The Running Tally

[Harlowe]

It certainly seems like Dodd is being tossed out to the wolves on this and it sounds like the situation was the opposite.

But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed.

It's pretty interesting to look around and see that there are plenty of articles about Dodd trying to put a cap on this shit and the administration being cautious about doing so.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/polit ... il_fi.html

Dodd defended his plan by saying: "These bonuses are meant to be performance-based, but too often Wall Street executives took too many risks and made decisions for short-term gains, rather than long-term viability. A car mechanic or teacher in Bridgeport, Conn., should not be paying to subsidize bonuses for their bad decisions."

Dodd, for his part, argues that "the current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."

[Embar Angylwrath]

Also, news is starting to surface that the Obama administration is spinning this that they only knew about the retention bonuses only three days before it happened. If they try to float that baloon too long, they'll be ripped apart. Obama is already bleeding goodwill from the citizenry, Dems on the Hill are starting to get nervous and are looking cows before a stampede, the Republicans are ready to pounce on them with a "see, we told ya". He'd be better off by reminding the American population that this isn't a short fix, there will be distasteful episodes like this.

And if he REALLY wanted to turn this around, he could say something like "This is a good example of the culture of greed in this industry, and a strong reminder of why the regulations need to be tightened on the financial sector. Without taxpayer help, it is very likely these people wouldn't be employed by AIG, since AIG in all likelihood wouldn't exist today. We will use this example of naked avarice to remind ourselves of our commitment to this industry's re-regulation."

That would cause CEOs in the financial sector to piss blood for a week.

[Lurker]

Also, news is starting to surface that the Obama administration is spinning this that they only knew about the retention bonuses only three days before it happened.

It's pretty clear that people at the Federal Reserve knew about the bonuses for months. It's not clear if Treasury or the White House knew. Hopefully that information will come to light as people look into this more.

On a bigger issue, I hope the DoJ is investigating AIG for criminal activity as it seems AIGFP was committing fraud against its clients and the parent company.

And if he REALLY wanted to turn this around, he could say something like...

Obama said all that yesterday.

[Trollbait]

Dodd is now admitting that his staff added the amendment that allowed AIG execs to get the bonuses, but he is blaming the Obama administration for "forcing" him to do it.

[Lurker]

Way to not read any of the information in the last few posts!

[Trollbait]

Umm...the last few posts had nothing in them about Dodd denying then admitting his role in enabling the bonuses.....

Harlowe's post was basically a defense of Dodd. I am clarifying by saying Dodd has now admitted his role.

[Lurker]

Ok, the last several posts. You're "Dodd has now admitted his role" clarification is quite funny because it completely misses the point and highlights both where you get your news and why those sources suck so much.

[Trollbait]

and highlights both where you get your news and why those sources suck so much.

Let it be known that Lurker feels that CNN is a bogus source and completely sucks even if the information contained on CNN is a video of an interview.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... says-dodd/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/ ... index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/ ... nnSTCVideo


Unless, of course, you thought I was getting my news somewhere else?

[Lurker]

CNN does usually suck.

Do you think "Dodd did it and is blaming the Obama Administration" accurately describes what really happened?

Come on Jecks, we have an instance of hypocrisy and blame deflection and phony outrage on the part of people in the Obama Administration and you're going to focus on Dodd, who was the one that wanted tougher rules?

[Trollbait]

Dodd is the legislator. The language of an amendment proposed by him is his responsibility, ultimately. "I was bullied into it" is not an excuse.

So he was busted dropping the ball and then admitting that he is a rubber stamp for administration requests.

Presidents and Treasury people come and go. Dodd has been a Senator for a long time and he is allegedly a big boy who can take care of himself. This is his responsibility and he flubbed it.

At the very least he abdicated his check and balance role.

[Lurker]

You're really stretching with the "abdicated his check and balance role" part. They compromised and made the compensation restrictions non-retroactive. I don't think that rises to the level of being a rubber stamp or abdicating duty.

My point is that since Dodd was the one fighting for tougher provisions and people in Treasury were fighting to remove retroactivity, it's a little disingenuous for Treasury to blame Dodd.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Which then begs the begs the question... if Dodd changed it because of outside pressure, where did the pressure come from, and why?

I think Geithner is close to resigning now...

[Trollbait]

My point is that since Dodd was the one fighting for tougher provisions and people in Treasury were fighting to remove retroactivity, it's a little disingenuous for Treasury to blame Dodd.

And that is a valid point...but it is entirely reasonable for the taxpayers to blame them both.

[Harlowe]

I'm not making excuses for Dodd, I'm just saying he certainly didn't deserve to be thrown to the wolves since he was championing having the tougher provisions in there in the first place.

Obama is taking responsibility, but not the blame. I think he needs to step it up on this. If the Feds were pushing to remove it, for the past few months and pressured Dodd into it and Obama only knew about it within the past week, he's not involving himself enough.

Dodd appears to have put up a big fight from what I can see and the Treasury blaming him after they were the ones pressuring him to take it out is pretty skanky & dishonest imo.

[Lurker]

It's important to note that while Dodd's original ammendment would have limited the size of the AIG bonuses it would not have eliminated them entirely. Dodd's rules also only applied to bonuses and not salary or other forms of compensation. The compensation limits that Obama wanted were tougher in a some ways, not as tough in others.

The bottom line is that we need criminal investigations of these companies because it really looks like AIGFP committed fraud.

[Ddrak]

I just want to interject that taxing the bonuses at 90% is pretty funny.

Dd

[Trollbait]

I would be suprised if the 90% tax survived a legal challenge.

The legislation is in effect a "bill of attainder" designed as a punitive action against individuals without trial.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... iclei.html

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

What do they care? They've been shitting on the constitution for years now.

[Ddrak]

I would be suprised if the 90% tax survived a legal challenge.

It would have to wind its way to the USSC and the plaintiffs would get absolute hell for publicity.

It's also debatable whether it's a bill of attainder, after all, how is it really different from any tax increase designed to target segments of the community.

Dd

[Lurker]

I know the pundits are saying it violates both Articles Jecks posted, but I don't see it.

The new tax rate is "uniform throughout the United States". That law is meant to protect prevent regional differences, which does not mean it can't target a specific group of people. We have all sorts of targeted tax cuts and increases in our tax laws.

And it doesn't seem to be a "bill of attainder" as they aren't criminalizing anything.