TPMDC
« Steele: The Supposed Global Warming Is Part Of The Global Cooling Process | Home | Poll: No, Obama Isn't Doing Too Much »

Dem Congressman on AIG: 'One of Those Times We Have to Amputate'

I just spoke with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), a freshman on the House Financial Services Committee who's become a fast-rising star thanks to his tenacious advocacy for transparency in bailout lending by the Federal Reserve.

Grayson joined fellow Democrats as well as Republicans in blasting AIG for its refusal to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus payments. He painted the government's choice as a stark one, using the metaphor of treating a wound versus amputating a limb.

"It's not clear to me at all that we're taking the correct approach by allowing AIG to continue to operate, regardless of who owns it," Grayson told me. "At this point, ownership is becoming an amorphous concern when comes to a company that borrows millions and millions without any prospect of paying it back. ... Do we continue to allow the bleeding or not?"

Converting AIG from a ward of the state in all but name to an outright arm of the government would be a politically controversial move, given the level of apprehension in Washington over calls to nationalize failing banks.

But Grayson views the dilemma facing lawmakers as a common-sense decision: AIG executives who made more than a million dollars while running the company into the ground should immediately be fired. "The people who caused the problem are not going to be able to solve it," he said.

Asked if the Obama administration understands the need for swift and meaningful action to reclaim AIG's bonus payments, Grayson's answer was an unequivocal yes. President Obama "didn't come out and talk about soybean price supports," the Florida congressman quipped, referencing the White House's remarks today on AIG.

Grayson's perspective echoes what I've heard from Democratic aides on the Hill, who continue to view Congress and the administration as on the same page in pushing for prompt pushback against AIG -- still, no one in the Obama camp has followed Congress' lead in calling for heads to roll at the company.

There is one question, however, on which the freshman Democrat was openly skeptical of the administration. Grayson pointed out that the White House budget included a $250 billion "placeholder" pot of money, the purpose of which is an open secret in the Capitol.

"We all know it's going to be doled out by the administration to companies like AIG," Grayson said, unless Congress moves to prevent it. Whether Democrats have the political will to deny another bailout request from the president remains to be seen.


10 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It's a shame at the one level that Obama even got dragged into this. Geithner should have told Liddy to wake up, and deal with it effectively or resign.

user-pic

Sounds like the $250 billion "placeholder" will barely be enough to cover AIGs future bonuses.

user-pic

Elana,

I appreciate the tpm coverage and the fake administration, congress and media outrage against AIG bonuess.

While the opinion and outrage of a freshman congressman is critical development in the story, I'd also like to see TPM or any other responsible outlet (forget MSM) to explore whether infact the Obama adminsitration has any "legal option" available to stop the bonuses.

I'd rather have you talk with the legal experts than with a freshman congress man who has nothing more to say but act rather surprised as if this were totally unexpected.

Can the Govt- the 80% stake holder- has any legal or legislative power or legal option to stop the bonuses?

user-pic

A Yale Law School student has an idea as what to do:

Larry Summers claims that nothing can be done about the AIG bonuses. As a former Secretary of the Treasury, he should know better.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner should direct the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to challenge the AIG bonuses as unreasonable compensation under the Internal Revenue Code. Finding the AIG bonuses to be unreasonable compensation would render them nondeductible for federal tax purposes, and would strengthen potential shareholder derivative suits to recapture The Great AIG Giveaway.

Section 162(a) of the Internal Revenue Code declares:

“There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including . . . a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/16/secondary-sources-troublesome-aig-how-to-repair-it-regulation/

user-pic

While that is a good try, it has problems. All you are doing is denying AIG a deduction. So what, their losses are insane and no taxes will get paid by AIG so a deduction elimination is meaningless. Even if AIG has to pay income tax it gets paid by the entity AIG with taxpayer dollars while the exeducives abscond with the bonuses. What does AIG use to pay these taxes, well they have $160,000,000,000 taxpayer dollars with more to come to simply pay the taxpayers again. this is a ruse. The best solution is to let AIG fail and for Congress to pass a new income tax rate of 100% for any bonus received, when combined with salary, in excess of $250,000, that way the executive receiving the money gets nodda.

user-pic

If nothing else, contracts in furtherance of a fraud aren't enforceable. It's entirely possible that AIGFP committed fraud (and that at least some execs defrauded the company), based on what we've seen so far. And both the feds and the NY attorney general's office are looking into just that possibility.

user-pic

There are lots of options.

Here's one: OK, so you're paying out these bonuses. You think that deal you cut with Bush lets you do this. Great. You're an insurance company? We're underwriting your whole business right now?

Every new policy of any kind that you write, we're not backing it up. Every renewal - we're not backing it up. Any contract of any kind - you're on your own. Everything down to the renewal notice on my desk right now for our AIG policy - you're on your own.

And we're going to make sure all of your prospective customers know this.

user-pic

Why is Obama whining about AIG? The government gets back 40% of the AIG bonuses and if anyone cared about tax money they would of tried to save a little of it last week! If anyone deserves a bonus now it is AIG, they have to deal with a loud mouth double dipping "partner" that hasn't showed up for a day of work and can't even balance his own check book!

user-pic

Um, because AIG screwed the pooch like no company in the history of history has ever screwed the pooch, and now they want us to reward them for it. Look, we're just trying out some of those conservative values we keep hearing about - we're blaming the losers. And if you hadn't noticed, AIG lost $61.7 billion in Q4 of 2008, making them the biggest losers ever.

user-pic

Here's something to get you even more riled up.

AIG is going to get another $30 billion dollars, and the Treasury wants to use that as leverage to get them to pay back the $500 million in bonuses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123721970101743003.html#mod=testMod

That's like trying to get back 5 bucks from a buddy by telling him you'll lend him 300 if he does.

How does this make any sense?

Leave a comment

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

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Capital Wire

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address