TPMDC
« Dem Chairwoman: Let's Tax AIG Bonuses at 100% | Home | Senate GOPers Cite Bush v. Gore For Possible Coleman Win »

TPMDC Morning Roundup

Biden: Obama Inheriting Tougher Problems Than FDR Faced
Speaking last night at a DNC event, Vice President Biden said: "This president has inherited the most difficult first 100 days of any president I would argue including Franklin Roosevelt - let me explain what I mean by that. It was clear the problem Roosevelt inherited. This is a more complicated economic [problem]. We've never ever been here before - here or in the world. Never ever been here before."

Obama's Day Ahead: The Budget, Defense, And St. Patrick's Day
President Obama and Vice President Biden are meeting at 9:20 a.m. ET with with Senate Budge Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-SC). At 9:40 a.m. he will give a statement to the press. At 10:50 a.m. Obama and Biden will meet with the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland Brian Cowen. At 11:35 a.m. the three of them will attend the Shamrock Ceremony, at 11:45 a.m. Obama will meet with officials from Northern Ireland, and at 12:30 p.m. ET the president will speak at Nancy Pelosi's St. Patrick's Day Lunch. At 4:30 p.m. ET, Obama will meet with Robert Gates. And Obama will attend St. Patrick's Day receptions at 7:45 p.m. ET and 8:10 p.m. ET.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will be attending Obama's various meetings mentioned above. He will also be meeting in the afternoon with Treasury Secretary Geithner and White House Economic Advisory Larry Summers, to discuss financial institutions.

WaPo: AIG Bonuses A Threat To Obama's Political Capital
The Washington Post warns this morning that the AIG bonuses pose a serious danger to President Obama's political standing: "President Obama's apparent inability to block executive bonuses at insurance giant AIG has dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda."

Poll: More Americans Fear Return Of Great Depression
A new CNN poll finds that 45% of Americans think another Great Depression will likely occur in the next year, compared to 38% who thought so this past December. The poll described the conditions of the Great Depression to respondents -- and a good number of them thought that situation was on its way back.

NYT: Obama To Make Appeals Court Appointment
The New York Times reports that President Obama is poised to make his first appointment to a federal appeals court, picking federal trial court Judge David Hamilton of Indiana for the appeals court based in Chicago. Hamilton is a former counsel to Evan Bayh, and nephew of Lee Hamilton, and will have the support of both Bayh and GOP Senator Dick Lugar.

CQ: Obama Administration Begins Outreach To Evangelical Groups
CQ reports that Joshua DuBois, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, will hold a meeting today with representatives of the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America and other evangelical groups, part of the White House's outreach to conservative Christian groups.


38 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Obama's going to lose political capital because he might not be able to stop AIG from paying bonuses to its incompetent executives? According to who? I think most people blame that on AIG.

No, if Obama fails to pass comprehensive health care reform, THEN we can talk about losing political capital.

user-pic

I think it's possible Obama loses cred. He does already - the captains of finance told him, f* off, little boy.

Question is, does he give them the bitchslap, or do they get away with it?

user-pic

I think he knows that his credibility is on the line here and that he has to find a way to make his demands stick. The 100% tax on bonuses at bailed-out companies seems like one plausible avenue.

I hope this contretemps teaches him to give Geithner a lot more adult supervision.

user-pic

How is this 100% tax rate plausible when it's not even clear that the people receiving these bonuses are in the US?

user-pic

The majority of these people actually are not US residents/citizens and pay taxes in the UK. But when you're in the middle of a good angry mob fantasy, details don't matter.

user-pic

I'd say it's even worse then: they're using our money to pay foreigners a bonus?

That'll go over well.

user-pic

Which is why we should just make AIG give the money back to the government. Trying to go after the employees is just stupid.

user-pic

Looks like I made the mistake of paying attention to our Congresscritters, then. I should know better!

user-pic

We could always take the bonuses out of the 30 additional billion we've promised them 30B-165M~30B. (sigh)

On a positive note, abc's reporting that if AIG hadn't paid the 165M, they would have been sued for 330M. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7097759&page=1

user-pic
We could always take the bonuses out of the 30 additional billion we've promised them 30B-165M~30B. (sigh)

I believe they are in fact planning to do that, along with FINALLY writing contractual language for future installments of the bailout (sigh, indeed) to prevent this from happening again in the future.

user-pic

But President Obama needs to set these governors straight who want to use part of the stimulus money for state debt relief. As "Avatar.." said, he might loose his credibility if it as seen that he could've prevented the distribution of AIG bonuses.
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/03/more-rejected-stimulus-funds-.html

user-pic

More Bad Signs for Newpapers -- Even 'End Times Weekly' to End Publication
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=6398

user-pic

The fact that the GOP is coming out against the bonuses tells me that Obama can't stop them. They see political points to be scored...

user-pic

Or maybe they just think bailed-out companies shouldn't be paying bonuses to employees who fucked up so badly?

user-pic

Nah - the GOP is pure political right now. If these bonuses could be easily clawed back, they would be screaming about the sanctity of contracts as the underpinning of the American way of life, wealth redistribution, yaddda ... yaddda.

user-pic

Exactly right.

And they'll use it to paint Obama as unable to control those greedy executives, bankers, etc.

Everyone is screaming about bonuses and Tim Geithner, and that'll get transferred to Obama, regardless of reality.

The Times had an excellent column today about whether we really want the government to go down the road of breaking legal contracts.

“This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents,” he said. “It’s about our fundamental values.”

On that last issue, lawyers, Wall Street types and compensation consultants agree with the president. But from their point of view, the “fundamental value” in question here is the sanctity of contracts.

That may strike many people as a bit of convenient legalese, but maybe there is something to it. If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.

As much as we might want to void those A.I.G. pay contracts, Pearl Meyer, a compensation consultant at Steven Hall & Partners, says it would put American business on a worse slippery slope than it already is. Business agreements of other companies that have taken taxpayer money might fall into question. Even companies that have not turned to Washington might seize the opportunity to break inconvenient contracts.

The case for paying the AIG bonuses


user-pic

So let me get this straight the AIG bonus scandal is Obama’s fault when the contracts where signed in 2007. The American people are smarter the fake controversies the jackass media is peddling. NEWS HEADLINE Katrina is Obama's fault

user-pic

The bonuses are going to English employees. How are we going to tax them exactly?

user-pic

Gordon Brown will get the money and give it to us?

Isn't this a moot point? I mean, the bonuses were contractual; they've been paid. They were idiotic, but to try and get the money back and make a huge bruhaha about it just seems crazy. It'll go the way of Burris, a lot of stink for no gain. Just flailing and yammering (I'm pretty young, but I love that word: yammering)

What needs to be done is to either deny AIG any more money, or require that for them to get any more money that they let the government step in. Yeah, Obama's scared of that word "nationalization", but fuck, this debacle is what happens when you don't require accountability. We need our people in there, going through the books, and seeing what can be salvaged.

user-pic

Snobama's losing credibility fast with those what brung him. You hire the same old shit you get the same old results.

Change we were deceived in ...

user-pic

Snobama? What kind of pejorative name is that supposed to be?

user-pic

It's used quite frequently on Politico and NoQuarter.

user-pic

"Sno" is short for "snow job," i.e., Obama is a huckster.

user-pic

I always thought it was for "Snob"ama i.e. he's an elitist snob.

user-pic

Unlike Republican ditto heads, and the apparently many Obama ditto heads, I hold my leaders to account. Obama is NOT governing as he campaigned. I became suspicious when this so-called "Constitutional Lawyer" voted for Get-out-of-jail FISA card.

Seems SO EASY to break union contracts, but not executive contracts? Please.

You don't effect change through compromise. You certainly don't effect change with retread government officials.

And Snobama was for snow job, not snob. I'll take intellectual "snobbery" over redneck slobbery any day.

user-pic

Show me where the government "broke" union contracts.

user-pic

Here's where your "argument" breaks down.

1. You mention FISA as an example of how Obama isn't governing as he campaigned. Yet, FISA was during the campaign.

2. The government didn't "break" the union contracts. The unions agreed to re-negotiate their contracts because they knew it was their only chance to get help from the government. A third-party (the government) can not break (or even renegoiate) a contract to which it was not a party.

3. Obama has kept more of his campaign promises in two months than most presidents kept in four years.

4. If you were "snowed" don't blame Obama. Blame yourself for being gullible.

No soup for you! NEXT!

user-pic

Bailout money from the Fed and the contract bonuses both predate the Obama presidency.

Ah, but don't let facts confuse your dittohead.

user-pic

Signing statement. Seems like you can use them for anything. Bush did, and Obama seems happy to continue the practice.

By the way, as a "Constitutional Lawyer" I wonder where in the Constitution Obama finds signing statements?

user-pic

He's used one.

And while you may be willing to swallow Charles Grassley's talking points about the signing statement, I'm not.

If the President (whether Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II or Obama) think that there is something unconstitutional in the typical giant bills they're signing, they have a responsibility to point that out, because they swore to uphold the Constitution. You want them to sign unconstitutional bills?

It's not signing statements per se that is a problem, it's the abuse of them to extend executive power.

And law experts have said that the signing statement that Obama attached to the emergency spending bill wasn't a problem.

user-pic

Actually, no. Constitutionality is the SOLE domain of the Courts. Separation of powers, don't you know.

user-pic

LOL! Determining what is constituational belongs to the courts. Keeping within the bounds of the constitution belongs to every memeber of the government.

Signing statements have been used for hundreds of years. The problem was that Bush used signing statements to change or modify the central tenets of the bills he signed.

'Splain please: How would Obama have attached a signing statement to a bill he never signed in the first place?

user-pic

It's the sole domain of the courts?

Then why is every Congressional member and every member of the Administration asked to pledge to uphold the constitution?

user-pic

Speaking as a government attorney, the comment that determining the constitutionality of a law to be executed is wholly, patently, and absurdly wrong.

user-pic

Cranial says:

By the way, as a "Constitutional Lawyer" I wonder where in the Constitution Obama finds signing statements?


Signing statements per se aren't unconstitutional, actions that follow a signing statement may or may not be Constitutional.

By the way, not everything that is Constitutional is enumerated in the Constitution.

user-pic

Well, this is change we can believe in. Gates is cutting major weapons programs, including the f-22. Also, he points out that the us navy is larger than the next 13 navies, combined, 11 of which are allies. Look out aircraft carriers. Now maybe we will finally get some sanity in our defense expenditures.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/17/gates_readies_big_cuts_in_weapons/?s_campaign=8315

Awesome article. And people were bitching about obama keeping gates on? Nobody he appointed would be able to pull this one off. The only one who could would be gates.

user-pic

Yup. Read that. Gates really gives Obama the cover to cut down on the excess DoD spending.

user-pic

Yeah, happy St. Pat's day. Can't you hear the tune that is making all the snakes begin their crawl into the sea???

"...that refusing to pay these bonuses could constitute a "default event" that would leave the US taxpayer on the line for as much as hundreds of billions of dollars..."

What you are not mentioning and neither is anyone else is that the contracts agreeing to pay these bonuses for certain accomplishments are now void as these goals were fraudently meant, done under a guise that nearly destroyed our entire economy. None of these contracts are valid as far as compensation bonuses are concerned because of the deception and fraud these activities involved. Once the bail out procedure began it took priority over previous contract agreements because of the crisis created and the emergency measures necessary to correct the emergency situation caused by business activities.

AIG got hit by a 9/11 scenario...it was an inside job and all bonuses got "pulled" once the bail out began.

Seizing assets is the only way to proceed. Taxes will not recover enough and many of these "execs" will flee or hide their money. STOP PAYMENT now.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio


Latest Videos




Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address