The Real Outrage of AIG

I just got done ranting about this in an email to the White House and many in Congress.

First off the contracts were in place in April. Tim helped create the plan. The administration knew. Now I am tired of this holier than thou attitude from all of these people.

Guess what? It was in your pork pile and you signed it and now honor it. You may not like it, but maybe next time you might take more than five seconds to read it.

As for Barney Frank, punch his lights out. How dare he sit ther and shrug his shoulders when Liddy was reading a death threat. WTH is happening to us?

They got bonuses, I don't like it. But, lets not threaten these people which continues to grow. So Obama save your outrage for your teleprompter and while you are at, look up the word leadership, because buddy you have no idea what that means.

Done with rant - Sorry!

Sue, your rant is understandable and I obviously agree. It is disgraceful to listen to these people trying to pretend they are blameless in all of this, and the very idea that a body that has voted itself a yearly raise of around $4,700 that kicks in automatically is whining about bonuses paid in the light of day is a joke.

But even in your rant you miss my broader point. We are watching as the House prepares to pass an ex post facto law, in direct and open contravention of the very Constitution they are sworn to protect and defend, is the true outrage. People are focusing on the money and the politics of the situation, while the Constitution is being ignored by the people who are supposed to be upholding it. And if they can pass a new tax law like this, to tax RETROACTIVE to December 2008 these bonuses, what other laws like this will they pass. The moment this law is passed, and it will pass unless the Republicans and Blue Dogs bang the drum loudly against it, it has to be challenged in court. There is no question this is illegal and no court should allow it to stand.

As I just wrote at my place: having worked a career in sales, I can tell you that an individual could easily have earned his own individual contractual performance bonuses while a division or company goes in the tank financially. A few top performers do not a company save. If ten percent of your sales force is performing like Supermen, and 90% are doing abysmally, that company's still in trouble. Doesn't mean the 10% didn't earn THEIR bonuses, though.

Further, and again, that's a contractual issue, not a government issue... unless the G has "bought into" the company -- such as with a "bailout" -- in which case things are different. Again highlighting the problem with government "bailouts". Now we have a bunch of idiots in DC determining what's "fair" compensation.

BTW, they going to demand that sports figures refund their signing bonuses if their teams lose?

EXACTLY the problem. Did these gov't twits BOTHER to read these SAME articles BEFORE they shovelled the piles? Not likely.We KNOW none of them read the bill.Economic,AND Constitutional morons,the lot of them. Barney Frank DARE to speak of INCOMPETENCE? A male cathouse being run from your home,and you don't know it?PUH-LEEZE.All this "We got to do something" has to stop. EVERY time these twits stick their lunchhooks into something,figure it to be a failure.

Brian: What's fair fot them isn't fair for everyone! This group that complains so loudly about these bonuses voted themselves an escalator clause on their pay, probably so they don't have to go through the public tongue lashings for voting themselves pay raises as the economy flounders. And they have the nerve to complain about someone else's pay? As for the pro athletes, generally in football all the money you are guaranteed is your signing bonus, so if you don't perform out you go. They still have to pay the bonus, but usually that is spread out over the life of the contract. In baseball and basketball, they get stuck with the whole contract...but if you screw up they'll try to buy you out and dump you. But, I would like to know when someone is going to demand that Tom Cruise or Liv Tyler or Julia Roberts give their money back. Heck, they don't produce anything and they get paid millions for a few WEEKS of work. Obama needs to share some of that wealth!

Clyde: These people see what they want, and so long as they are in power they don't care what any bill says. And we already know that to many of them, the Constitution is simply a prop to drag out when they want to paint someone as evil.

Cruise gets, say, $15 million for a picture. Does he have to give any back if it's a flop?

For those in the boonies, the answer is "no".

getting a bonus if they have run their company into the ground.
But they had contracts giving them bonus'.
Now. This seems conspiratorial to me. Why would a company contract a bonus except on the basis of the company succeeding and profiting? Why unless the contracts were drawn up at a time the CEO's KNEW there was government monies on the horizion.
Ex Post Facto applies UNLESS the contracts were entered into knowing future governmental payouts. That would be fraudulent transactions...

Ex post facto is not open to any interpretation in my humble opinion. The government cannot write legislation to punish you for a law that didn't exist when you broke it! If there is some evidence of fraud there are laws on the books for that, but this is a call for NEW legislation to be RETROACTIVE! That is unconstitutional on its face, period.

As for the bonuses, its like a signing bonus in sports: you sign the guy you think will do the best job for you and you pay for his services. Same here in this instance. The bonuses were in the contracts when the bailouts were being put into place; if the government wanted to do something about it they had the opportunity to. The fact that Chris Dodd inserted money into the legislation at the 11th hour to preserve these bonuses means that the government KNEW they were going to come due.

I understand your frustration, but don't get caught up in the populist fervor going around about this. The government should not be in the business of telling anyone how much they can pay in either pay or bonus money.

I fully agree; that exactly what ex post facto means, and it's precisely circumstances like these the Founders had in mind. It was to prevent Congress from passing laws to assuage angry mobs and legitinize lynchings... just exactly like right now.

good stuff here as usual. I read that Malkin column (kabuki theater) and thought it excellent.

I figured they were going to try to pass something. And it is Unconstitutional. They were creating and voting on this bill with strong emotion and nothing else. It is horrible. They should all be ashamed. All of them. Bow their heads. I was suprised how many in the House voted for it. They look real smart, don't they. There were some boob heads, Schumer saying bring on the courts for this. WTH!

Hello - lets just write a law and single out specific people. I think Thomas Jefferson just roled over in his grave.

I heard about the retrocative and almost threw up. I say Liddy says, I am tired of working for $1. At stake is my reptutation and I am walking away with it. So, have Frank and Dodd run it and see how that works out for you.

By the way, I am betting the bank that none of these people in congress really have a clue what the Constitution is and how to uphold it!

Wulfman, what's up! It is great to hear from one of the THO's! (That's TownHall Originals...patent pending LOL!) And the Malkin article was pure gold, as all of this outrage is a stylized show put on to assuage certain people and build up political points.

Sue, you're probably right that these boobs have no idea what the Constitution means or what it means to defend it. That's the problem when you take a bunch of lawyers, put them together in a bubble, and let them think they are smarter than everyone. Hellfire and damnation, they could take "Twinkle, twinkle little star" and find justification for funding a trip to Uranus in it!

"and find justification for funding a trip to Uranus in it!"


Is that how they managed to shove their heads up there?

is they come to the American taxpayer's moneypile (managed by a bunch of carpetbaggers) asking for a handout then squander it on each other instead of the business.

It wuld be like my brother-in-law comes asking me to give him some money so he can feed his family. I give him money and then next day I see him and family eating steak and lobster in DellMonico's. Or maybe just seeing his suv parked in front of the local pole dance joint...

Brian: That may be how they got their heads where they are now, and why they need...what did you call it on the Island?

Buck: You have to put anger aside and look at this rationally for a minute. Many of the people that ran that enterprise into the ground are gone now, and the ones who stayed put are the people needed to untangle this mess. They have the expertise and they are needed to figure out what's going on. As for the money aspect, yes they asked for the cash...but the government has had no objections to doling it out. And when two administrations tell you that you are "too big to fail" and throw money at you to keep you afloat, what are you going to do? I'll tell you waht you do; you don't turn down nothing but your collar! As for the bonuses, not all of them are in the millions of dollars; retention bonuses were being paid to a lot of people who are not getting rich on this deal. Why should they be demonized for taking money that is contractually owed to them? Should the government be able to single YOU out for a 90% tax rate if your occupation gets on the wrong side of public opinion?

I'll get it right eventually.

I saw a story on Bloomberg this morning that said the courts would probably UPHOLD the anti-AIG tax even though it is blatantly unConstitutional because the courts have traditionally deferred to Congress in the area of taxation.

If that happens, things could get REALLY messy, as half of the population wants to kill everyone at AIG and the Congresscritters who helped them, and a large percentage of the population is starting to remember what the Constitution is. Some fit into BOTH camps. Schizophrenic revolution???

The main reason for the large bonus contracts is that Congress made a law a few years ago about compensation in financial companies. No salaries of over $1 million allowed, or that they would be taxed at some crazy rate or sumthin'. I don't remember the specifics, but this new law ENCOURAGED the payments to be made as contractual bonuses.

New one up that ties right in.

that's a great point you made about the bonuses. when you artificially lower base compensation there has to be a way to pay these guys...and bonuses are the way. and it would be a great thing if more people were waking up to what the congress and the courts are attempting to do by ignoring the constitution.

And when will CONgress who failed at their jobs return their pay?

The day after never, or about three weeks after hell becomes an ice rink!