By Caitlin Taylor

Mar 18, 2009 8:19am

The Note, 3/18/09: Boiling Points — Washington plays blame game — and can furor subside without claiming a scalp?

By RICK KLEIN Whose seat is warmer — Chris Dodd’s, Tim Geithner’s, or Edward Liddy’s?

Are we in a political climate that can cool down without claiming a scalp? What happens if the party of no starts saying yes to the president’s call for budget suggestions?  When and where might 44 ask 43 to break his self-imposed silence? In this new era of responsibility, who among our leaders is willing to take some blame? What’s a better political shelter in the AIG bonus story — ignorance or incompetence? (What didn’t our leaders know, and when didn’t they know it?) Washington prepares for one of those ritualized, televised drubbings on Wednesday, as a House Financial Services subcommittee hosts AIG chief Edward Liddy at a hearing starting at 10 am ET.  In a flash, the AIG story has become about far more than lavish bonuses to executives of a failed company. This was a tipping point — the excess that drew the right mix of outrage and practicality to shake Washington into more action than it anticipated taking. That’s why, for all the muscle-flexing going on right now in the White House and Congress, this is a dangerous time to be in power. The politicians who are purporting to play offense — filing bills and amendments and making floor speeches denouncing Wall Street excesses — are actually playing defense.  (Maybe AIG-type money should be awarded to whoever can identify how bonuses of this scale weren’t stopped in any of the bailout or stimulus legislation to date.)  Now, Congress, the White House, and New York’s attorney general are in a race with themselves and each other to strip AIG executives of their bonuses. Somebody’s liable to get trampled. Wait — were you looking for more outrage? “Some of the billions of dollars that the U.S. government paid to bail out American International Group Inc. stand to benefit hedge funds that bet on a falling housing market, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal,” Serena Ng writes in The Wall Street Journal. “AIG has put in escrow some money for at least one major bank, Deutsche Bank AG, whose hedge-fund clients made bets against the housing market, according to a person familiar with the matter. The money will be released to the bank if mortgage defaults rise above a certain level.” Of the political race: “New York’s efforts against A.I.G. have overshadowed those of the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, the official who is responsible for the financial bailout, along with the Federal Reserve,” Jackie Calmes and Louise Story write in The New York Times. “The White House and Treasury have been besieged by questions about why Mr. Geithner did not know sooner about the bonus payments due this month, and whether he could have done more to stop them, prompting White House officials to assert President Obama’s continued confidence in Mr. Geithner.” “He more than has the president’s complete confidence,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff. Said David Axelrod: “He’s a brilliant and committed guy with a great deal of experience in this area, and we’re standing with him.” (Did he need that last clause?)  “The bonuses have crystallized public anxiety over the economic downturn and frustration at the government bailouts, creating a firestorm for the White House,” Jonathan Weisman, Naftali Bendavid, and Deborah Solomon write in The Wall Street Journal.  Is this good or bad? “An administration official said that despite having engineered the first two rescues of AIG while president of the New York Fed, Mr. Geithner didn’t know about the pending bonuses until last week,” they write.  “Administration officials did not know until a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13,” ABC’s Jake Tapper reports. “It wasn’t until Thursday, March 5, 2009, administration sources told ABC News, that officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York informed officials of the Treasury Department of the full extent of the $165 million in bonuses pending for the controversial Financial Products Subsidiary. This was three days after the Obama administration had already announced a new commitment of an additional $30 billion for AIG.”  Does this strike anyone as full confidence? “Senior White House officials said last night that President Obama did not learn that bonuses worth $165 million were to be paid to executives of American International Group until Thursday, one day before they were issued and two days after his Treasury secretary was informed that the payments were going forward,” Shailagh Murray, Paul Kane and Michael D. Shear report in The Washington Post. “The bonus scandal has inflamed lawmakers in both parties and could have broad repercussions, and lawmakers warned that it could serve as the death knell for further aid to the ailing sector. . . . A company official said Liddy is expected to issue a letter today to AIG employees asking them to return the bonus payments they received.”  (Good luck with that: “AIG’s new management team last year proposed that its employees give up their “retention” bonuses, or at least reduce them. The response from the 370 or so employees set to rake in $450 million in bonuses through 2010? Take a hike,” The Hill’s Ian Swanson reports.)  “Congressman [Elijah] Cummings, for one, says that Liddy informed him about the coming bonuses on Jan. 15. So why didn’t the Secretary of the Treasury, with all the resources of a government department at his command, know about it UNTIL Mar. 10, according to a White House timeline? If it was simple ineptitude, it has nevertheless cost his boss the President considerable political and popular embarrassment.,” Jay Newton-Small writes for Time.  “Why didn’t Geithner know about this situation earlier? That’s likely to be at the center of the questions today for Obama both before he boards Air Force One and after he lands in Costa Mesa, Calif. for a town hall,” Washingtonpost.com’s Chris Cillizza writes on “The Fix” blog.  “The White House expressed confidence in Geithner — but still made it clear he was the one responsible for how the matter was handled,” the AP’s Julie Hirschfeld Davis writes.  (ABC’s Jake Tapper remembers this quote, from Jan. 31: “The president has confidence that Sen. Daschle is the right person to lead the fight for health care reform.”)  Feel that heat? “[Sen. Chuck] Grassley, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, asked Treasury Inspector General Eric Thorson to open an inquiry into the AIG bonus payments and determine whether top Treasury officials had some role in approving the payments, according to Grassley’s office. The inquiry could turn the heat back on the Obama administration, which has expressed outrage over the payments and wants to challenge them,” Jim Puzzanghera and Janet Hook report in the Los Angeles Times.  Geithner defends himself, in a letter to congressional leaders where he says Treasury will subtract the value of the bonuses from the next cash infusion: “I registered my strong objections to Mr. Edward Liddy, the CEO of AIG, last week when I was first informed by my staff about the pending payment obligations. “I demanded of Mr. Liddy that he scrap or cut hundreds of millions of dollars in additional payments due this year and beyond.  He has committed to do this on terms that are consistent with the executive compensation provisions of ARRA, the administration’s executive compensation guidelines, and the interests of the American taxpayers.” And Edward Liddy defends himself, and (sort of) the company he runs, in a Washington Post op-ed: “My annual salary is $1. My only stake is my reputation,” he writes, vowing to repay the tax dollars that have flowed toward AIG.  But others have (and will) make more: “To prevent undue risk exposure in the meantime, AIG has made a set of retention payments to employees based on a compensation system that prior management put in place. As has been reported, payments were made to employees in the Financial Products unit. Make no mistake, had I been chief executive at the time, I would never have approved the retention contracts that were put in place more than a year ago. It was distasteful to have to make these payments. But we concluded that the risks to the company, and therefore the financial system and the economy, were unacceptably high,” Liddy writes.  They made a lot more: “The Financial Products Subsidiary may be largely to blame for the near collapse of insurance giant AIG last year, but that did not stop seven executives at that department from taking home bonuses of over $4 million each, with the top bonus recipient earning more than $6.4 million, according to numbers released today by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in a letter to the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-Mass.),” ABC’s Maddy Sauer reports.  Can we get a bailout for the bailouts?” If you didn’t like reading about A.I.G. brokers getting millions in bonuses after their company — 80 percent of which is owned by U.S. taxpayers — racked up the biggest quarterly loss in the history of the Milky Way Galaxy, you’re really not going to like the bank bailout plan to be rolled out soon by the Obama team,” Tom Friedman writes in his New York Times column. “That plan will begin by using up the $250 billion or so left in TARP funds to start removing the toxic assets from the banks. But ultimately, to get the scale of bank repair we need, it will likely require some $750 billion more. . . . The only person with the clout to sell something this big is President Obama.”  “Officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department are increasingly worried that the controversy could discourage investors from joining a new government effort to revive consumer lending as well as a separate plan that relies on private money to buy toxic assets from banks, sources familiar with the matter said,” reports The Washington Post’s David Cho and Binyamin Appelbaum.  This meme won’t help: “Barack Obama even needs a teleprompter to get mad,” Maureen Dowd writes.  The fallout: “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,” Bloomberg’s Hans Nichols writes. “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.”  And more fallout: “During late-night, closed-door talks last month, negotiators for the House, Senate and White House stripped out a measure to the stimulus bill that could have restricted the AIG bonuses,” ABC’s Jonathan Karl reports. “The provision was stripped out during the closed-door conference negotiations involving House and Senate leaders and the White House. A measure by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., to limit executive compensation replaced it. But Dodd’s measure explicitly exempted bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill.”  “Congressional Democrats careened between the circular firing squad and the three-ring circus Tuesday as they struggled with their new reality: playing defense on the economy,” Lisa Lerer and Victoria McGrane write for Politico. Said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va.: “It seems like an administration in disarray.”  On the budget — he asked for it: House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has a YouTube response to the president’s call for ideas on the budget, with a promise to offer an alternative.  “Mr. President, with all due respect: your budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, and that’s going to do further harm to our economy at a time when it desperately needs our help,” Boehner says in the video, according to an advance excerpt provided to The Note. “We believe there’s a better way — better solutions to restore some fiscal sanity here in Washington while encouraging more job creation and more investment. Our alternative, which is being drafted as we speak by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and others, will reflect core principles that should guide us as our nation works to emerge from this crisis stronger than ever.” This might have been the big fight of the week: “Senior members of the Obama administration are pressing lawmakers to use a shortcut to drive the president’s signature initiatives on health care and energy through Congress without Republican votes, a move that many lawmakers say would fly in the face of President Obama’s pledge to restore bipartisanship to Washington,” Lori Montgomery writes in The Washington Post.    “Members of Congress are bracing for a political donnybrook should the Democrats use the reconciliation process to sidestep the Republicans and their power of the filibuster in the Senate. Under normal Senate rules, it requires 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to shut off debate and force a final vote. Democrats currently have 58 Senate votes. Under reconciliation, 51 votes can force anything through,” McClatchy’s Steven Thomma writes.  One fewer critic: Former President George W. Bush makes his vow, in his first speech as an ex-president. “I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him,” he said in Calgary Tuesday, ABC’s Karen Travers reports. “There’s plenty of critics in the arena. I think it’s time for the ex-president to tap dance off the stage and let the current president have a go at solving the world’s problems. . . . He deserves my silence. And if he wants my help, he can pick up the phone.”  Also holding back (for now): Sen. John McCain. From the Twitterview, with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos: “GStephanopoulos@SenJohMcCain Cheney said on CNN that Obama putting US at risk of new terror attack Agree?”  "SenJohnMcCain@GStephanopoulos too early to draw that conclusion.” Alex Conant uses his time at the RNC to explode some Obama myths, in a Politico op-ed: “1. Obama is bold. . . . 2. Obama is a great communicator. . . . 3. Obamaland is a team of rivals. . . . 4. Obama is smooth.”  And: “5. Obama has a good relationship with the media. Working with the hundreds of reporters who covered the Obama campaign last year, I was struck by how many of them would quietly complain about Obama’s borderline disdain for the press. Sometimes it is readily visible — like when he scolded a reporter for asking a question during a presidential visit to the White House briefing room. Other times it’s more passive, like long gaps between press conferences, or it’s reflected in his staff’s attitude.” Obama chooses his Final Four: Louisville, North Carolina, Memphis, and Pittsburgh. That’s three No. 1′s and a No. 2 — with UConn left out in the cold. (Chris Dodd can’t buy a friend these days.)  Before he heads out of town for two days on the Left Coast, the president filled out his brackets with ESPN’s Andy Katz. The interview/college basketball seminar airs at noon ET. The president has Arizona out in the first round: “Has nothing to do with McCain — I think Arizona’s a great state, I love playing golf there. But they just squeaked in, based on reputation.” So that’s ESPN Wednesday, Leno on Thursday, and “60 Minutes” Sunday. “Despite early predictions that Obama would largely bypass the mainstream media and conduct a YouTube presidency, he has repeatedly made himself available to traditional news organizations,” The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz writes.  Will Arlen Specter pull a Joe Lieberman? “”It’s pretty hard to run without a party,” Specter, R-Pa., told The Hill’s Aaron Blake. “It’s always something that could be a possibility. But then I wouldn’t be in the Republican caucus — wouldn’t have quite the standing as a Republican.”  The Kicker: “Frankly, it was such a rush, talking about the stimulus bill right now, to get it passed, I did not have time — other conferees did not have time to address many of the provisions that were modified significantly. We do the best we can, but we missed that stuff as a result.” — Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., on the stripping of a provision that would have prevented the AIG bonuses.  “I wasn’t in the room — I can’t answer the question.” — Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., on the same provision.  Follow The Note on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/

User Comments

Let’s not lose focus that the bonuses are a symbolic tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds of billions of dollars and we don’t know where they are going.

Posted by: ICDogg | March 18, 2009, 8:56 am 8:56 am

I didn’t notice any republicans calling for limiting bonuses before the stimulus bill passed….they are always standing behind the cow…trying to figure out how to milk it…and covered in the usual bi-product….

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:03 am 9:03 am

We’ll know for sure when next batch of reputable polls come out, but it appears that Obama is weathering the IG storm fairly well. It’s easy to buy the administration’s professed ignorance on the bonus payments, and now the scrutiny is turning to Congress.
And how about the GOP? They were in power up until ’07, in the midst of the chaotic run-up to the AIG’s and Lehman’s of the world going under…
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | March 18, 2009, 9:09 am 9:09 am

There is a whole lot of posturing going on here about the Bonuses…It is a legal issue, and if congress takes them away..the republicans surely would have a reason to scream “SOCIALISM”…isn’t that the taking from the rich you are always crying about??/kind of looks like a double standard now -doesn’t it…

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:25 am 9:25 am

who received the most campaign donations from AIG?
Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

Posted by: realityville | March 18, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am

ACORN now bring used for the Census.
ROFL. They got their bail out. Thanks Obama.. >>>>
cowgirl >>> You Cant blame Dodds amendment on the republicans. The Democratic is a farse. Dodd should be brought up on charges for Pay to Play scandal. 103K in contributions and AIG gets an amendment.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am

umm, the dem’s have controlled congress since 2006. And please keep in mind NO republicans had any part in the stimulus package in which Dodd put in the provision for bonus payouts. In fact, NOT ONE house republican voted for the stimulus bill and only 3 RINO’s voted for it in the congress. The Dem’s knew full well, in fact obama knew bonus’s where going to be paid 2 weeks ago. Only now the fake “outrage” comes out because the public is mad as hell. Yep, CHANGE you can believe in…Whatever. Obama is a joke, and he got caught. When will you supporters see him for what he really is?

Posted by: chad | March 18, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

AIG was donating heavily to republicsans over the last 8 years-while this mess was brewing…So i guess that means they were buying republican silience…Yes???

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am

ignorance or incompetence?>>>>>>
OR Premeditated >>>>> DODD got this money and anyone who thinks otherwise has drank the koolaid. Now they are running from color. NOW Pelosi promising Job protection for illegal workers. HOW many more jobs are we losing to the slave labor endorsed by the democrats.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:42 am 9:42 am

republican silience…Yes???
>>>>>> SO multiple wrongs make it right? ROFL.. Think again.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:43 am 9:43 am

I am guessing that AIG was betting on who would win the election, and the easy bet was democrats, last time around it was republicans..you aren’t really that gullible are you

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:45 am 9:45 am

Japan tried to build the economy by stimulus and it was an utter failure. Obama is so dumb that he thinks failure means do it again..

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:46 am 9:46 am

I am guessing that AIG was betting on who would win the election, and the easy bet was democrats, last time around it was republicans..you aren’t really that gullible are you
?>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So this is are reason to trust the government? You are making my point. These guys are CROOKS and should have as much power taken from them as possible. The TARP should be reversed. The stimulus should be over turned. The only contracts that need to be renegotiated are the congressional contracts. They need to thrown out along with thier ability lobby.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am

ACORN the group that will give you the answers you want for a price you can afford is now doing the census? ROFL. WOW the Capone, I mean Obama group is living up the Chicago FIX. The FIX is in.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

Democrats and Republicans finally agree: TAKE money away from the rich…I love it..socialism comes to BOTH parties..thats the real story….

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am

i am so sick of the overly critical msm. first it was obama’s bear market-now that the market is up the media moves on–what about the impossible situation the government is in now with the banks? the republicans just say let the banks fail–other say nationalize–who is going to pay the trillions to nationalize? it is easy to be critical about the bailouts but do the critics have better ideas that don’t cost trillions? no. so why do you continue to interview critics when the only say no. where are the alternatives?

Posted by: william | March 18, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am

What happened to free market capitalism?? Won’t that good ole trickle down economics work here..you know those wall street guys will spend that millions in bonus money and the rest of us will get jobs off of it…What…you mean to say it really doesn’t work that way???

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 9:56 am 9:56 am

AIG’s 4th Quarter loss – $61.7 billion
Rewards From Govt- $170 billion bailout.
Reward
1. to executives – $165 million in bonuses
2. to Bank:
-Goldman Sachs Group- $12.9 billion
-Societe Generale SA, France- $11.9 billion
-Deutsche Bank AG, Germany-$11.8 billion
- States, including California and Virginia-$12.1 billion
- Barclays Plc – $8.5 billion
- Merrill Lynch – $6.8 billion
- Bank of America – $5.2 billion
- UBS AG – $5 billion
What happaned to Rest of money? Answer is we don’t know, but, we will fight for $165 million in bonuses only and discuss whether we need to give $30 billion for non-performance in Q1 of 2009.

Posted by: JS | March 18, 2009, 10:03 am 10:03 am

Wallstreet is openly stealing from Mainstreet, with the help of the Obama administration. And both of our corrupt parties see a political opportunity and are trying to divert us with their crocodile tears. – It’s disgusting!
I’m fed up with both parties, let’s round them up and vote them out of power. And we don’t need the Federal Reserve taking our childrens tax money and bankrupting this country.

Posted by: DOG AND PONT SHOW | March 18, 2009, 10:26 am 10:26 am

matt and cowgirl, so this aig stuff is the repubs fault? you’ve got to be kidding? are you really that dumb or are you just pretending so no one will blame you for voting for Obama and the rest of the dems? Dodd and Obama received $ from aig. buying their silence?

Posted by: what? | March 18, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am

Yes, I see where Dodd and Obama reaped from the AIG money last year!

Posted by: jill | March 18, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am

I don’t know why people get so excited about dissatisfaction with big three’s corporate jets and AIG’s bonuses money, the cost of which only amounts to a tiny small fraction of the bailout fund of the taxpayer money. After all, corporate jet and bonuses are the norm of the ranking employees of corporate America , which in the past have funded generously the political leaders’ election process. First the case of using corporate jet, thousands of people used the corporate jets to fly to the super bowl and presidential inauguration. Speaker Pelosi and a group of lawmakers took government military jets to visit her native country Italy in early spring for unknown political missions. For the AIG bonuse, even Chairman Bernanke has said that the government should be off limit in the issue the bonuses given by companies receiving the bailout money.

Posted by: austin | March 18, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am

One of the the issues to consider is that some of these corporations have become so incredibly large, it’s almost impossible to find CEO’s with the skills to run them. If the targeted CEO’s are removed & take the brunt of public outrage — who’s left to run them?
The administration is in a quandry — The free-market capitalistic stage over the last 10 years fostered the environment to allow these corporations to gain such power and wealth.
The country set the stage by voting in the politcal parties that fostered this development.
The people of the U.S. are responsible.
Now is the time to back President Obama. He was voted in by those who know we need a change of fiscal philosophy and policy.

Posted by: gus amaral | March 18, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am

Gus you are right- it’s almost impossible to find CEO’s with the skills to run these big companies.
They should break AIG into small companies and create baby AIGs and manage them rather than one big bleeding Horse that may or may not run the race.

Posted by: JS | March 18, 2009, 11:28 am 11:28 am

We need to clean house. We need term limits for senators!!!!!!!!

Posted by: real story | March 18, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am

This is a cover up, and both Obama and Geithner are in on it.
1. Why isn’t anyone bringing in Maurice “Hank” Greensberg?
2. Why isn’t anyone tracking down the fact that ALMOST ALL MAJOR AIG players are suddenly goving over to Mr. Greensberg’s new company that is offering the same services as AIG offers?
3. Why isn’t anyone looking into how much of AIG’s stock, and the stocks of other KEY COMPANY he has the voting rights to, or out and out ownership of?
4. Anyone care to place a wager that the 11 Key players that got bonus money who are NOW GONE are working directly or indirectly for a company owned by Mr. Greensberg?

Posted by: Sherwood M | March 18, 2009, 11:54 am 11:54 am

On one of the talk shows this past Sunday there was discussion concerning whether the press should have been more observant when it came to the banking and financial institutions’ problems. The debate centered abound the lack of in-depth reporting, digging, vetting, etc by the dominant media. As I listen I could only wonder what the conversation might be a year or two from now concerning the president and the lack of in-dept reporting, digging, vetting, etc by the dominant media. I mean how often did ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN go to Chicago’s South Side, to Columbia University, to Harvard, to Indonesia, Pakistan, etc to examine Mr. Obama’s past?

Posted by: Percy | March 18, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm

This is all BS. In March 2008 AIG renegotiated the contracts of the employees in the Financial Services Division (located in Connecticut) guaranteeing them the same compensation for 2008 as they received in 2009. This was done to keep the people in place who knew what was going on in place rather than bring in new people and have to wait until they learned where everything was and how it was put together. Sometime after this Liddy was brought in as the CEO, he did not negotiate the contracts in question. AIG received TARP funds and the second round which was doled out under the Obama administration had a bill associated with it which put limits on what could/could not be done by the recipients. Most Senators were concerned about such a situation as what is now happening and wanted to have words to address the potential problem. In all of his wisdom Chris Dodd (from Connecticut and the recipient of over $100k from AIG) inserted an amendment which stated that contracts prior to the bailout had to be honored. This was in the final legislation sent to Obama (also received over $100k from AIG) who signed it into law. Under Connecticut law for AIG not to pay the compensation agreed to in the contracts could subject AIG (now also the US Government) to double the cost of the agreed upon compensation, hence AIG’s payment of the retention bonus to the employees. Now Chris Dodd is talking about a special tax to get the money back from these employees, this would be in direct violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. Another idea is to sue to get the money back which will cost the taxpayers even more money. Currently everything which has been done is legal although we the taxpayer may not like it, if Chris Dodds amendment had not been signed into law it may have been easy to stop these payments. Let Chris Dodd pay the $160M to the taxpayer.

Posted by: Sandcrab1612 | March 18, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm

Impeach Obama! Yes we can!

Posted by: Angelo | March 18, 2009, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm

The fact remains those contracts as far as we know were and are legal and binding..which is why the language was changed in the bill, otherwise it would be unconstitutional for congress to go back and break the existing contracts,and lawsuits would ensue costing us more millions…unless there was a performance clause of some sort…it would be just political posturing and illeagle as hell…to say nothing of the dread “socialism” word..If all you republicans are right it should just “trickle” down to the rest of us when they spend it…doesn’t sound like such a good policy any more does it?????

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm

Whats a matter,Capitalism isn’t sounding like the battle cry of the day for republicans now…LOL..everyone is entitled to make a profit…yes???

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm

“…new commitment of an additional $30 billion for AIG.”….
There are a little over 306 million US residents…How about giving each one of us $1 million and see how the economy is stimulated and save billions in bailout $$ that is being wasted by big corporations and that the economy will not be effected by for years at this rate???

Posted by: cheryl | March 18, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm

Posted by: realityville | Mar 18, 2009 9:30:58 AM
realityvill you said; “who received the most campaign donations from AIG?”
“Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.”
_____________________________
Reality? O.K. AIG – Major Player in Insurance, Finance, Real Estate Industry. The industry is known to “Cover their bets.” What’s the Big Deal? So AIG contributed to; #1) Dodd, #2) Obama, #3) Senator John McCain.
The “finger pointing” is really “Barnyard Drama.” Historically the Industry is #1 or #2 in overall Political Contributions.
Public Records show the following Political Party Contributions (by this industry) broken-down and covering the years 1990 to 2008; Republican’s received 63% of those contributions and Democrat’s received 37%. In the year 2008 specifically, Republican’s received 55% and Democrat’s received 45%. Not much question which party is Favored, by the Industry. The data is available on Opensecrets.org (a government site.)

Posted by: bobj72 | March 18, 2009, 1:47 pm 1:47 pm

AIG did NOT give money to anyone. As far as I can tell, individuals employed by AIG gave donations to whichever candidate they supported. How is this a government problem? This an AIG problem with widespread ramifications. That is why the government felt the need to step in. I don’t know if the restructuring is the best solution (it’s not a bailout – by the way) or not.

Posted by: Nichole | March 18, 2009, 1:51 pm 1:51 pm

If this compensation thing really was written into the bail-out by Senator Dodd then maybe someone needs to start a hedge-fund where we they get to bet on how long the democrats will hold their majority! The republicans found themselves out in the cold fast enough perhaps the democrats want to beat their record.

Posted by: chris | March 18, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm

From the article:
“Geithner defends himself, in a letter to congressional leaders where he says Treasury will subtract the value of the bonuses from the next cash infusion”
How about NO MORE cash infusions? If you give an alcoholic money they are more than likely to by booze even though they can’t make rent. These businesses will simply fail again if they don’t adapt. At this rate you ought to follow an adaptation cowgirls idea and give all all 306 million americans a million dollar citizen retention bonus…
The bailouts will only work if there is accountability. Without consequences it simply prolongs the misery. Perhaps it would be better to let these companies fail.

Posted by: chris | March 18, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm

I didn’t notice any republicans calling for limiting bonuses before the stimulus bill passed….they are always standing behind the cow…trying to figure out how to milk it…and covered in the usual bi-product….
Posted by: cowgirl
___________________
Hey Cowgirl! Looks like you saddled up the wrong beast once again. Olympia Snow (Republican) had a $100,000 limit on these bonuses in the Stimulus bill and The White house and Chris Dodd took it out. Do your homework?

Posted by: JimOnTheRight | March 18, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm

Posted by: chris | Mar 18, 2009 2:25:53 PM
“Perhaps it would be better to let these companies fail.”
____________
And what do you propose for the 74,000,000 ‘some odd’ Insurance Policies, for openers?”

Posted by: bobj72 | March 18, 2009, 4:05 pm 4:05 pm

Hey Jim..MY democratic senator along with Mrs Snow wrote that bill, my understanding is the fed/treasury dept rewrote that..no one else is laying claim to it…My GUESS, is that it would tie up millions in court to break those contracts..someone must have thought contracts could just be declared null and void by the government, I don’t know the constitutionality of that. These contracts were made back in april of 08, not bonus contracts but retention contracts, kind of a signing bonus I guess…bad judgement…but how you get out of them i don’t know that you can…my understanding it wasn’t based on job performance but as an incentive to stay with the company..so how does an argument become relevant that they didn’t make a profit-therefore shouldn’t get the money…I just don’t see the legal argument..I think they’d be better off going the tax route..

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm

HEY how about Congress give back their salaries. We can start with Chris Dodd.
>>>>>>>>>>>
And what do you propose for the 74,000,000 ‘some odd’ Insurance Policies, for openers?”
>>>>> You bust the company up into 20 to 50 parts if necessary.
Small enough so they call can be purchased.
Each part share some of the toxic assets. That should be done to every organization that is TOO big to FAIL.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm

IF Congress targets and takes that money back NO company will want to do business with the FED. You cant do business with an entity that doesnt honor its contracts.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 5:08 pm 5:08 pm

By the way it was Ron Wyden -Democrat of Oregon that co sponsered that bill with a republican, Snow

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:09 pm 5:09 pm

I think they’d be better off going the tax route.. cowgirl >>>>
No thats a bad way to go. What that means is every company is up for MOB rule and not the rule of Law. The law as provided by the congress allowed for this. You want blame look at your congressmen.

Posted by: ChicagoBob | March 18, 2009, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm

Geez chicago bob, why didn’t I think of that…since the chinese and the saudis and perhaps Iran are the only countrys with enough wealth to buy those broken up parts..we can give away some more american soil to foreigners..thanks for the idea

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm

Obama and his adminstration fiend surprise and disgust about bonuses. They knew about these bonuses from the get go….. I mean what T F has the news been about for the past year?, fat cats lining their pockets at the cost of the company and its employee’s. Why didn’t they address this?. because now they can play DUMB, “our hands are tied the bonuses are part of the employment contract, there’s nothing we can do”. Remember O saying we need to sign this ASAP and then not posting the plan for all to read or giving a reasonable amount of time to review. Why?, cuz they wanted to let this slip through ( O and his gang owe a-lot of favors out-there ), had the GOOD CITIZENS OF THE US who are funding these pigs bonuses read the plan or be allowed to comment, this would have NEVER happened. This fiasco is by design and planned. This is what you get when you have a community organizer who has never run a business run the country.

Posted by: Oh-no | March 18, 2009, 5:18 pm 5:18 pm

Chicagobob…I put the blame squarely where it belongs —on the financial regulators..and on AIG..when they lost their AAA rating was when alarm bells should have gone off..and last year when the rest of the smaller insurers were going under by the boat load..someone should have been sounding alarms

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm

from Cowgirl: I didn’t notice any republicans calling for limiting bonuses before the stimulus bill passed…
Reps did address the limit of bonuses…
It was dropped without explanation in the final compromise on the economic stimulus measure, replaced by a less restrictive set of conditions backed by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and accepted by the White House

Posted by: Oh-no | March 18, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm

Oh-No..this is part of the TARP plan-not the stimulus package..you are getting the 2 mixed up, and you are forgeting the roll the Fed played in this from the get go…and this is NOT a bonus per say..This is a signing bonus, a retention bonus

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm

Oh-no..that is NOT true…general concensus is that the dept of treasury and the Federal Reserve guys changed it as the last reviewer of the bill

Posted by: cowgirl | March 18, 2009, 5:25 pm 5:25 pm

Breaking News: Dodd Says loophole that protects AIG Bonuses added per request of the Obama administration. The video is about a fifth of the way down.
http://www.butasforme.com/2009/03/17/obamas-stimulus-bill-explicitly-grants-aig-the-legal-right-to-hand-out-bonuses/
Obama should take full and direct responsibility for this mess.

Posted by: jax | March 18, 2009, 9:32 pm 9:32 pm

Nexium 30.00rebate.

Nexium.

Posted by: Prilosec otc vs nexium. | September 1, 2009, 6:18 am 6:18 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.