AIG outrage[s] of the day
There’s an awful lot of outrage going around.
The American people are outraged that their hard-earned money has been taken from their pockets and doled out by Congress and the administrations (Bush’s first, and now especially Obama’s) with virtually no oversight as to who gets what, or why.
Congress is outraged at the very people they failed to police, but not of course at themselves or members of their own parties (funny how that works) for that sin of omission.
Obama is outraged at the handouts that he knew about earlier (see this and also this) but failed to be outraged about (got that?). Perhaps he’s really outraged at Geithner for appearing to be a pallid, clueless milquetoast, or at Summers for not sounding outraged enough when Summers pronounced the AIG bonuses “outrageous” but added there was nothing legal to be done to stop them.
Larry Kudlow swallows his outrage long enough to ask this very pertinent question:
Incidentally, has anybody asked Team Obama why it is more than willing to break mortgage contracts with a bankruptcy-judge cram-down, but won’t cram-down compensation agreements for AIG, despite the fact that the U.S. government owns the company? Kind of odd, don’t you think?
Tim Rutten of the LA Times is outraged about the same thing.
Kudlow thinks Geithner cannot survive this. I’m inclined to agree. One of the reasons for my opinion is that I spent a goodly part of last evening visiting a couple of the major blogs on the Left and looking at their comments sections.
The general trend was to blame Geithner and Summers. Hardly a word was said about Obama himself; the sense I got was that the commenters agreed with Maureen Dowd that Obama is being ill-served by his financial appointees (the few he’s made so far, that is; perhaps that’s why he’s been so slow in appointing the rest).
Those who remain Obamaphiles (a dwindling crew, perhaps?) are outraged at the whole situation but so far find it easier to castigate Summers (who was disliked by the Left even before he took the job) and Geithner, who has been a bipartisan public relations disaster, than to point the finger directly at Obama himself.
Obama should have a sign at his desk that says “The Buck Stops Anywhere But Here.” Or perhaps “The Dog Ate My Homework.”
[ADDENDUM: On watching just a few minutes of members of the Congressional committee grilling AIG head Liddy, I’m outraged at the outrage of many of the questioners. Some who are now so very outraged at the relatively piddly $165 million in AIG bonuses want us to forget the trillion-dollar outrage of the pork-laden stimulus package that many of them voted for plus the enormous proposed budget that many of them still support. (Here’s a list of committee members.)
And some of them (the cable networks are very bad at identifying who’s speaking, so it’s difficult to say who’s who at this point) are fuming at Liddy for moves made long before he came out of retirement to try to clean up the mess. This sort of grandstanding and self-aggrandizing puffery is what we’ve come to expect of members of Congress, especially in televised hearings that give them the opportunity to show how tough they are.]
“Ach, if only the Fuehrer knew!”
“…Or perhaps ‘The Dog Ate My Homework.'”
I checked, and he can’t use that one yet. The dog isn’t there until after the girls’ vacation next month. But it’s coming soon to an Oval Office desk near you!
Neo, that last paragraph pretty much sums up my estimation of his presidency thus far – it’s always someone else’s fault.
It obviously worked for him throughout his life, so why would he change his modus operandi now?
Oh yeah, he’s supposed to be the leader of the frickin free world now – that’s why!
At any rate, is it too early to suggest he lacks “gravitas” in handling these gaffes in the manner he has – and even going on a late night comedy show this week?
Perhaps he’s already looking for his next gig after he implodes the Oval Office…..Leno better watch out, no way can he compete with the jokes running the White House right now!
After all of this, everybody is looking for my opinion 🙂 ok maybe not everybody.
President Obama is the most powerful man in the world. Congress is the most powerful legislative branch in the world.
The amount of time and focus these two entities are spending on AIG (such micromanagement) in the public discourse is amazing.
Dear President Obama and Congress,
Just DO what you want to DO. The SHOW of anger and outrage is belittling your offices.
You chose NOT to do what you want to do with respect to earmarks and you Obama slipped into action and took weapons away from our pilots
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama_quietly_ends_the_armed_pilot_program/
You guys look ridiculous.
And see this for perspective. It’s all on Democrats.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/03/17/remember-the-gop-got-savaged-for-voting-against-the-bailout/
A couple of things
The bonuses are contractual and any attempt to recoup them will just end up costing more money. I find it laughable that guys like Schumer are screaming about these bonuses (165 Mil) when he said this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJsxLvLdxo
about the several billion in “pork” in the stimulus bill.
This is theater pure and simple to “entertain” the masses (we should have gotten a clue from the Coliseum-like look of Obama’s acceptance speech stage) while the elite dine on squab eyelashes and hummingbird eggs before making their way to the vomitorium (and yes I know that a vomitorium was actually a passageway but I like the vision of the “throw up” room in the common misconception) before coming back to binge again at the trough filled by the taxpayers.
Of course we have not heard a word about this “dirty little secret”
WASHINGTON (AP) – Fannie Mae is planning to pay retention bonuses of as much as $611,000 each to several top executives of the government-controlled mortgage finance titan. Sibling company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards.
Fannie Mae disclosed in a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it’s planning bonuses of $470,000 to $611,000 for four top executives, on top of their base salaries this year.
Freddie Mac has a similar retention plan in place, but has yet to disclose how much money top executives are in line to receive.
Both companies were seized by federal regulators last fall. Fannie has requested $15.2 billion in government aid, while Freddie has asked for nearly $31 billion in additional aid on top of the $13.8 billion it received last year.
Hey why not – they got the ball rolling.
baklava, what they want to do is to appear to be doing the right thing. All this Sturm and Drang isn’t beside the point, it is the point. Having read your many perceptive comments in the past, I am sure you knew this, and it just slipped your mind for the moment.
The Dog Ate My Homework President. Oh, that is such a keeper. I have to find that mock-Obama poster site that you can put your own words under and enter Dog. Homework.
I want to assign blame in this whole mess, but am having a difficult time doing it. Obama says it’s not HIS fault, although he’s going to do us a favor and fix it. I thought then maybe it’s the fault of the fools (i.e. Democrats) in Congress who showered money on AIG without restrictions and apparently without knowing of AIG’s contractual obligations to employees re bonuses, but the Fools say they are “outraged” and are going to fix it, too. OK. Then I thought maybe it was all the fault of some Obama appointee, but The One says nobody in his administration is to blame. So, that’s not it. Ah Ha, I thought, it’s the fault of those greedy, capitalist s.o.b.’s at AIG, but the AIG CEO now says he’s also “agog” and is asking AIG employees to give back half of their bonuses over $100,000 (OK, so he’s only half “agog”) and, according to him, folks are lining up to do it. So, the AIG folks don’t seem to be at fault. Well, then, I thought, maybe it’s the fault of the common law for ever devising something as wicked as “contractual obligations” to defend such outrageous acts, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with government knowledge, are preparing to hand out bonuses under their contractual obligations, so the common law on contracts doesn’t seem to be at fault either. So….that leads me back to Obama, but he already said it ain’t HIS fault. And I know for sure that it isn’t MY fault! But…but…but…I know! If I just click my heels together three times and wish really, really hard, all of this will go away and the voices in my head will have to find a new topic of conversation! Here goes – Click! Click!…….
Don Janousek: I think maybe it’s the fault of the Zionist lobby. Everything else is, right? Just ask Charles Freeman.
My own reading of left blogs and commenters find that few can wrap their brains around blaming Barack. He remains a pristine and pure Messiah.
Some are hoping Barack is a secret tactical genius whose deep behind the scenes maneuverings are not yet visible to the public eye. Barack is playing chess, you see. He is thinking 37 moves ahead.
Some point to Barack’s virtue vs. Washington D.C.’s lack of same. No wonder Barack cannot find appointees: all candidates are compromised by the cesspool. It’s not Barack’s fault, at all! Forgive those appointee candidates, Father, for they know not what enhanced interrogation they have supported in the past.
Did Barack lie about Caterpillar saying they would rehire if Barack’s stimulus passed? Of course not! The lesson is Barack must be more aware that dishonest Corporate Executives might lie to him.
Here’s a left blogger: I’d prefer to judge the job that Obama has done after time has passed to see what effect he’s had. But am I alone in saying that I have a bad feeling about this administration?
Here’s a comment on that: “Wow, you actually said that. That takes some stones.” Call me a dewy-eyed optimist, but I’ve chalked much of this up to naivete – although he and his administration appear to be learning pretty fast….
Another commenter:
I think my main concern at this moment is not so much that Obama is breaking promises (although he does seem to be, especially in the areas of civil liberties and human rights) or that he doesn’t know what he’s doing in a strict policy sense, as it is that he doesn’t seem to be managing things well. I think that he was far, far too naive about Republican good faith and basic willingness to cooperate [….]
On the other hand….
Is there a president in recent American history, if in all of American history, who has had as much on his plate as Obama?
[…]
I don’t think any president in our history when he first took office has been up against what Obama is up against at the start of his presidency.
AVI,
I knew that. Being funny.
gcotharn et al
Again I find something else laughable. The comment you cited where they say
“he doesn’t seem to be managing things well”
well, DUH. All the evidence was out there that this guy had no “managerial” experience whatsoever. (Oh I forgot he was president of the Harvard Law Review – my bad) So why should it surprise them – Obama is the consummate campaigner, but that is all he is – there is nothing else in his arsenal. When the question (in a very limited way) did come up in the campaign all the MSM must have breathed a sigh of relief when Palin was picked. There was their answer
“With the nomination of Palin the issue of experience is off the table” and people bought that???
It’s not wonder that only a couple of people have ever been elected to the presidency directly from congress.
I vote for “the dog ate my homework.”
( Dog: also used as a form of address.)
gcotharn observes that lefties think “Barack is playing chess, you see. He is thinking 37 moves ahead.”
My concern is that he’s thinking 37 years back… to 1972.
Yeah, but Rutten turned his opposition into a push for the Employee Free Choice Act, so he’s just a mini-micro turncoat. Thanks for the link!
Neo-neocon: Of course! How could I be so blind! (slapping forehead!) The Jews! Obviously, this is going to take some investigating, because they surely must have had help from the Masons, the Illuminati, the Rosicrucians, that Skull & Bones cell at Yale and lots of black helicopters to carry the loot back and forth. Let me re-read my well-thumbed copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I’m sure there must be some coded language in there regarding “AIG” (“American Inter-Zionist Government,” perhaps?) and the planned take-over by the Israelites! Thanks for the tip! Will get back at ya before I have to take my nightly meds.
Great post, Neo. The hypocrisy doth runneth wide and deep.
But wait, the AIG execs are striking back. I got quite a chuckle out of this:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/03/aig-execs-demand-senators-resign-or.html
its magicians game..
its meangingless and they are disracting us from the real important things..
like the fact that people with the wrong bumper stickers are now potential terrorists and enemies of the state. [and if you think that is the only profile paper and target dobument, your wrong… better hope they didnt already decide your fate for talking here… ]
if ya got em, use em… for soon you wont
commenters agreed with Maureen Dowd that Obama is being ill-served by his financial appointees
Ill-served? that’s one way of putting it.
And yet, Obama is neither incompetent or inexperienced when he appoints such chowderheads to their respective posts. One wonders how many others are chowderheads, and if they should be downsized.
Dr. Chu, head of the Dept. of Energy managed to tick off the Chinese (and presumably other governments) by proposing carbon tariff trade wars.
One of these days, the Chinese are gonna say We’re not buying any of your debt. In fact, we’re going to start unloading our current holdings to sink you even faster. Then after your government crashes and burns, we’ll swoop in and pick up the pieces for $0.01 on the dollar.
A sitting President of the United States is “organizing a political organization loyal to him, bound by a pledge, outside the government and existing party apparatus. The historical precedents are ominous.”
Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.
Does anyone know of any historical precedents for this in the United States?
Did Mitch Stewart, youthful director of OFA, who asks Obama’s acolytes to organize “neighborhood by neighborhood” study anything at school about Mao’s “Red Guards?
How about Fidel Castro’s “widespread system of neighborhood informers”?
Or Hugo Chavez’s use of “neighborhood committees”?
Did Stewart learn anything about democracy at all?
Do any of Obama’s pledged servants understand why a sitting president has no business creating and deploying his own supporters to help organize their neighbors?
Keep in mind that these acolytes have renounced any thought of questioning the actual policies of the maximum leader. Whatever he says, they are for it. They have given their word.
And they are coming to have a talk with you.
As Thomas Lifson wrote, “This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.”
I saw a list of political contributions AIG has made in the last year. I could be a little more outraged at AIG if those politicos would return those contributions before pointing their finger at the AIG execs.
“I don’t think any president in our history when he first took office has been up against what Obama is up against at the start of his presidency.”
Heh, that lefty commenter obviously never heard of Truman or FDR for that matter. I’m sure there are others, but what a ignoramus to make such a statement.
I just want to point out that the one Rep. who actually tried to ask meaningful questions was Tom Campbell (R) California. He at least has a background in business (having previously been an owner of several car dealerships). The rest, (D) or (R) were doing pure grandstanding of the worst kind.
douglas — Thank you.
Truman, FDR, … or how about Lincoln or George Washington?
I’d switch it around — I don’t think our nation in its history has ever been up against a president as inexperienced, as unaccomplished, as narcissistic, as far to the left, or as incompetent as Obama.
I am told that AIG’s bailout bill, voted by Congress, signed by Obama, evidently read by nobody, REQUIRED the payment of all of its contracts through some date in Feb. 2009, including, supposedly, the employment/bonus contracts. Does anyone know if it’s true?
What I saw reported last evening threw a chill down my spine. To guard against future excesses like the AIG bonus scandal, Pres BHO is proposing a huge federal agency to “oversee” the banking, mortgage and insurance industries. I think his outrage is fake. He knew exactly what he was doing when he overlooked the payments, allowing populist rage to be fanned by his lapdogs in the MSM, and the “solution” is a government run economy. He’s crazy, but he ain’t stupid!
At first blush, promising these retention bonuses in the first place appears to have been an unsound business decision.
But as I reflect on it, what would have been the risks to AIG of letting the trading team leave for hedge funds who are looking for a chance to pick up deeply discounted assets (i.e. AIG’s assets)? How would you manage a book that size (enormous and highly complex) with a completely new team? How would you compensate them for managing what would only be losses and liquidation (traders get performance bonuses out of profits)? What would be the risk of AIG getting skinned much, much worse under that scenario?
Hmmm. Maybe not as bad a decision as it appears at first. People are missing the competitive aspects of the labor market and the potential for an even greater downside. You could look at it as a kind of insurance premium against the most catastrophic results. Ironically for AIG, it is yet another insurance policy that didn’t work out the way they planned.
On selective, confiscatory taxation: I believe that a lot of the bonuses are going to employees of a London-based unit. Unless they are U.S. citizens or green card holders, the arm of the IRS won’t reach them. More grandstanding from idiot politicians.
Other presidents who have inherited more troubles? Oh, I don’t know. Nixon? Reagan? Eisenhower?
Adams…Jefferson…Pierce…Jackson…both Johnsons…yeah, hardly anyone.