AIG bonuses
My take in a nutshell: when we (or, more accurately, our elected representatives) decided to purchase a majority stake in AIG, we were taking on all of the contracts that AIG signed. Which includes all of the employment contracts which paid out bonuses to AIG staff. On top of this, our elected representatives explicitly passed a law requiring AIG to pay those bonuses. For members of Congress to get suddenly outraged about things which they legally signed up for and then explicitly dictated take place is the height of idiocy.
No. Those bonuses should be paid. Look, am I happy about my tax dollars paying for them? No. But those tax dollars are not mine any more, they are the Democrats’ tax dollars, to spend as they wish. And just a few weeks ago, they wanted to spend them on bonuses for AIG executives. Signed a law requiring those bonuses to be paid, in fact. Suddenly everyone finds out what the Democrats are doing with their tax dollars and now they’re upset and demand that they “do something”!
What is this, kindergarten? “You can have my apple juice… no wait, I want my apple juice back!”
See also this, this, this, this, and this.
UPDATE: For a credible alternative view, see this.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Related: http://xkcd.com/558/
March 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
“our elected representatives explicitly passed a law requiring AIG to pay those bonuses. For members of Congress to get suddenly outraged about things which they legally signed up for and then explicitly dictated take place is the height of idiocy.”
the height of idiocy would be that the bundle of laws was rushed to a vote without anyone reading it and knowing what it included. At this point there are probably still all sorts of things included in it that no one knows what the effects of will be. Your view seems to be that they voted for it all now we should keep it all. wouldn’t it make more sense to correct some of the crap when they find it with subsequent laws?
March 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’m extremely tempted to say no; to say that it might be a good idea if NO law could possibly be overturned for at least one year after it was enacted. After thinking about it for a few minutes I can see that’s not a good idea either. But dammit, if they’re going to vote on things AND NOT READ THEM then what the FUCK did we elect them for?
And look, Congress owns AIG now. Why can’t the appropriate government agency step in at a shareholders meeting and make it clear this isn’t going to happen again?
As for the bonuses which have already been paid, as far as I’m concerned, that’s tough luck for Democrats, and to try to claw them back is childish and petty. Not a single politician would give two shits about bonuses if they weren’t getting screamed at by their constituents. So everyone is mad at you Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank and Obama? Tough shit, they have every right to be and you should man up and take it, apologize and move on, and knock off this revenge nonsense.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Name a politician that has actually read everything they’ve voted on. can we get rid of all of them that don’t? Please?
Congress can’t go in to a shareholder meeting and demand this or that for several reasons. First the republicans (and some democrats) thought it would be a bad idea (and might very well be right). the shares owned by the US are non-voting. Second remember the contracts for these bonuses are a year old and unless a new law is introduce legally binding, so if you wanted action of that sort on a corporate level you’re complaining about the wrong administration.
As for trying to get the money back for bonuses paid I agree. I say let them keep it. But leave the loop hole there for anyone else to use? If you know where a problem is why on earth would you want to just leave it sitting there? or is it that you prefer the idea of people continuing to be mad the current admin rather than them working on fixing the problem?
“Not a single politician would give two shits about bonuses if they weren’t getting screamed at by their constituents” No shit. Not a single politician cares about anything but their pet projects unless they get told to do otherwise by their constituents. Those screaming constituents are the people that are supposed to be getting represented though right? should they get ignored?