Home › Blogs › Hamandcheese's blog ›

Blaming Dodd and Other Missteps

Submitted by Hamandcheese on Fri, 03/20/2009 - 23:47

 

FactCheck.org released an analysis on Chris Dodd's role in the AIG bonus scandal. They concluded that the conservative scrutiny directed against Dodd recently was based on "getting the facts backwards".

The truth is that Dodd, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was responsible for getting Senate passage of a provision that might have prevented the AIG bonuses. The public record reflects that Dodd championed tougher provisions than the White House or the Treasury Department wanted, and that the Obama administration lobbied for removal of the Dodd language from the stimulus bill that the president eventually signed. Dodd protested at the time, and agreed to the removal of his language only under protest.

In short, Dodd had pushed very hard to have the bonus provisions kept in but due to concerns from the Whitehouse that they "would prompt a wave of banks to return the government's money and forgo future assistance" and "impede lending because smaller banks won’t want to take the bailout money, or won’t keep it for long" they were forced out.

The partisan nature the AIG bonus scandal has taken is dangerous. It is leading us (commentators on the right) to jump at the chance of embarrassing Democrats. Instead, we should slow down and mill over the issues analytically and with sincerity. Otherwise we can be too hasty and end up losing our own face via practically libellous mistakes.

Now, it was still the Obama Admin that bares responsibility, but they made the decision without perfect information and on some fairly reasonable grounds. AIG bonuses are a drop in the bucket both in dollar amounts and in the bigger picture of salvaging the Republican Party. Bigger issues are at play and blogger opportunism that take swipes at the enemy is a close mindedness at a time when the right should be broadening its perspectives

Our obligation is not to attack the left but provide an empirical, reasoned case for the right. The former seems like it's "going on the offensive," but in reality it's mere heckling.

 

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

Dodd? This goes way beyond Dodd.

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 08:26.

Certainly a small amount of money. But the administration chose to use this event to stoke populist outrage instead of cowboying up to their mistake. If they had simply said "we overlooked this provision, but it is a very small amount of money and we've closed all of the loopholes going forward", I think this would have died. But, Obama said he doesn't want to "quell anger, he wants to channel it"-presumably away from himself.

So this is about holding the administration accountable. Period.

Dodd flip flopped on his story and his defense is he caved when pressured by the administation. The fact that he's had a lot of "little" ethical problems that are building a backlash in his home state should set your radar off, but that's up to you. Who Chris? Who  told you to insert that language into the bill? Barney Frank wants the names of AIG bonus recipients, but doesn't give a tinker's damn about finding out how this poor legislation came to be or who pressured who for special consideration. The administration says . . .nothing. They didn't know about any of this bonus stuff, but they certainly weren't blindsided by it. Huh?

If you are satisfied with these answers, fine. But I a m a naturally curious person.

I think we have a right to know:

-Who pressured Dodd to change the language of the bill.

-What Geitner knew about the bonuses and when he knew it.

-What Obama knew about the bonuses and when he knew it.

-What the Fed knew about the bonuses and when they knew it.

-Why Barney Frank wants the names of individuals receiving AIG bonuses and what he intends to do with those names.

-Why the administration forced this bill through without reading it (regardless of who wrote it, it was all right there in the bill).

-Why doesn't Barney Frank look at AIG's SEC filings to see if more suprises are on the way? Could it be because there wouldn't be a camera, and that would be a lot of hard work?

-What will the next "suprise" be?

See, the point is, the administration is probably working overtime now to make sure this doesn't happen again. They don't want  to have to look incompetent or corrupt again. That is good for all of us.

They need to understand accountability. Accepting incongruous answers and spin will not make them more accountable, will it?

Hmm, Obama's NOT on the ballot in 2010

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 09:08.

Dodd is.

Defeating the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee would send a much more powerful message about the bankruptcy of crony capitalism and bailou-t-anomics than a gigabit of net postings about "holding the Obama administration accountable".

Jesse Jackson once said there were lots of politicians who couldn;t read or write, but they all could count. 

Besides, why shouldn't Republicans call Dodd the "lying weasel" that he is ?

Agreed Irornman

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 11:22.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic that Dodd is already toast.

Agree with you totally. Just making the point that the overalll controversy is not insignificant and Obama has handled it poorly. He sought to "not quell public anger, but to channel it" and couldn't foresee the likely results:

 From today's WSJ-

The White House has yet to publicly criticize the bonus tax proposals. But administration officials say privately they are concerned the House and Senate bills could lead to an exodus of employees or whole companies from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP, as well as other government-sponsored financial rescue efforts.

Are they "suprised" that after fanning public anger and villifying the financial sector that they could see a reluctance to go along with Obama's "partnernship" plans and a brain drain from the industry?

Meanwhile, Obama aides are focusing on recrafting the Senate bill so, at the least, it won't discourage firms from participating in a separate federal effort to unlock credit markets -- a consumer-lending program known as the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF. They also fear scaring off investment firms they need to help in a future public-private partnership to purchase from banks mortgage-backed securities and other toxic assets.

This is why I don't agree that this is an insignificant issue. This is a micocasm of what is to come with "the adults in charge".

Mark Steyn's latest peice for

Submitted by Hamandcheese on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 09:31.

Mark Steyn's latest peice for the National Review hints at what I'm getting at: 

"We’re looking for primal, righteous anger: You’re outraged, OUTRAGED that bonuses are being handed out at companies the American taxpayer is bailing out. ,,, As Charles Krauthammer pointed out, the $165 million in bonuses is less than 1/18,500 of the $3.1 trillion budget. The massive expansion of government the president is planning is forever, and will ensure you that end your days in what Peggy Noonan calls “post-prosperity America.” More immediately, what message do you send to the world when legal contracts can be abrogated by retrospective confiscatory bills of attainder? You think that’s going to get anyone investing in America again?"

A) The outrage this "scandal" is causing is hilariously overblown

B) Conservatives and Liberals alike are fuming at a tinsy tiny dollar ammount

C) Perhaps it was a good idea afterall to let them keep their contracts

D) So instead of crying about a tinsy issue that isn't actually an issue why aren't we instead putting all our resources into an attack on the more substantive issues with the Obama admin. Steyn's example: The massive expansion of government.

Yes, We are attacking Obama for that, but these week long controversies are stupid in my opinion, and distract from our long term ends.

Don't agree

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 09:39.

Hasn't this controversy strenghtened the argument that the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing failing firms in general?

I know Steyn is looking "big picture",. but remember. Al Capone went to the slammer on tax evasion and Son of Sam was busted for a parking ticket.

Someone on another thread said the Republicans are losing because we are not the "loudest voices in the cafeteria". Isn;t this a chance to pick up the damm megaphone? 

Right now we have the

Submitted by Hamandcheese on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 11:43.

Right now we have the megaphone, but as long as our tatic is to heckle, like I said in my post, instead of being on the true offence, people will look at us with annoyed disdane. Right now we are in opposition. It's admittedly more fun than being in power because we're not on the defensive so much. But with this golden opportunity instead of putting forth our own ideas we're disparaging the democrat's. We're playing into their plan as their sucessful "Party of No" campaign has proved. The best this strategy will do is get us a news cycle or two.

Bailouts=Iraq

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 12:02.

We didn't lose in '06 and '08 because the other guys made a calm rational case for different policies on the McNeil-Lehrer news hour.  Yes it was the politics of "no'.  This wasn't "winning the news cycle" ; it was eroding the rationale behind the governing party .

Worked.

If Obama: a) raises expectations for improvement and b) riles up an angry mob;. well, it's just too bad if we sic the mob back on him when his policies don't do what they were supposed to.

BTW. I notice the word "offence". With all due respect, maybe you'd best advise David Cameron or Stephen Harper on what to do. I think I might have a better sense of CT politics than you do., ya think?

 

You've got a keen eye. Yes

Submitted by Hamandcheese on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 22:33.

You've got a keen eye. Yes I'm Canadian. So is David Frum and I think he's been more right in the past two years than almost anyone. Nationality isn't important right now though. The debate we're having we'll have to be one where we agree to disagree as these kind of strategic discussions aren't concrete enough to prove with pure reason. We'll just have to wait and see.