After reading this article on Huffington Post, I’ll have to agree on some of its points. Though I strongly dislike some quarters cooking up a big fuss over the AIG issue for the sake of political points, the issue of transparency and integrity in this case trumps above all else. Someone in Obama’s administration killed a provision in the bailout deal with AIG that explicitly curtailed those bonuses but it was withdrawn. The amendment to curtail it was drawn up by Sen. Wyden.
Building on public outrage and presidential denunciations of executives at bailed out companies getting bonuses, Wyden and his Republican colleague, Sen. Olympia Snowe, crafted a provision in the stimulus bill that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000 (any amount above that would be taxed at 35 percent).
According to Wyden, he “spent hours on the Senate floor,” working to get the bipartisan amendment passed. He succeeded — not a single Senator voted against the provision. “But,” says Wyden, “it died in conference.”
So who killed it? Wyden doesn’t know.
Now it starts to get weird. Who kicked the provision out ? Here in this interview with CNN, Treasury Secretary Geithner claims he only knows the “full scale and scope” of this issue on March 10 and they have explored every possible legal avenue to recoup the money. When pressed about whether he knew about the provision to allow the bonus payments in the bill back in November, his answers are a little dodgy and vague. He keeps hammering that his main concern is whether the legislation can stand up to legal challenge.
Here is current AIG CEO Edward Liddy’s letter to Geithner expressing concern about the government’s demands that could affect AIG’s ability to retain “the best and brightest talent to lead and staff the AIG businesses” if “employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”
Here is National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers about AIG spending hundreds of millions in bailout money on executive bonuses. He’s defending the fact that we need to prop up companies like AIG at all costs because of the ramifications it will have for the national and global economy. The consequences will be disastrous otherwise.
Here is a disclosure by AIG on the counter-parties who have received funds from the bailout money.
Now the argument about consequences will be dire if we don’t prop AIG up smacks somewhat of the excuse used by Bush to plunging the country into war with Iraq. Of course, to be fair, it’s not entirely an apples to oranges comparison. But the underlying point here is the outright honesty, integrity and transparency promised by President Obama when he takes office. That we should not trade basic common sense and conscience for expediency in solving problems. The problems afflicting AIG and the financial system are complex and dire but I don’t believe it is absolutely the worst thing to allow these companies to fail even if the repercussions are very painful. The laws of nature must be allowed to take its course and accountability must be assigned to the right parties. AIG is accountable for their own actions and they will have to fight to survive. But if they know that they cannot be allowed to fail, then they can end up more complacent and recalcitrant. Sometimes it is better to let them go and try and minimize the fallout. I don’t think we should risk trading off the basic values embraced by President Obama for supporting a failing organization out of fear for the consequences otherwise.


