Aig

[jimzinsocal]

Reid and Dodd to tax the bonuses. As Ive been reading a pile of the employees are overseas.
Good luck taxing them on a retention bonus.
And Im sure these employees will feel some moral urge to return the money.
About like I would. When Hell Freezes Over.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

In case you don’t know what a Bill of Attainder is, here is a handy definition from the Free Dictionary:
Bill of attainder

A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime, and punishing them, without benefit of a trial. The United States Constitution forbids both the federal and state governments to enact bills of attainder, in Article 1, Sections 9 and 10, respectively

[AMDScooter]

^^^ Yep. Welcome to the Obama Theater.

I like Rush's latest jab: "Obama's teleprompter told him to say..."

[bk94si]

Is Dodd incompetent, stupid, or both? Or maybe he just thinks we are?

"I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29731643/?GT1=43001

[jimzinsocal]

Ill tell you what I really think. Our elected people are simply out of their element. Why would they understand how business works? Let alone some business as complex as AIG. They dont have a clue.
And Obama is no different.
He seems to feel bonuses are like a gambling payoff at the crap table.
What in his experience suggests he understands how corporations work?
Nothing.
This whole notion that bonuses are some sort of shady deal
is wearing real thin.
Some of these elected goons seem to think anything [except themselves]
earned without breaking your back isnt "real" work.
I also assume some envy around the money.

[jimzinsocal]

While were all wrapped up in the AIG deal? How about this?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/contrib...bailout-money/

[bk94si]

apparently, "follow the money" has never been better advise as to how to get to the bottom of this crap.

[jimzinsocal]

I just found this at CNN I think that explains how these bonuses work.
I think people misunderstand some things

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/1...-owe-you-more/

With that said, let’s get on to the matter at hand: the structure of compensation in the financial services industry. To understand this area, you need to accept that these people earn a TON-precisely because over the past umpteen years, they have been extremely profitable and have been in the business of making what everyone wants: money. Most Wall Street firms started as partnerships, where a bunch of guys took very low salaries, pooled their money, invested it or advised others, and hopefully at the end of the year, there were profits to split-those profits were called bonuses. That structure worked well in its day, but probably stayed in place too long and needs to be updated, but it is still the norm on Wall Street.

Here is an example of how the system works today. “Jennifer” is an employee of ABC Securities. When she was hired, she was told that her “total comp” would be $300,000, comprised of a $100,000 base salary and up to $200,000 of cash and stock “bonus” that is discretionary based on her performance. Jennifer’s bonus was not intended to be subject to the profitability of the firm, because that is not how the deal was structured. Yes, the second part of her pay is discretionary, but in most years, as long as Jennifer performed her job and her business unit did its job, she would earn $300,000. In that sense, the term “bonus” is a misnomer-it should really be called deferred compensation that most employees use to manage their own financial lives. And in fact, many Wall Street employees took large cuts to their total income last year due to the terrible conditions that existed at most firms.

There is a big difference between these discretionary bonuses and the AIG situation. The AIG $165 million represents legacy “bonuses” that the company was contractually obligated to pay. Yes, I know that it seems unfair that we taxpayers are making these payments, but when the government forked over the fist bunch of money to AIG last fall, there were no compensation strings attached. I think that the rationale behind that decision was two-fold: (1) the severity of what we were facing was so acute that some details were simply not covered, and (2) the government was concerned that the new management of AIG be able to retain a core of their best people to help wind down some of the most dangerous aspects of the business. (Remember, this was a mere fraction of the total amount AIG received - the real issue is where did all the rest of the money go, which a totally different conversation.) Without a guarantee, many would have fled the toxic environment and left AIG in an even deeper hole.

This is but one small aspect of the crisis and yet it is so easy to scapegoat “greedy Wall Street” as the cause of all of our financial woes. Focusing on the bonus issues - while playing to the real anger that exists out there - diverts attention from the bigger issues and makes this about class warfare and not about basic good governance and risk controls - whether in the administration and oversight of TARP funds or the regular conduct of AIG’s and other recipients’ business. The more sophisticated approach demands that we assemble the facts and accept that the there is no one person, institution or class of people that is responsible for the mess. We got into this together and we will emerge from it together. So let’s stop shouting and start talking like responsible adults-we owe it to one another.


Good work Jill.^^

[jimzinsocal]

Anyway. Ill back off the thread now. But certainly we know more now than we did the other day.
Pretty obvious to me the Administration has played a political game
by making AIG the focus of our anger about the Economy.
I said strait away I wasnt going to be distracted.
Im still not.
We have learned these bonus payments werent a surprise.
The Treasury Secretary...and I assume the Administration and certainly Chris Dodd were well aware of the payments due.

This is transparency?

This is populist grandstanding at its worst.
Its misdirection. Its all intended to get us to look at one thing [AIG]
while ignoring other stuff.

Like the guy in Swordfish said: Gabriel: Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes.


And via our friends at Sweetness and Light?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/c...attainder-bill

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossa.../attainder.htm


Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

• Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

[jimzinsocal]

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15098

Someone challenging the super-tax shouldn't have any trouble finding evidence that the folks in Congress are interested in punishing AIG's bonus recipients, even setting aside Senator Grassley's call for them to commit suicide. And though there are cases that declare taxes as non-punitive, a 100% (or close to it) tax might be a different thing -- especially with the current Supreme Court. It's not a slam-dunk either way, but the argument that a 100% tax on pretty much anything is punitive seems pretty strong to me.


cross posted at LGF

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/showc/298/6882519

[Dutchcedar]

This outrage by Obama and Congress and NY's AG is too far over the top.

I think we're missing something. There's got to be a part of the story we aren't being told.

Wouldn't it be the logical thing to do for all of these AIG execs to take their bonuses and turn in their resignations? Who in their right mind would want to stay?

I'm thinking that maybe the goal is to let AIG blow up and become a fall guy for something, something big.

[jimzinsocal]

^^I hear you. Im still sniffing. I always sniff to find a trail.

Kudlow.

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...hkNjQ4OGYwNGU=

Note the time stamp 5:23 p.m..

I knew this crap at 7 AM

[AeroSim]

I just found this at CNN I think that explains how these bonuses work.
I think people misunderstand some things

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/1...-owe-you-more/

Good work Jill.^^

I agree. That was probably the best write-up I've read about the situation- and it gives me some clarity & hope that AIG might still have some viability left.

I think it depends on how ruthlessly they deal with the jacka$$es that got them here and how soon they can have the leadership and resolve to stop begging the government to be bailed out every other month.

It almost sounds like there is a core group just below the top with skill that deserves better and should be cut away from the rest.

[3dfxrain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ant7c0N7YxU

[bk94si]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...-aig-handling/

Acknowledging "considerable outrage" about the bonus payments, Geithner said AIG will pay the Treasury an amount equal to the payments, and the Treasury will deduct that amount from the $30 billion in government assistance that will soon go to the company.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, expressed outrage on Capitol Hill about the bonuses, even as they tried to explain a provision included in the $787 economic stimulus package passed by Congress last month that seemed to give AIG a loophole for doling out the bonuses...

...The amendment, meant to restrict executive pay for bailed-out banks, included an exception for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on or before Feb. 11, 2009." This would seem to exempt the AIG bonuses that lawmakers and President Obama are looking to recover.

Oh, yeah, this makes it all better doesn't it. Let's see they still get $170 BILLION minus $165 million. That has to hurt...

I don't see any bonuses disappearing either. They will just pay them out of the other $169.9 BILLION.

[Dutchcedar]

Meh...

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.

http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-...Bonus-from-AIG

The "outrage" performance of our politicians is a joke.