View Full Version : Senator Recommends AIG Executives Commit Hari-Kari
Senator Grassley's advice could just as well be directed to his colleagues, especially the failed Republican party.
Senator suggests AIG execs should kill themselves
Mar 17, 8:18 AM (ET)
By NIGEL DUARA
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) - Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested that AIG executives should take a Japanese approach toward accepting responsibility for the collapse of the insurance giant by resigning or killing themselves.
The Republican lawmaker's harsh comments came during an interview with Cedar Rapids, Iowa, radio station WMT on Monday. They echo remarks he has made in the past about corporate executives and public apologies, but went further in suggesting suicide.
"I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed," Grassley said. "But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.
"And in the case of the Japanese, they usually commit suicide before they make any apology."
Grassley spokesman Casey Mills said the senator isn't calling for AIG executives to kill themselves, but said those who accept tax dollars and spend them on travel and bonuses do so irresponsibly.
"Senator Grassley has said for some time now that generally speaking, executives who make a mess of their companies should apologize, as Japanese executives do," Mills said. "He says the Japanese might even go so far as to commit suicide but he doesn't want U.S. executives to do that."
The senator's remarks added to a chorus of public outrage over the disclosure that AIG intends to pay its executives $165 million in bonuses after taking billions in federal bailout money. President Barack Obama lambasted the insurance giant for "recklessness and greed" on Monday and pledged to try to block payment of the bonuses.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090317/D96VPA601.html
Another failed brain/mouth clutch assembly. Seems to happen a lot in D.C.. :rolleyes:
The story is here (http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time/).
After the story there is a graphic that is linked to a list of AIG's donations to politicians here (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123).
This story really underscores AFCHIC's comments here (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=250154&postcount=61).
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.93, 0.1499, 19.22%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.
One of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.
Dodd Amendment Rules
* Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.
* For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).
The idea is not with out merit:D.
Bordercop
03-17-2009, 12:00
It would certainly be cheaper...:rolleyes:
It would certainly be cheaper...:rolleyes:
It would make a nice Youtube video...
Red Flag 1
03-17-2009, 12:10
Strating higher up the chain works for me! Say the "Dancing Queen" from Mass:D.
My $.02.
RF 1
Look at the top recipients of AIG donations,,
then add up who received the money,,
then ask WHY???
Dodd created and POTUS signed the bill authorizating the bonus...
www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/dodd-cracks-aig---time
Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries to Undo Bonus Protections He Put In, Rich Edson, FOXBusiness
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.9345, 0.1544, 19.79%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG’s largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Dodd’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.
One of AIG Financial Products’ largest offices is based in Connecticut.
Dodd Amendment Rules
Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.
For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).
That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” --
One word about the agreed upon before date.......INTENT.
He knew that someone would be receiving bonus, so why is there a date? Wonder what other campaign contributions he'll be receiving from the bailout money?
It would make a nice Youtube video...
Pay per View, even.
There are some folks who think the hulabaloo over the $165 million in bonuses is the smokescreen to disuade anyone from focusing on the $120 Billion they sent to foreign banks.
Pay per View, even.
There are some folks who think the hulabaloo over the $165 million in bonuses is the smokescreen to disuade anyone from focusing on the $120 Billion they sent to foreign banks.
Gypsy--
FWIW, the $120 billion initially received more focus from broadcast news outlets in the L.A. area but the story quickly shifted focus to the bonuses.
While executives at AIG do not meet the minimum requirement to suffer from hubris, a term that is misunderstood and overused, it would be neat if they could receive a visit from the Eumenides disguised as IRS agents and auditors. Men and women stupid enough not to refuse, give back, or to defer the bonuses under the notion that they'd earned the money for a job well done probably have other examples of bad judgment waiting to be found.
Dozer523
03-17-2009, 20:23
Driving into work this morning, listening to the radio, this subject came up. "They may not deserve it but they sure do need it . . . Nobody is going to hire them".
I'm afraid the Gracious Ones tend to reserve their affection for those who shed family blood. Pity, really. Diversification seems to be the way to go in business these days :D.
ZonieDiver
03-17-2009, 21:33
Yeah, but Grassley sure sounded about a half bubble off plumb!
Interesting, is it not, that the congress screams about bonuses, but says nothing about the billions paid to banks, both foreign and domestic - billions that are not loans, and will never be paid back.
Misdirection, perhaps?
And isn't it interesting that Goldman got $12.9 billion. The bonuses pale in comparison.
Goldman was not the only large bank with exposure to AIG. The list of counterparties that AIG disclosed on Sunday included others that got large sums. Goldman was followed by Societe Generale (SOGN.PA) with $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) with $11.8 billion and Barclays PLC (BARC.L) with $8.5 billion.
So U.S. taxpayers are now bailing out foreign banks.
LINK (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1712706420090317)
I think it would be best if I didn't say who I think should experience profound shame in this matter.
Ret10Echo
03-18-2009, 13:01
Oh....but it gets even better....:mad:
Fannie plans bonuses of up to $611K for 4 execs
March 18, 2009 - 2:09pm
By ALAN ZIBEL
AP Real Estate Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Fannie Mae is planning to pay retention bonuses of as much as $611,000 each to several top executives of the government-controlled mortgage finance titan. Sibling company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards.
Fannie Mae disclosed in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it's planning bonuses of $470,000 to $611,000 for four top executives, on top of their base salaries this year.
Freddie Mac has a similar retention plan in place, but has yet to disclose how much money top executives are in line to receive.
Both companies were seized by federal regulators last fall. Fannie has requested $15.2 billion in government aid, while Freddie has asked for nearly $31 billion in additional aid on top of the $13.8 billion it received last year.
(
Driving into work this morning, listening to the radio, this subject came up. "They may not deserve it but they sure do need it . . . Nobody is going to hire them".
Dozer--
If only it were that easy to put the scarlet letter on these AIG ass monkeys.* A suit can have two advantages when he or she re-enters the job market: limited information from former employers and non disclosure agreements (NDAs).
Many companies will not allow managers to serve as references and will only confirm that a job applicant was actually employed. Departing employees, having already signed a number of NDAs, may be asked to sign one final NDA as part of a severance package. These NDAs can be phrased to include business practices and management techniques.
In combination, these two practices can put a job applicant in the position where he can sing his own praises, say "it was the other guy" who drove his previous company into the ground, and leave the burden of proof on the company seeking to fill a spot.
I can easily imagine some former AIG type using these tactics successfully.
__________________________________________
* My apologies to the respected membership of the Association of Ass Monkeys of America. I did not mean to degrade your association by placing AIG executives in your ranks. Please enjoy your time in Chicago as guests of The Jerry Springer Show or in New York as guests of The Maury Povich Show. I hope that all tests come back 'negative.'
alright4u
03-18-2009, 14:31
Google THE CRA.
Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090318/pl_politico/30833/print;_ylt=AqS01Kvu5IRldYpfxjy2.yDCw5R4;_ylu=X3oDM TB1MjgxN2UzBHBvcwMxNARzZWMDdG9vbHMtdG9wBHNsawNwcml udA--).
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.
Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .
“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”
Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.
The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
Dodd’s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd’s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
Oh, the man can dance. Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aig_bonus_congress/print).
Dodd: Administration sought bonus limit revision
By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer 2 hrs 15 mins ago
WASHINGTON – For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid. However, Dodd said he was not aware of any American International Group Inc. bonuses at the time the change was made.
The provision was the subject of new attention this week because, had it survived, it would have prevented AIG from granting $165 million in bonuses to employees of its financial products division.
"I'm the one who has led the fight against excessive executive compensation, often over the objections of many," said Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. "I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment, but I did so at the request of administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG."
He added: "Let me be clear: I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week."
Dodd did not name the administration officials in his statement, which came a day after he told CNN that he had nothing to do with the change in the provision. In his statement Wednesday, Dodd said he was referring to action to protect AIG.
"When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight — that this had nothing to do with AIG," he said.
Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.
While the House and Senate reconciled their different stimulus bills last month, the Treasury Department expressed concern with a Senate restriction on bonuses, noting that if it applied to existing compensation contracts it could face a legal challenge.
Dodd told CNN on Wednesday that rather than lose the entire section on executive excessive compensation, he reluctantly agreed to modify the legislation.
An administration official said Treasury made Dodd's staff aware of the potential for litigation but did not demand that the provision be removed from the final bill. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter in public.
The legislation does include a provision that allows Treasury to examine past compensation payments to determine if they were "contrary to the public interest." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said he was using that provision to determine whether the government could somehow recoup the AIG bonuses.
Interesting, is it not, that the congress screams about bonuses, but says nothing about the billions paid to banks, both foreign and domestic - billions that are not loans, and will never be paid back.
Misdirection, perhaps?
See post # 10. :D Absolute misdirection.
Meanwhile the President is in campaign mode. When the going gets tough, he gets going. Townhall meetings, how...2008.
See post # 10. :D Absolute misdirection.
Oops! I just lost points on my SA score.
:o
Oops! I just lost points on my SA score.
:o
Meh, you're the one with the great mind...I just beat you to it for once! :lifter
Chuck Grassley lives a mile down a dirt road in Iowa from my Grandparents in a simple ranch style home overlooking New Hartford, Iowa.
He is a great American and I support his calls for suicide.
Source is here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=worldwide&sid=alHD2U.f.J1A).
Obama May Find Anger Over Bonuses Backfires on Agenda (Update1)
By Hans Nichols
March 18 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s attempt to harness public anger over bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. may backfire on him as Republicans try to redirect that anger toward his administration.
Obama today defended Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner against attacks by Republican lawmakers, some of whom have threatened to block any more bailouts of struggling companies. The president said Geithner has been making “all the right moves” in dealing with AIG and the financial crisis.
The public furor over the $165 million in bonuses AIG handed out to employees gives administration critics a new weapon to thwart Obama’s agenda, from his budget to plans for financial-market regulation. It’s also sparking a new round of legislative proposals to penalize -- and potentially tax -- executives who receive bonuses at rescued companies.
“Two weeks ago, the president’s spokesman said they were confident that they knew how every dime was being spent at AIG,” House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters yesterday. “They didn’t know what they were talking about,” Boehner said.
“This is outrageous, and I think the American people are rightly outraged.”
Republican leaders in Congress said Geithner and White House officials should have been aware of the bonuses sooner and acted quicker. They’re also seizing on AIG’s revelations as fresh evidence that Congress should oppose future rescues.
‘No More Bailouts’
Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the third-ranking Republican in the House, said the party’s first step should be to say “no more bailouts.”
Geithner told congressional leaders yesterday he will ensure taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for the AIG bonuses and indicated the firm’s “wind down” may accelerate.
“We will continue our aggressive efforts to resolve the future status of AIG in a manner that will reduce systemic risks to our financial system while minimizing the loss to taxpayers,” he wrote in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers. “We will explore any and all ways to accelerate this wind-down process,” he said, referring to the restructuring that’s already taking place at the insurer.
He said the government will force AIG to pay the Treasury the amount of retention rewards just doled out.
‘Unacceptable Bonuses’
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Geithner reached out to AIG Chief Executive Officer Edward Liddy last week “to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses.” Congress shouldn’t “doubt the genuineness” of the administration’s outrage, Gibbs said.
Geithner first learned of the bonuses on March 10 and spoke with Liddy the next day, according to an administration official, who requested anonymity.
Obama was informed of the bonuses on March 12, before they were paid. After the funds were disbursed, the president ordered his economic and legal teams to determine if there was a way to recoup the money, according to the aide.
Obama said today the bonuses show the need for a “resolution authority” to oversee institutions that get bailouts. Such an authority would have power similar to that which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has over banks, Obama said at the White House before leaving for a two-day trip to California.
Lawmakers are already moving quickly to take the initiative in responding to the public outcry. Montana Democrat Max Baucus and Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, proposed taxes totaling 70 percent on companies and individuals getting bonuses at firms that receive federal aid.
Seeking Alternatives
The tax would apply to bonuses over $50,000 paid out beginning on Jan. 1, 2009, and to the full amount of any retention bonuses, the two senators said.
Pelosi directed House committees to draft several alternatives and said her chamber may consider a bill as early as this week. Other lawmakers introduced their own plans.
Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the Obama administration needs to provide a “full explanation” about how $30 billion in new government aid was approved by the Treasury Department earlier this month for AIG, yet officials “didn’t have any idea that this outrage was going to occur.”
“That’s the question that needs to be answered today,” McConnell said in an interview. “What I’d like to know first is how it happened, when we had extraordinary leverage a mere two weeks ago when we handed over $30 billion.”
Bully Pulpit
Obama aides said that in addition to exploring legal options on how to recoup the AIG bonuses, the president will rely on the bully pulpit to press financial companies to behave more responsibly.
Wall Street is plagued by a “bit of myopia,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, said in a Feb. 16 interview. “I am not sure everyone gets it, why people are so angry.” [Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?]
Obama, 47, must now “play defense on economic populism,” said pollster John Zogby. That can be a “deadly” posture in American politics, Zogby said.
“We are not a hate-the-rich country,” he said. “There’s got to be a fine line here between going after the rich versus going after the venal greedy.”
Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, said the party will try to take advantage of the bonus issue to weaken the president.
“The real target for the Republicans is to bring Obama back down to earth,” Reed said. “The AIG issue over bonuses lies at his feet.”
Ret10Echo
03-19-2009, 04:27
Sigaba,
Front page of the Washington (DC) Examiner this morning:
Candidate Obama vs. President Obama
LOSING HIS MAGIC
http://www.dcexaminer.com/
I received a modest bonus from my end of year evaluation from the NSPS pay pool. It was taxed 30%+. Dang I wish I got the AIG deal!
Chuck Grassley lives a mile down a dirt road in Iowa from my Grandparents in a simple ranch style home overlooking New Hartford, Iowa.
He is a great American and I support his calls for suicide.
So, proximity to your grandparents and living in a 'simple ranch style home' legitimize asinine comments and make him a 'great American?':confused: Hell, if that is all it takes perhaps we should move D.C. to a hill overlooking New Hartford, Iowa.
ZonieDiver
03-19-2009, 10:53
So, proximity to your grandparents and living in a 'simple ranch style home' legitimize asinine comments and make him a 'great American?':confused: Hell, if that is all it takes perhaps we should move D.C. to a hill overlooking New Hartford, Iowa.
Where's Sen. Grassley's call for his colleague Sen. Dodd to do the same thing - big Japanese bow with apology to the American people followed by resignation or hari-kari. As Jay Leno said about the AIG bonus babies - preferably on Pay-Per-View, so we could get back some of the bailout money for the American people.
Unfortunately, at this time I don't think we have ANY "great Americans" in the US Senate. That is a shame.
Defender968
03-19-2009, 14:31
Unfortunately, at this time I don't think we have ANY "great Americans" in the US Senate. That is a shame.
Great??? I'm not sure we have any non criminals in elected office at this point! ;)
The whole AIG situation is pissing me off, but not nearly as much as our elected morons in DC. I mean I think the AIG bonuses are a crock and should have never happened, however the problem I see is they, the FED and our elected officials knew or SHOULD have known about these bonuses and all the other repercussions of these stupid bailouts. They either knew and chose to let them go for one reason or another, or they didn't know and they're just incompetent. Unfortunately with the passage of the bill to tax those bonuses I think they knew this was going to come up and are using it to their end. I don't think for a second this bill will only be applied to AIG, it will get applied wider, and will set the precedent for 90% taxes on the "wealthy" This is just another HUGE step towards socialism, if this goes through WE WILL SEE them try it with other earnings not just these bonuses.
Story is here http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/house-vote-taxing-aig-bonus-bonanza/
WASHINGTON -- House lawmakers voted to slap heavy taxes on employee bonuses at insurance giant AIG and at other companies that have received large bailout packages from the government.
The House voted 328-93, receiving the two-thirds majority required to pass despite vocal opposition by Republicans and some Democrats.
The House measure will levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
The bill applies to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money, Rangel said.
House Democratic leaders unveiled the bill as the head of embattled American International Group Inc., which has received $182 billion in bailout money, testified about $165 million in bonuses paid out in the past week to about 400 employees in its Financial Products unit.
Votes on either side of the argument Thursday were fraught with political peril.
House leaders brought the bill under a special provision that requires a two-thirds vote for passage. With 421 lawmakers voting, 281 yeas were required to approve the measure.
Democrats had two reasons to rush the vote: to force the hand of skeptical Republicans and make them vote for the plan. And to set up a public relations nightmare for the GOP and potentially blame them for killing the measure if the House defeated it.
In the end, that may have forced Republicans to vote for the measure.
The Republican leadership team was split: House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, voted no. But his whip, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., and former whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., voted yes. Democratic aides could hardly contain their glee.
"It just shows that the message that Boehner and Cantor tried to sell to their conference didn't work," one Democratic aide said.
This legislation is known as a "suspension" because it "suspends the rules" that require a simple majority to approve a bill. Typically the House can only debate suspensions on Mondays and Tuesdays.
But Democrats went out of their way to receive a special dispensation from the Rules Committee to bring up the bill Thursday in an effort to challenge Republicans to vote for the measure.
Before the vote, Democratic aides were non-committal about chances to coax Republicans to join them and get the two-thirds supermajority to approve the bill. But they were particularly happy after 85 Republicans joined 243 Democrats to approve the plan.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md, predicted Wednesday the bill would pass. But Boehner, described the legislation as "crap."
"This is nothing more than an attempt for everyone to cover their butt up here," Boehner said.
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., indicated that Democrats "would be dumbfounded if (Republicans) didn't vote for it."
But some Democrats, including freshmen Reps. Jim Himes, D-Conn., and Michael McMahon, D-N.Y., had planned to vote against the bill because they believed lawmakers were "rushing through" the process.
Himes and McMahon represent many Wall Street constituents in Greenwich, Conn., and Staten Island.
In the end, though, only six Democrats voted against the bill: McMahon and Reps. Walt Minnick, D-Idaho, Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., Vic Snyder, D-Ark., Melissa Bean, D-Ill., Larry Kissell, D-N.C.
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., blamed his fellow lawmakers for the AIG bonus controversy.
"Unlike many of my colleagues, I didn't vote for the bailout that made this outrage possible," he said. "And I didn't vote for the disastrous spending bill Democrats called "stimulus" that explicitly authorized these bonuses.
"Make no mistake. Today's vote is a farce," he added. "It is a paper-thin fig leaf being hastily thrown together to cover up the fact that Congress, under Democrat leadership, handed over hundreds of billions of dollars to the executive branch of government -- with no strings attached."
Edward Liddy, who was brought in last year by the government to run AIG, told a House subcommittee Wednesday that on Tuesday, he had "asked those who have received retention payments in excess of $100,000 or more to return at least half of those payments." Some have "already stepped forward and returned 100 percent," he added.
Lawmakers rushed to the microphones after word of the bonuses was leaked out by the government over the weekend. Bills were quickly drawn up in both the House and Senate to impose heavy new taxes on them.
The top two members of the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday announced a bill that would impose a 35 percent excise tax on the companies paying the bonuses and a 35 percent excise tax on the employees receiving them. The taxes would apply to all companies receiving government bailout money, but they are clearly geared toward AIG.
greenberetTFS
03-19-2009, 15:34
Chuck Grassley lives a mile down a dirt road in Iowa from my Grandparents in a simple ranch style home overlooking New Hartford, Iowa.
He is a great American and I support his calls for suicide.
I agree with caveman, those guys should commit suicide, it's the honorable thing to do....:rolleyes:
GB TFS :munchin
Lets see.
A huge company, AIG, is starting to flounder, things are looking bad. Top leadership in all areas are looking to bail, start hunting a new job.
The new man appointed to right the ship looks around, sees some people he needs to keep and has to offer them something. He gives them a contract that says "Keep working for me and at the end of the specified time I'll give you a bonus." Some some of them sign up.
Now as he starts to pay them congress and a bunch of Americans get their panties in a wad and wants to take back the bonus?
Works for some I guess. Not me.
Defender968
03-19-2009, 16:50
Lets see.
A huge company, AIG, is starting to flounder, things are looking bad. Top leadership in all areas are looking to bail, start hunting a new job.
The new man appointed to right the ship looks around, sees some people he needs to keep and has to offer them something. He gives them a contract that says "Keep working for me and at the end of the specified time I'll give you a bonus." Some some of them sign up.
Now as he starts to pay them congress and a bunch of Americans get their panties in a wad and wants to take back the bonus?
Works for some I guess. Not me.
Pete I know what you're saying, my issue with these bonuses are what would they have done if the company hadn't been bailed out? I would be willing to bet there would be no bonuses, but now that they're getting tax dollars they've got the cash to dole out, that doesn't sit well with me, (but I'm also very against congress just taxing those bonuses back), I see the flip side of the coin on this as well, because like the bailouts once this kind of thing starts it will never stop. Personally I think any congressmen and senators who voted for the bill should have their pay garnished to pay for these bonuses, they should have seen it coming but failed to do so, so they should be held responsible.
I know it will never happen, but you know what, if Joe Q Cop makes a bad search and violates a citizens civil rights, he can (and likely will) pay out of his own pocket when the lawsuit gets filed. As far as I'm concerned the TARP and the rest of these bailouts are taxation without representation as not one senator or congressman read the bill by their own admissions. So IMO they're responsible, let them pony up the $$$ to pay for it, God knows it's not their tax dollars that are going for these things as none of them appear to pay any taxes.
Sigaba,
Front page of the Washington (DC) Examiner this morning:
Candidate Obama vs. President Obama LOSING HIS MAGIC
http://www.dcexaminer.com/
Ret10Echo--
Sir, thank you for bringing this article to my attention. The president's performance to date is beginning to beg a question. Which is preferable: a president who effectively pursues an agenda that pleases about half the country or an ineffective president who disappoints just about everybody? (I'd rather have the former than the latter. It is better to debate heatedly the merits of a controversial book than to sit in a discussion where everyone is saying "I didn't get it either."*)
Lets see.
A huge company, AIG, is starting to flounder, things are looking bad. Top leadership in all areas are looking to bail, start hunting a new job.
The new man appointed to right the ship looks around, sees some people he needs to keep and has to offer them something. He gives them a contract that says "Keep working for me and at the end of the specified time I'll give you a bonus." Some some of them sign up.
Now as he starts to pay them congress and a bunch of Americans get their panties in a wad and wants to take back the bonus?
Works for some I guess. Not me.
Sir--
With respect, my understanding of the sequences of events differs from yours. My understanding is that Edward Liddy took over the reins of AIG after the contracts were executed. He decided to honor those contracts.
From an Associated Press account of Mr. Liddy's testimony on 18 March 2009. (Source is here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage)).
Liddy gave skeptical committee members what amounted to a tutorial in the practice of paying retention bonuses — he did not call them that — to executives.
He said the money was offered to executives in AIG's financial products section, where risky investments finally became the entire company's undoing. He said each executive was offered money to dispose of his "business book," meaning the transactions he had been in charge of handling, and thus far, the company's financial derivatives had been reduced from $2.7 trillion to $1.6 trillion.
He had decided it was worth paying the money to retain the services of executives who knew the business best, he said. And he had received legal advice that there were valid contracts requiring the payments.
"I know 165 million is a very large number. It's a very large number. In the context of 1.6 trillion ... we thought it was a good trade," he said.
Liddy added there was still a risk of financial catastrophe if the remaining $1.6 trillion in financial instruments were not disposed of properly.
But Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., angrily told the witness the contract read like "the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats."
Liddy replied that he was not at the firm when the contracts were negotiated, and said, as he has before, that he would not have approved them.
Lynch said the terms had been put in place in December, after Liddy arrived at AIG.
But Liddy disputed that. "I take offense, Sir," he said.
"Well you take it rightly. Offense was intended," shot back Lynch.
According to the Wall Street Journal, here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123743055512280701.html),
[Mr. Liddy's testimony] also revealed a culture of compensation that was highly favorable to AIG's financial-products employees -- regardless of performance. For instance, the employees were paid bonuses in 2007, whether the unit turned a profit or not. The 2008 bonus plan was also designed to kick in without regard to paper losses. In all, the unit reported losses of more than $40 billion last year.
AIG also disclosed in its 2007 annual report that the year's compensation for the financial-products employees -- which totaled $423 million -- "was not affected" by gains or losses on derivatives. For 2007, those derivatives, related to toxic real-estate assets, produced a paper loss of $11.5 billion. Paper losses on such contracts snowballed to $28.6 billion for 2008.
I understand your point that the bonuses represent an employer keeping trust with important subordinates and in this instance, I respectfully disagree.
In my view, AIG's payment of these bonuses was inappropriate for two reasons regardless of the legality of the contracts. First, as Defender968 points out, without the TARP funds, it is unlikely that AIG would have survived to this point. The executives getting bonuses is like a medical doctor receiving an award for performing a procedure that would have killed most of his patients but for the intervention of other doctors. Even if the logic is that the original doctor kept the patient alive until the other doctors arrived, that fact should not diminish the point that the patient would not have been in mortal danger had that doctor behaved responsibly from the get go.
Second, it is simply bad public relations on AIG's part to allow the perception that TARP money is being used to pay executives who played key roles in running not only their company but the country's economy into the ground. IMHO, Mr. Liddy would have been better served had he deferred payment of the bonuses until AIG got back on its feet (if ever) and thereby forced the executives in question to sue AIG to receive the compensation. In the ensuing discussion, Mr. Liddy could have pointed to AIG's code of conduct for executives <<LINK (http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/76/76115/corpgov/CoC-DO-SFO.pdf)>> to distance himself and AIG on the one hand from the litigating executives on the other. Such a maneuver might have allowed Mr. Liddy to say to the American people and to congress, "We at AIG get it but these guys do not."
Moreover, the decision to pay the bonuses represents a lost opportunity for Mr. Liddy to demonstrate AIG's commitment to its mission <<LINK (http://www.aig.com/diversity-mission_547_103784.html)>>.
At AIG, we are committed to the highest standards of inclusiveness and a culture that encourages leadership and offers equal growth opportunities for all employees. We aspire to be an employer of choice, providing a rewarding and team-oriented environment where a diverse group of professionals with integrity and vision work continuously to enhance our position as a formidable competitor and global market leader. In responding to a diverse marketplace, we are committed to our customer base, products, suppliers, communities, and employees to create a multicultural and diverse organization.
A commitment to diversity has been a guiding business principle at AIG since our origins in Shanghai in 1919. As one of the world’s leading international insurance and financial services organizations, AIG attributes much of our success to our employees’ ability to find opportunities and serve global customers in a wide variety of markets, which today span more than 130 countries and jurisdictions. We focus on growth opportunities worldwide and know that our expansion in new diverse markets will require the efforts of an equally diverse workplace. A diverse workforce cultivates innovation and enhances our position as a global market leader. In executing a strategy, AIG businesses, throughout our global franchise, actively access a growing range of resources to attract, retain and develop diverse talent.
By not exercising good leadership, Mr. Liddy presents AIG as a corporation operating "to attract, retain and develop diverse talent" at the expense of two key traits: integrity and vision.
__________________________________________
* If one ever wishes to witness such a conversation, ask a group of American historians what they thought of Sacvan Bercovitch's The American Jeremiad (1978) :confused::eek::confused:.
...By not exercising good leadership, Mr. Liddy presents AIG as a corporation operating "to attract, retain and develop diverse talent" at the expense of two key traits: integrity and vision. ...
All that you say may be true but it seems like nobody but me is upset with the fact that it was a contract.
A contract that congress knew about, and in all this rush to judgement, "somebody" - we don't know who - made sure it was in the bailout deal to begin with.
And now congress, with all the fake outrage it can muster, uses a special tax law passed in a hurry to punish someone.
Anybody at Freddie and Fanie going to get a bonus this year? Anybody else in the 400 odd companies getting federal bailout money going to get a bonus?
Looks like congress can get real busy this year. So many enemies of the state out there earning money. All we need is a few more laws passed in haste.
With all this public & congressional outrage why am I reminded of an old western lynch mob? With the mob in control things can get out of hand.
This is so American these days.
http://southernconnecticutcommunity.com/politicalcapitol/2009/03/19/bus-tour-of-aig-homes-this-just-seems-like-it-could-go-wrong/
Did I say something about a lynch mob?
Maybe when one of those Git-mo guests get set free in the US, gets SJS and opens up in a mall with a semi- auto rifle we can use this mentality to push through some really strict gun bans.
Never let a........
ZonieDiver
03-20-2009, 06:12
All that you say may be true but it seems like nobody but me is upset with the fact that it was a contract.
A contract that congress knew about, and in all this rush to judgement, "somebody" - we don't know who - made sure it was in the bailout deal to begin with.
And now congress, with all the fake outrage it can muster, uses a special tax law passed in a hurry to punish someone.
Anybody at Freddie and Fanie going to get a bonus this year? Anybody else in the 400 odd companies getting federal bailout money going to get a bonus?
Looks like congress can get real busy this year. So many enemies of the state out there earning money. All we need is a few more laws passed in haste.
With all this public & congressional outrage why am I reminded of an old western lynch mob? With the mob in control things can get out of hand.
Your not alone, Pete! One of the pillars of the American "free enterprise" system is the contract. The current actions of this Congress in passing confiscatory tax laws directed toward specific individuals due to "public outrage" is very disconcerting. Who's to say what "public outrage" there may be tomorrow that could get the "Congressional Outrage Machine" pointed at me... or you... or anyone?
Ret10Echo
03-20-2009, 07:13
Your not alone, Pete! One of the pillars of the American "free enterprise" system is the contract. The current actions of this Congress in passing confiscatory tax laws directed toward specific individuals due to "public outrage" is very disconcerting. Who's to say what "public outrage" there may be tomorrow that could get the "Congressional Outrage Machine" pointed at me... or you... or anyone?
Change...change...change...
Changing McCarthism to meet the modern-day.
ZonieDiver
03-20-2009, 07:36
All these outraged members of Congress standing before cameras expressing the depths of their disgust and rage with the situation that they have just discovered remind me of the scene in the movie "Casablanca" where the Vichy French prefect of police (Claude Rains) is told by the German Major Strasser to close Rick's Cafe Americain due to the display "Free French" patriotism that had just taken place. The police chief told Rick (Humphrey Bogart) that he was closing the place because he was "shocked... shocked to find that gambling was taking place." At that time, the gaming room manager presents the police chief with his winnings, which the corrupt official takes and pockets - saying, "Thank you."
The only difference is that I don't hear our "Congress Critters" (thanks Richard :)) saying "thank you"!
Link to a blog with some comments and a link to a Fox News Business Story about the bonus issue.
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/03/treasury-knew-about-aig-bonuses-in.html
This was all discussed back in November and then we had the take out / put back issue under Dodd by "somebody" in the Obama administration.
Maybe congress needs to slow down and take the time to read the bills before signing them.