which House conferees (including Pelosi) signed off and that the House approved.

Nice question from the reporter, wonder who it was.

[KukriKhan]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

[seireikhaan]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?

[Xiahou]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

Yeah, I agree. They should at least have the cojones to go for 110% if they're going to waste the time. Better still, why not just call for their beheading? It'd have just about as much chance has happening as their stupid tax law does. Or they could stop whipping people into a frenzy over something that's totally insignificant in the great scheme of things and try to take up some legislation that isn't completely pointless...

I see that Home Depot still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

CNN actually aired a caller today who advocated killing the AIG executives. Yeah, I know that the news channels are all ratings whores, but this is completely irresponsible. I hope an AIG employee sues them over this. Manipulating outrage is really all TV news shows do, but even still, there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Of course, they're probably just taking their lead from the Senate, where Iowa senator Grassley recently said that AIG executives should kill themselves.

edit:

Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?

For one, it would be an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional, and it also sounds a lot like a bill of attainder, which is also prohibited by the constitution.

[KukriKhan]

Meanwhile, while the smoke-and-mirrors act went on in D.C., The Fed printed 1.2 Trillion more Dollars out of thin air.

Question: How is taxing the money 90% unconstitutional?

Taxing it at any % above the normal IRS rules, retroactively, and directed at one individual, or small groups of individuals (rather than the citizenry at large) amounts to a "Bill of Attainder".

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are forbidden by Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the United States Constitution.

Wiki Article. Man, do we need brother Pindar now.

-edit-
credit where credit is due: Xiahou explained quicker than I.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't like the bonuses, and even I will admit it's a Bovine Secretion-filled tactic to tax it that high, after the fact. More legitimate is to assert the government's right as the majority stakeholder and simply cancel the bonuses.

to the Congress:
Don't give me that sleazy politician nonsense. Either the money is ours or it is not. Don't tax it back to us when it's ours to begin with, I say.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So now (today) the US House of Reprehensibles... er Representatives passed a bill to retrieve the AIG Bonus money by means of taxing it at 90%.

More bad law, sez I. If you're gonna pass a bill that patently and blatantly violates The Constitution of the US, and will not ever stand up in court, why go only 90% ?

If you're gonna pass an unenforceable, illegal law to show your mad-as-hell constituants that you've "done SOMETHING", and that what they're mad about wasn't your fault - hell, go 100% confiscation, and slap punitive fines on them as well.

Wimps. And what's worse: stupid wimps.

I see that Home Depot still sells pitchforks (though they call them "Forged Manure Forks" nowadays)... but where can a citizen get a good, sturdy, burn-for-hours Torch?

Nothing like a nice piece of hickory.

The only legal way to compel giving back the bonuses is to prove a fraud was committed. But you have to admit this faux rage ploy certainly is a nice distraction from the Congress & Senate taking their own 2009 cost of living raises... yeah, they feel your pain.

[drone]

In all fairness, it's not just AIG bonuses. The bill goes for any bonuses from companies receiving massive federal aid:

The measure would apply to people who meet three key conditions: they received a bonus this year, their family income is $250,000 or more and they are employed by a company that has received more than $5 billion in the government bailout program. That could include at least a dozen of the largest banks on Wall Street. The tax wouldn't apply to commissions or fringe benefits.

Since this changes the 2009 tax year code, it probably passes the ex post facto smell test. Not sure about the bill of attainder effect, this will target bonuses from Freddie/Fannie, BoA, Citi, et al. However, since the bill was passed through the House quickly, I will guarantee 2 things. 1) it will hit unintended individuals, and 2) the financial whizzes this targets will find a loophole.

The only legal way to compel giving back the bonuses is to prove a fraud was committed. But you have to admit this faux rage ploy certainly is a nice distraction from the Congress & Senate taking their own 2009 cost of living raises.

I thought they decided that was political suicide and voted it down this year.

[Lemur]

AIG corporate security's tips for surviving an angry mob. Strangely, this is legitimate.

[KukriKhan]

This comment to Lemur's article - allegedly made by a former AIG employee, was illuminating:

This is actually totally enraging. I worked at AIG for a year (yeah yeah, stone me later, I didn't get any of the money), and the cubicleland drones have been wigging out since last September. Everyone keeps getting fired, no one knows what's going on, work is both sporadic and overwhelming (they give you a demanding task, and when it's 80% complete the project gets axed)...

Most of us never met the 's getting the big money, considering there are about 500 of the selfish bastards throughout the enormous company. And I'm now hearing from old coworkers who are literally shaking as they go to work in the morning, worried that some nutbar will show up with an uzi. Colbert's pitchfork seems to have been a turning point in the "we're " stakes.

Oh, and resignation won't help much either -- AIG's turning out to be the kiss of death on a resume. Also, if they leave, then the company collapses and takes all of the public's money with it.

[seireikhaan]

Alright, thanks for the explanation Xiahou and Kukri.

So I'm assuming, then, that I'm not the only wishing there was a way to enforce term limits and IQ requirements for congress-folks? What an utter debacle on pretty much every level.

[KukriKhan]

Alright, thanks for the explanation Xiahou and Kukri.

So I'm assuming, then, that I'm not the only wishing there was a way to enforce term limits and IQ requirements for congress-folks? What an utter debacle on pretty much every level.

With you on term limits; how many terms, you think? 2? 3? I think 2 should do it. With a mandatory 2 year break between levels of office (for example: 2 four-year terms as a Representative, a 2-year break, then it's possible to achieve 2 six-year terms as Senator, another 2 year break, then 2 4-year terms as POTUS). A favorite son (and gifted public servant) from Kansas, say, could still build a successful 28 year career of political service, if he can attract broad enough support.

I hear your call for IQ requirments, and sympathize. But I'd rather see campaign spending limits. Not contribution limits - that's 'free speech' we're told. Spending limits. Not unlike our totalwar multiplayer games: wanna spend all your allowable cash on TV ads/warrior monks? Fine. Rather try for a balanced approach of TV, radio, mailers & town halls/cavalry, guns, swords and peasants? Fine too.

[Askthepizzaguy]

In my experience, you get a lot more selfish, vain, corrupt, and power-hungry people with a superiority complex when you have a high IQ.

Mine is 144. I have self esteem issues, and that's what keeps me moderately in check. I've observed people with high IQ's be very snobby towards those who do not, and they have a feeling of deserved superiority and it's NOT deserved.

People of average or even below average "quotient" intelligence can be happy, well-adjusted, hard-working, moral and decent people, and THAT is more important than raw intelligence. Just be sure to ask a panel of experts with a diverse background and diverse political leanings before you make a decision you're not sure of.

IQ means nothing except potential for intelligence. That potential is often wasted or used counter-productively.

[Strike For The South]

I don't like the bonuses, and even I will admit it's a Bovine Secretion-filled tactic to tax it that high, after the fact. More legitimate is to assert the government's right as the majority stakeholder and simply cancel the bonuses.

to the Congress:
Don't give me that sleazy politician nonsense. Either the money is ours or it is not. Don't tax it back to us when it's ours to begin with, I say.

Cancel them after they signed the contract? What good will that do?

Congress knew very well what was going on and now are shredding the constitution to save face. I'm happy for these AIG guys at least that made some money off of this clusterintercourse.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well perhaps we disagree that it should have been done, and if there's any legal way around it.

I will say this:

There is a of a lot more waste going on in this government than just 165 million measly dollars. And both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for it. Bush's bailouts, then Obama's no balanced budget... don't get me started, it angries up the blood.

165 million is a lot of money, but the billions we waste is of far greater numerical importance.

[seireikhaan]

With you on term limits; how many terms, you think? 2? 3? I think 2 should do it. With a mandatory 2 year break between levels of office (for example: 2 four-year terms as a Representative, a 2-year break, then it's possible to achieve 2 six-year terms as Senator, another 2 year break, then 2 4-year terms as POTUS). A favorite son (and gifted public servant) from Kansas, say, could still build a successful 28 year career of political service, if he can attract broad enough support.

For Senators, I think two terms suffices, but I would cut it to 5 year terms. HoR I would give a max of 3 terms, since theirs are 2 years in length by comparison.

I hear your call for IQ requirments, and sympathize. But I'd rather see campaign spending limits. Not contribution limits - that's 'free speech' we're told. Spending limits. Not unlike our totalwar multiplayer games: wanna spend all your allowable cash on TV ads/warrior monks? Fine. Rather try for a balanced approach of TV, radio, mailers & town halls/cavalry, guns, swords and peasants? Fine too.

Ya, I was semi-joking with the IQ thing. My only problem with spending limits is that I have a strong inclination to believe that the same people will be giving the same money, and it would just be pocketed instead of spent. In exchange, of course, for the AIG treatment.

[HopAlongBunny]

165 million is a lot of money, but the billions we waste is of far greater numerical importance.

Therein lies the beauty of media focus outrage over the bonuses. The magician or hawker always deflects attention from the real action.

[HoreTore]

Therein lies the beauty of media focus outrage over the bonuses. The magician or hawker always deflects attention from the real action.

Not really. What caused this financial crisis? I'm extremely tempted to say short-term business deals motivated by bonus payments. Leaders were told that if they could increase the stock price quickly, they'd get a big sack of cash. And the way to achieve that, is to stop caring about long-term plans, and start thinking about the short-term, the riskier the better.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

People of average or even below average "quotient" intelligence can be happy, well-adjusted, hard-working, moral and decent people

And none of them stand a chance in politics.

[HopAlongBunny]

I agree HoreTore

It just seems disingenuous to wail about bonuses they (Congress) approved and knew about; to me the real story ought to focus on accountability for, and oversight of, of the trillions of dollars flowing out of gov't at present.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't think term limits are the answer because it won't correct the problem of corruption and ******** except to limit it to a different person every X many years before rotating to another corrupted official.
If you want to end corruption and abuse, ban lobbyists and special interests groups from having any sort of say in government. Also, ban any sort of gift accepting for Senators and Representatives.

[seireikhaan]

I don't think term limits are the answer because it won't correct the problem of corruption and ******** except to limit it to a different person every X many years before rotating to another corrupted official.
If you want to end corruption and abuse, ban lobbyists and special interests groups from having any sort of say in government. Also, ban any sort of gift accepting for Senators and Representatives.

You can't ban donations, that would impose unconstitutional limits upon money, power, greed, corruption, bias free speech.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And none of them stand a chance in politics.

That's not true. George W. Bush got into office on apparently average intelligence at best. All you really need is money.