It's now formal. The man who is debated to be the largest political donation recipient from AIG and the chair of the Senate Banking Comittee, Chris Dodd is now changing his story from "when that language left the Senate, that I wrote, that language was not included" to "we wrote the language" and claiming that he is proud to have written that late addition into the bail-out bill enabling and empowering AIG to pay out over $100 million in bonuses, giving them the thumbs-up to go for it. For the record, if you are looking for the man-behind-the-man, Chris Dodd says that man was the Whitehouse Administration (i.e. the President) who told him to write that provisional language.
I think Edward Liddy needs an apology, odd as that may sound. Edward Liddy is the guy who came in to help AIG recover, is getting paid $1 per year to simply give them new direction, and the bill from the senate said he should uphold those executive bonus contracts. Now, mind you, he didn't have to do it. But he also didn't need to sit under the chastisement of our Congress as they told him -in writing- to uphold those bonus contracts and then crusify him publicly after he did it!
I guess the mystery is over. This also explains why the Whitehouse is hotly attempting to tell the country to focus on the next stuff coming rather than the past (even if the past is less than a month old and we're still in the middle of it ... sorry, Mr. President, you can't convince us to stop paying attention to current events.)
Update: Three cheers for continuing to pay attention to current events!! I''ve finally watched the President Obama interview on Jay Leno and I have a few take-aways from that which are well worthy of a blog or two, but instead I will update this entry with one:
President Obama said that the answer to this situation with AIG has everything to do with mitigating risk through better government oversight. In theory, I understand what he is talking about. The trouble is the breathing example we have of this RIGHT NOW in Senator Chris Dodd (Democrat.) This man CHAIRS the committee that currently brings oversight and at the same time he is a HUGE RECIPIENT of election donations by AIG (and others.) It was his personal team that made the change in this bail-out bill SPECIFICALLY to allow the contractual bonuses. And rather than debate or explain or justify... HE LIED ABOUT IT! So... this is oversight.
What is more devistating is that Obama hints at knowing more than he is willing to let on in the interview. He says at one point that the legal decision to change the bill to allow the bonuses was actually a good decision because if they had said that AIG has to abandon the contractual bonuses that those executives could sue for 3-times the contractual amounts and likely win. Obama called that a good legal decision implying that the decisions being made now are either (1) not good or (2) some other form of good or (3) good but from a non-legal standpoint. In other words, yeah, he knew all about this and like a good democrat he was ramming this stuff through Congress mis-managing the effect and outcomes of everything and now that people don't like those outcomes (i.e. a good emotional response and not a good legal one) he is now pretending to be morally outraged.
If Obama is outraged, then he is outraged because the people on the receiving end of the contracts (the AIG execs) wanted AIG to honor those contracts. If you work at AIG, then you are in a loosing situation no matter what happens, because the Senate gave you the right to your contractual "bonus" (which, if it is a contract, then it is not performance based as much as it is a form of payment outside of your annual salary) but then ate you for lunch if you actually exercised that right. I don't feel too bad for people getting millions as a bonus, but I think this proves that government oversight under the current leadership sucks rocks if this is the best they could do to manage this situation.
There is no way in this context that you don't feel that the president's "outrage" is an act IF he actually knew that the bonuses were allowed into the bill based on it's legal justification. That is like offer someone your friendship and acting all offended and outraged when they accept it. I recall being a kid in middle school and I was in a class and my teacher told all of us to stay in our seats. I needed to throw something away and my friend acted like they were going to watch the teacher so I could hop out of my seat to toss something in the trash. When I got the sign to go for it, I hopped up and went for the trash can. And as SOON AS I WAS ON MY FEET... my friend spoke out loudly to the classroom and teacher, "STEVE IS OUT OF HIS SEAT!!!!!!!" Sounds familiar to me!?
It seems clear to me that this situation didn't slip through like some would make it seem. President Obama along with his administration and the banking subcommittee knowingly took the action they did and rather than defend their "choice" are busy broadcasting lies and conflicting stories and opinions. This doesn't feel too much like leadership or honesty or even an effort to be honest. This is pandering and positioning and politics at its "best."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment