| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
The AIG Bonuses: A Bit of Perspective
Crossposted at Right Minds
Everybody’s outraged at AIG. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that he was outraged at least thirteen times in his Tuesday briefing. Budget director Peter Orszag thought that the “outrage was visceral.” John Boehner agreed that the situation was “outrageous,” and argued that the American people are “justifiably” outraged too.
President Obama is doing everything he can. He gave Timothy Geithner a vote of confidence, saying that he has “been making all the right moves.” He has promised to try to find a way to get the bonus money back, which sounds hard since AIG depends on the federal government for its survival. And the checks have been cashed, which makes getting the money back even harder.
(Amusingly, Obama nobly said “I’ll take responsibility,” immediately before saying “we didn’t grant those contracts.”)
And nobody in the White House seems to know just how those bonuses were awarded, or when the White House became aware of them. Geithner claims to have learned of the bonuses March 10, and says he informed the president March 12. (The bonuses went out the following day). But the Treasury Department was notified ten days before, meaning that Geithner is either incompetent or lying.
And nobody knows exactly why the bonuses were authorized. Chris Dodd admitted (after initially denying it) to inserting language that allowed the payouts into Obama’s stimulus package. But he claimed to have put it in at the request of the Treasury Department.
So according to Dodd, Geithner and the Treasury are the bad guys here. Geithner says that it’s all Dodd’s fault. Whatever the truth, someone is undeniably guilty of…
(stop reading now if you are easily outraged)
…allowing a corporation to pay its own employees. (Shock!!!) AIG did nothing wrong. Giving out those bonuses was the appropriate thing to do—in fact, it was the only right and moral thing to do. It is possible that Dodd’s amendment sets a dangerous precedent—but in the present instance, the effects were perfectly legitimate. Nobody should be apologizing, and Dodd shouldn’t have had to lie.
As far as I can see, the outrage over the bonuses exists solely because AIG is effectively government owned. Apparently, this fact means that underperforming employees contracts become null and void. These bonuses weren’t spur of the moment, unearned giveaways. They were a part of the contracts of the employees concerned. Those bonuses were planned years in advance. Should the government have forced AIG to break its contract with these people and renege on what it owed them?
But assume that the bonuses weren’t planned; that AIG CEO Edward Liddy had just paid them out as a reward for a job well done. Is even that such a bad thing? There are effective workers in every company, even failing ones like AIG. Should the federal government decide not to compensate them?
Pretend that GM was taken over by the government (that’s not exactly hard to imagine). Would the government ever dream of stopping the company from paying bonuses to its auto workers? Of course not, and anyone who even suggested such a measure would be painted as a hard-hearted villain.
The situations are perfectly analogous. The only difference: the AIG people lived in nice apartments instead of small ones, and wore power suits instead of overalls, and listened to The Arcade Fire instead of Bruce Springsteen.
This kind of class warfare is destructive, and should stop. People who work in an official are not morally inferior to people who work in a factory. Wall Street people earn big bonuses because they are, for the most part, worth it. No corporation failed because of big bonuses. This is class warfare, plain and simple.
Republicans shouldn’t have anything to do with it. They will, of course, because most normal Americans are outraged, and want to see heads roll. With luck, Republicans hope to tarnish the Obama Administration, and do their best to ensure that Chris Dodd’s name is mud. They’ve got a good chance of succeeding—all based on outrage over a “crime” that is no crime at all, but perfectly justified and right.
It shouldn’t have come to this.


Comments
Congress May Win Their Battle and Lose the War
I, too, was outraged at the bonuses when I first heard of them. But after watching Liddy's Congressional testimony tonight, I can only conclude that the outrage is at best a hypocritical charade, and at worst a self-defeating one.
Liddy testified that these were retention bonuses, mostly paid to people in the troubled financial products (FP) division. He described AIG as an insurance company with a hedge fund attached to it, and the key to turning it around and repaying the taxpayer is gracefully closing down the FP business. For that, he has kept some people and brought in others, and paid them these retention bonuses.
After being told repeatedly that he must get the bonus money back, he politely replied that he expected that he would, "along with their letters of resignation."
Anyone like myself, who's been in a management position during an acquisition or a difficult period for a business, knows how difficult it is to keep the right people in place when the company is not performing. AIG is worse than that -- it's a pariah, like Enron.
Now it's clear that the bonuses had been planned a year ago, and that Congress and Geithner knew about it in the fall, supported an amendment to the Stimulus Bill to protect the bonuses, and that Obama has known about it for weeks or month. So me doth think they protest too much.
And in getting the bonus money back, they may -- if Liddy is not bluffing -- find themselves the 79% owners of a company that cannot perform, and either fails outright or becomes a drag on the markets they insure. The bonus money will look small peanuts by then. But this Congress, which has never owned up to its own responsibility (on both sides of the aisle) in creating this mess, will surely find another scape goat.
more than 10% of the people left anyway.
please tell me we can at LEAST get tehir fucking bonuses back?
And these were not PLANNED bonuses. These were bribes for people who saw their money going down the tubes. When you are all in on CDOs, and then you realize that your compensation is actively negative (not sure on that one), well, someone decides to wave a magic fucking fairy wand and make you whole.
that's not happy. that's not good, and that ain't fair.
Get GRAMM to fucking own up to his stupidity and cupidity. The rest were but bit players (not that some don't deserve excoriation and deprivation of their high senate seats, as well)
I'm surprised by your analogy to auto workers
There was in fact much rhetoric all around, but especially from Congressional Republicans, that the auto workers' union would have to make concessions (i.e., give up their existing contract) in exchange for federal assistance to the Big 3. You might recall all the howling about $70/hour auto workers -- I think it was a key talking point in demonizing the union workers during that debacle? And in fact, the union did agree to concessions. IIRC, even the automaker execs are foregoing many things in their compensation packages. Now you have no similar expectations of the AIG traders?
It's hard for a lot of working people to reconcile the talk now about how sacrosanct the traders' contracts are, and how they must be honored no matter how egregious, with the expectations of the auto workers and heck, most everybody else, who face layoffs, furloughs, etc. Especially when these were described as retention bonuses but are in fact being paid to a number of people who are no longer with AIG, which negates the argument they must be paid to retain key and high-performing employees.
Surely there must be a glut of unemployed financial whizzes on Wall Street who could competently wind down the AIG mess, just as it could be argued there is no shortage of people who would gladly work for the automakers even at the reduced contract. The automakers aren't even remotely as government-owned as AIG, yet it was made clear from the start that concessions were expected from their management and the union to receive federal assistance.
Maybe I'm off base, but I'm curious how honoring the AIG contracts differs from honoring the union's, with respect to their status as recipients of taxpayer support?
You're Not Off Base . . .
You just have the nerve to point out the faultline running through American society--namely class.
It is easy to argue that autoworkers need to give up their "generous" packages because manual labor is low status work and the assumption is that anyone doing such work only deserves x amount of salary. Any attempt to get them more is seen as anathema to our capitalist system.
White collar work, particularly finance work, is considered high status and the assumption is that anyone doing such work is inherently possessing of special talents and thus should be compensated accordingly. Contracts for their labor are more import than contracts for autoworkers.
The country finds itself at a crossroads. Wall Street has taken us to edge of collapse within a system they've fought for, namely loose regulation. The question is, once this mess has been cleaned up, do we reset the clock and do it all over again?
The dirty little secret about all of this for anyone who has spent anytime on Wall Street is that honestly, none of these individuals so essential to running of banks, hedge funds, etc. that they cannot be replaced for a fraction of the cost and they know it.
buffett's paid fairly. 100k.
it's a nice wage in Omaha, and he knows it.
White collar work,
Yeah, to hell with the middle class. Let them get the shaft every time. Is it any wonder why we see the republicans abandoning the middle class. Such arrogance.
Just in case you missed it...
Dodd Blames Obama Administration for Bonus Amendment. Does anybody here have any other suspects other than Geithner as the "administration" asking Dodd to insert a provision in last month's $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc's bonuses?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Glenn's gotcher back.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/index.html
Summers and Geithner. Fire summers -- he's an absolute asshole, and doesn't deserve a seat on any fucking council, ever, as he'll try and take over teh whole thing. Neuter Geithner -- we have him for a reason, but it sure as HELL ain't this.
oh, and just as a CITOKATE
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/19/gop/index.html
the republicans bribed by big business said no to any limits on executive compensation.
not that we saw any of this outrage from common republican shills like Ironman, when it would have made some difference. Folks like me who cared about clawbacks ... well, who listens to a fucking progressive?
I figure not all things Republican gotta be bad, just like I know (oh hell do I know!) that not all things democratic are sunshine and roses (universal health care, for all i like it, won't be a happy shiny system. it will work, but it'll be gritty)
Obama made the moronic comment yesterday
about how Republicans are "feigning" outrage now, but didn't want to do anything about executive compensation 1,2 or 3 years ago.
Evidently (and this is truely frightening), he sees no difference between limiting executive pay in the private sector, and limiting executive compensation for companies BAILED OUT BY TAXPAYERS. Big difference. I do not want the government involved in executive pay for companies the government has no stake in. That is a shareholder issue.
But, with his typical topline spin and ignorance of basic business principles, he acts as if the two conversations are the same.
I agree with your comments
I agree with your comments about the danger of equating executive pay limits for companies receiving taxpayer funds with pay limits for companies the government has no stake in.
But I still fail to see the difference between Congressional questioning of the 'excessive' union agreements that they charged brought the Big 3 to their knees, with the AIG situation in which the very employees who orchestrated the massive risks that brought AIG to its knees were holding lucrative contracts.
Both are now being bailed out by taxpayers. Just as AIG instituted its contracts with the traders pre-bailout, the Big 3 had agreed to the union contracts pre-bailout. But in one case (the union) Congress was demanding contract concessions for bailouts and in the other,(AIG) the claim now is that the contracts are sacred because they were executed pre-bailout. The apparent double standard certainly isn't limited to the GOP but I think it may do more harm to the GOP because its representatives were the most vocal in denouncing the union contracts and demanding concessions. Rep. Cantor and Sen. Shelby certainly seemed to imply they knew how much was too much in terms of autoworker compensation.
Do you see an important difference?
Its the fault of congress, Dodd in particular
Congress demanded concessions from the auto unions, but did not bother with due diligence on the AIG bailout. Certainly they could have made voiding bonus compensation a condition of receiving bailout money. But that ship has sailed.The bonus program had been disclosed multiple times over the past year, but the Obama administration was caught unaware. Why?
They coud be incompetent.
OR
They could be corrupt.
There's really no other choice. Obama and Dodd received big campaign bucks from AIG in 2008. Could it be that that is why Dodd inserted the "loophole" allowing the bonuses at the last minute?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000123&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=2008
kos has a TON a metric shitton of quotes
from republican senators about being NOT in favor of limiting executive compensation for companies bailed out by taxpayers.
shh! i'm on your side.
I don't want the gov't involved in executive pay for companies the gov't has no stake in. yes, please, let's remove all corporate tax benefits for 401ks, so that the gov't no longer props up the stock market with the ponzi scam.
then we can let educated people be shareholders, not dumb money.
I love my 401(K)
One of the few things the govermnet has done right in the past 25 years.
Make money on the tax deduction
Make money on the company match
Make money on the interest/dividends tax free
Balanced portfolio is the key.
enjoy your ponzi scheme
I hope you're a millionaire before you retire, as all the financial planners recommend for a decent retirement.
Hope?
Where have I heard that before? :)
I prefer a sound plan. Of course, if the government is intent on taking care of us and making sure that everything is "fair" (people who save will support people who don't), then I will be working for a very long time.
People who are outraged at the AIG bonus situation will sit quitely as Team Obama taxes the hell out of them. The bonuses cost us .50 per person. The Obama stimulous plan costs $37,000 per person. With congress acting today to tax the AIG bonuses, we only have $36,999.50 to recoup!
http://news.aol.com/article/stimulus-could-cost-37000-per-person/327557
But, lets not poop in the Obama punch bowl.
if you're saving in a bank, you're going to get screwed.
buy pot, buy basically anything.
my point is that 401ks are not a sound plan for retirement.(buy and hold is the stupidest idea ever, in terms of investing. NO management of downside. NADA)
I wish you luck, because just like the people who invested with Madoff, it is all about you getting your money out at the right time.
Your money is held hostage, and the boomers aren't getting any younger...
Not Your Point, Mine
You say we couldn't imagine a world where we wouldn't give auto workers bonuses and you couldn't be more wrong. Right as you complain about incompetent business men losing their reward because we'd never do that to a regular laborer, we not only didn't give him his bonus, we are forcing his company to lay him and hundreds others off. I'm sorry, did I miss the news story about the downsizing AIG had to do, or the benifits they had to cut, or the planes they had to give up? When exactly did they force unions to reorganize everyone's contracts? The only reason you can't imagine that world right there is because the government doesn't have the decency to ONLY cut their bonuses.
Double check your history. The government always sides with the rich, to the detriment of the poor.