« Poll: People Are Paying Attention To AIG | Home | Beyond the Stimulus: Congress Lays Down Mass Transit Markers »
House Passes The AIG Bonus Tax
The House has just voted 328-93 to pass the 90% tax on bonuses over $250,000 at financial institutions receiving bailout money.
We'll keep an eye out for when the roll call vote is posted on the House's site, in order to answer the question: Who were the 93 that voted No?
Late Update: The roll call vote has been posted. Among Republicans, 87 voted No, 85 voted Yes, and six did not vote. A full list of the No voters is available after the jump.
The No votes were 87 Republicans and six Democrats:
Akin (R-MO)
Austria (R-OH)
Bachmann (R-MN)
Bachus (R-AL)
Barrett (R-SC)
Bartlett (R-MD)
Bean (D-IL)
Bishop (R-UT)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Boehner (R-OH) - Republican Leader
Bonner (R-AL)
Brady (R-TX)
Broun (R-GA)
Burgess (R-TX)
Burton (R-IN)
Buyer (R-IN)
Campbell (R-CA)
Carter (R-TX)
Chaffetz (R-UT)
Coble (R-NC)
Coffman (R-CO)
Cole (R-OK)
Conaway (R-TX)
Deal (R-GA)
Dreier (R-CA)
Fallin (R-OK)
Flake (R-AZ)
Foxx (R-NC)
Franks (R-AZ)
Garrett (R-NJ)
Gingrey (R-GA)
Gohmert (R-TX)
Granger (R-TX)
Graves (R-MO)
Hall (R-TX)
Harper (R-MS)
Hastings (R-WA)
Hensarling (R-TX)
Hunter (R-CA)
Inglis (R-SC)
Issa (R-CA)
Jenkins (R-KS)
Johnson, Sam (R-TX)
Jordan (R-OH)
King (R-IA)
King (R-NY)
Kingston (R-GA)
Kissell (D-NC)
Kline (R-MN)
Lamborn (R-CO)
LaTourette (R-OH)
Latta (R-OH)
Linder (R-GA)
Lucas (R-OK)
Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Lummis (R-WY)
Lungren, Daniel E. (R-CA)
Mack (R-FL)
Marchant (R-TX)
McCarthy (R-CA)
McCotter (R-MI)
McHenry (R-NC)
McKeon (R-CA)
McMahon (D-NY)
Miller (R-FL)
Minnick (D-ID)
Mitchell (D-AZ)
Murphy, Tim (R-PA)
Myrick (R-NC)
Neugebauer (R-TX)
Nunes (R-CA)
Paul (R-TX)
Paulsen (R-MN)
Pence (R-IN)
Pitts (R-PA)
Poe (R-TX)
Posey (R-FL)
Price (R-GA)
Scalise (R-LA)
Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Sessions (R-TX)
Shadegg (R-AZ)
Shuster (R-PA)
Simpson (R-ID)
Smith (R-NE)
Snyder (D-AR)
Sullivan (R-OK)
Terry (R-NE)
Thompson (R-PA)
Thornberry (R-TX)
Tiahrt (R-KS)
Westmoreland (R-GA)
Wilson (R-SC)
Advertisement
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Heckuva job, Boner, splitting your caucus right down the middle! Heh.
March 19, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, one is Mike Pence. Would you look at that.
March 19, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like Issa, Bachmann and Boehner voted no. Cantor, yes.
March 19, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the Dems that voted against:
Bean
Kissell
McMahon
Minnick
Mitchell
Snyder
March 19, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Minnick Voted with his party even once so far? I know hes from Idaho's more conservative district, but really?
March 19, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thank god! That will put an end to all of our economic woes.
This may feel good but it's reactionary, populist silliness that's basically a no risk proposition for member of Congress. Woo hoo....we might be able to recover a few million bucks. Whoopeee!
And in a week or so we'll funnel another $30B to AIG. What's gained here?
What a waste of time. If I were a member of Congress I definitely wouldn't vote against this legislation, but it shouldn't have been considered - or if it was it should have been part of a larger piece of legislation addressing the bigger issues.
Or, we could just take these effers over and clean them up ourselves rather than continue sending the bucketsful of cash.
I had been lukewarm to the idea of receivership/nationalization. No longer.
March 19, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. A total fucking waste of time spent on this. It's all just fake outrage, and the media and blogs have been aiding and abetting in the outrage generation.
March 19, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if it pales in comparison to the total funds given to AIG, $167 million is not chump change. Good can be done with it.
March 19, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You (and I) will get out wish, I think. I don't see any political room for any more strings-free funneling of our money to Goldman Sachs under cover of bailing out AIG. I do believe takeovers are clearly visible on the horizon now, and getting closer every day. And mirabile dictu, Larry and Timmy will claim they had it planned all along.
March 19, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe I side with the Repubs on this one. I think this is stupid and reactionary.
I am not saying we shouldn't get the money back but effing with the tax code for select individuals retroactively seems wrong and fraught with unintended consequences.
Typical washington blow-hardery. Lets get all puffed up and make some show of doing something instead of making reasonable and rational policy.
March 19, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a necessary political pre-requisite to making better policy. Let's face it, the Administration effed up pretty badly on this and they needed Congress to pull their political chestnuts out of the fire.
Good policy can't be made without political will and support. And not making, or if made recovering from, PR disasters is a necessary part of that. Remember Bismarck on sausages and laws.
March 19, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You never disappoint in your rank stupidity if you think passing some unenforceable tax policy against people who don't even pay taxes in this country is pulling the administration's chestnuts out of the fire.
This is bullshit outrage and a waste of time and effort. It's hyperbolic grandstanding and doesn't accomplish a damn thing. No wonder you like it!
March 19, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, you're more politically astute than Nancy Pelosi. FAIL.
When was the last time the Rethug Congressional caucus split right down the middle on something? Not in living memory. They're in disarray- their constituents are pulling them in the opposite direction from Lush's and Norquist's marching orders.
March 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
LeBoneHead. I thought you liked this because it saved the administration. Now, it's a good thing because the Republicans are divided? Only a moron cares how anybody votes on a piece of stupid, unenforceable legislation that accomplishes nothing.
All of this to *TRY* to retrieve 1/10 of 1% of the money we've given AIG. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.
March 19, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 19, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another smoke screen when you don't have any legitimate answers. My objection has nothing to do with political strategy; it's simply a bullshit unenforceable bill that accomplishes nothing.
I know you're intimidated by any proposal that is practical or realistic solution since the only thing you know how to do is rant and foam at the mouth like those tools on AM radio!
You're the one pushing right-wing talking points since you want to kick out every Democrat who doesn't meet your purity test and give the Republicans the majority.
March 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a newsflash: it's not intended to accomplish anything substantively, just politically. It deprives the Republicans of a troublesome talking point (and by an unexpected felicity, it also seriously divided them) thereby enabling the Administration and Congress to get on with the business of doing substantive things. From start to finish it "wasted" a couple of the House's days. BFD.
And nobody cares about your right-wing scruples about tax bills. Go tell it to your Republican friends, FreeRepublic.
March 19, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Here's a newsflash: it's not intended to accomplish anything substantively, just politically>>
AHA!!! You admit that this won't accomplish anything! You admit that this is all political grandstanding. I.e., you admit you wet your pants for meaningless, time-wasting gestures.
No wonder you're LaBoneHeaded!
March 19, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The side benefit of watching the GOPers scramble on this one is the only positive about this particular piece of legislation. (I see Cantor voted yea, probably due in no small part to his hum-a-nah hum-a-nah performance on Morning Joe when asked if he would vote for it or not.) But I think the long-term benefits of that are as valuable as the long-term benefits of the legislation itself - virtually nil.
March 19, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's probably unconstitutional. I can't see AIG or any other bailout firm challenging this in court because it would be terrible PR - and their image is shattered to begin with - but if it were challenged, I can see it being allowed to stand.
I don't care what the terms of the original deal were - we own 80% of AIG. Geithner (or Obama) should be able to get Liddy on the horn and simply demand that the money be returned. They don't have to get it from the bonus recipients, which is probably impossible. I'm sure AIG can dig up $150M.
March 19, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure they could come up with $150 million -- of our money -- to pay it back. But that isn't the point. People are pissed because of who got the bonuses, not about the money itself.
March 19, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get that but this does nothing to solve the larger problem. All it does is deliver a little vengeance. Members of Congress shouldn't be in the business of revenge...and that's essentially what this is. All we've talked about the last 3-4 days are these freaking bonuses. This should have been the opening for Congress and the WH to start talking seriously about completely reforming the bailout process (part of which could have been better regulating exec comp and bonuses) and perhaps even opening the door for nationalization/receivership. Instead, it was all bonuses, all the time. I fear that Congress will pat themselves on the back and say, "our work is done here", because they can now go home and tell their constituents that they stood up to the fat cats on Wall St by taxing those damned bonuses. And the adminstration will thank Congress for taking care of this problem for them and then go on giving free cash to the insolvent companies, avoiding the tougher but inevitable decisions surrounding receivership and re-regulation. The sooner the better, not only because our econonmy continues to sink (don't be fooled by the recent uptick in the market) but because, from a political perspective, you need time for these things to work and show progress....November 2010 isn't that far off.
March 19, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not intended to solve the larger problem. It was needed to quiet down the political hooha resulting from a grave PR mistake by the Administration, so that we can get on with trying to solve the larger problem
If you really want the Obama Administration to accomplish anything, you should be very cognizant of the grave danger of allowing the Republicans to get out front and harness populist anger from the Right. And make no mistake, there is a LOT of anger out there.
Really, this was just explained very well by Josh on the front page. Do some of you people even bother reading it before coming over here?
March 19, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did read it but I still hate shit like this - it's like political crack. Yeah, we showed those bonus takers. Hu-rah! When are we going to get to work on the larger issue? I mean, right now, all the Obama administration is doing is maintaining a bailout process established during the Bush administration. I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference. Get Timmy some staff and get cracking on the bigger issues.
Outside of their handling of the bank mess, I'm very happy with the Obama administration. But the bank mess is a big problem and until it's addressed appropriately, bullshit like this bonus silliness will emerge at least once a month. If you spend all your time putting out fires, you can't work towards comprehensive reform.
And what does Obama gain by this? It wasn't his idea, it was driven by Dems in Congress, many of whom spent the last few days pointing fingers at the administration. As for the Dems in Congress, if the economy still sucks in November 2010 - and it will if we don't fix the bank problem - nobody is going to remember their yea vote on this stupid, ineffective and likely unconstitutional piece of legislation.
March 19, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't enjoy it myself, but again- remember Bismarck's quip about laws and sausages. Democracy is not a neat, pretty, technocratic business. Nevertheless, the problem from the beginning of this bailout fiasco has been an insufficiency of democracy, not an excess.
And I think, as I said earlier, we're not going to see any more no-strings bailouts, and we're hopefully a lot closer to the kind of recievership- and-reprivatization process that should have been done from the start.
March 19, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Professor Lawrence Tribe is probably the leading expert on the bill of attainder clause. He thinks it can pass constitutional muster.
The tax is against the bonus recipients, not the firms. I suspect that at least one bonus recipient will challenge it in court.
March 19, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the nature of the congressional beast. The House is always reactionary, given their two year terms they're always in campaign mode.
This will get killed in the Senate.
March 19, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't become law, whether the Senate stops it or not.
March 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't seriously think President Obama will veto this, do you?
March 19, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if he believes it's unconstitutional, Obama will sign it just to kick this embarrassment further down the road. And there's no way the Senate blocks it, either. I've just posted a separate Reader Blog on why.
March 19, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't veto a House bill. Let's see what the Senate does before getting serious about whether Obama would veto some net result or not.
The bill so far is simply garbage.
March 19, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but your assertion was that it won't become law even if it passes the Senate also. The only way that assertion can be true is if you think that President Obama would veto. I doubt he would.
March 20, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait and see, and keep in mind the third official part of government.
You're falsely attacking using necessity when we're discussing future possibilities. Why?
March 20, 2009 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not falsely attacking anything. I'm just talking about the basic U.S. legislative process. If a bill passes the House and the Senate then it becomes law unless the President vetoes it.
March 20, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Senator ___________ :
I'm writing about the outrage about AIG "bonuses" and the House bill just passed today. This is a bogus issue, it is a red herring (Spitzer and others agree with me).
I consider myself a progressive. But I urge you strongly to reject any similar Senate bill which might be put forth. This way is not the right way forward.
The House bill represents lynch mob politics. Do your job as a Senator as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Keep such a bill from going to President Obama.
Find another way to keep big companies in line and keep the public in favor of the new direction in America.
Sincerely,
[me]
March 19, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
but effing with the tax code for select individuals retroactively seems wrong and fraught with unintended consequences.
No kidding.
Congress demonstrated judgment ability equivalent to that of children. Actually, that's insulting to children. They have a good reason why their judgment abilities can be questionable: their brains are still developing.
What's the excuse for Congress?
March 19, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find odd about all of this "outrage" is that I know no one, personally, who is outraged. I've spoke to many people at work, and where I live, and the only place you see outrage is on the news and on sites like this. That's what makes this oddly reactionary and silly.
Maybe all I know are cynics, and many are, but most people are worried about issues that touch their lives, and otherwise they roll their eyes at all this and say that it's business as usual for the rich and elite.
most of the outrage I've heard is over Obama taking time to make basketball picks. The republicans and libetarians in my office were all up in arms over that. They did not like me calling them out for never being outraged over Bush cutting brush and being on vacation.
March 19, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta love those cutting brush photo ops. He's cutting alot of brush now at his mansion in the dallas suburbs and he cut alot of brush before he bought the stupid farm from his condo.
Can you imagine the conversations between rove and the king about cutting brush?
Rove: Mr. President you have to make it look like you are a rancher. You have to get out there and cut some brush and wear cowboy boots and a hat. Remember Reagan did that.
The king: Gee, I have to? I hate cuttin bushes and being out in the open air. I hate runnin all the time and trying to make it look like I'm some sort a runner. I don't wanna.
Rove: But you have to. The press is out there with cameras and everything. You don't realize how much work I put into this myth about you. Don't you want to go down in history as the cowboy president?
The king: Nah, I wanna party with my frat boys and play poker. Ahh, ok, just as long as I don't have to do it after I'm no longer the king.
Rove: Nope, no you don't have to.
March 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The House is forever in campaign mode - they get irate phone calls and they think that is a vote going out the window.
The outrage is being magnified because the right is looking to put the screws to Obama and the progressives are looking to get Geithner sacrificed for the greater good (the never liked him to begin with).
March 19, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear you are correct.
March 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the media and political outrage over the bonus stuff is silly and a distraction as well - there are many other larger and more fundamental reasons to be pissed at AIG, Citi, Goldman, etc. But I think it's insane that people are actually angry that Obama filled out a freaking tourney bracket. Are they serious or do they just latch on to any reason to bash Obama? I guess it's easy to understand - "Hey, why did he have time to fill out his brackets?"
The stupid...it hurts.
Anyway, I think there are plenty of people out there - ie, voters - talking about the AIG bonus silliness. But I don't think they are outraged just beacause of the bonuses. I think they just use the bonuses as an opening to have yet another discussion about how these fat cats of the financial services industry screwed us over and continue to screw us over. So Congress responds with this stupid, reactionary legislation. Unfortunately, while it's stupid, it's more than the administration has done. Time for action, Team O. Enough fooling around and worrying about how taking these firms into receivership will be received or how the markets will reacted to increased regulation. Get a move on....quickly!
March 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've wondered the same thing, why are republicans and libertarians falling over each other trying to be outraged about this or that concerning the Obama Administration?
I think many of these people blame liberal's and Democrat's many outrages over the Bush administration for its failure. As if there were no substance behind those outrages. As if those outrages were contrived.
The difference is there was substance behind those outrages, and not outright lies, like Biden saying that the fundamentals of the economy are strong, which was a lie. Biden was quoting McCain during the election. There are many others.
I bet/hope it'll be like the boy who cried wolf soon, and when people hear republicans or conservative outrages, the first response will be to doubt what they say, or simply disbelieve them.
March 19, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time-Swampland has a good post on how this seems a little manufactured.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/18/aig-sturm-und-drang/
I agree and the polls on this are useless so far.
Am I 'outraged'? - yes.
Am I following the news on this? - yes.
Do I think this is an big waste of time though? Absolutely.
I think Obama/Geithner screwed up on this a bit but I am also assuming that is because they are more worried about getting our $150 billion back from AIG than getting our $150 million back. I for one would be more outraged if they were more focueed on screwing around about the bonuses than focusing on the bigger picture.
Washington puditry - Obama is worrying too much about health care instead of focusing fixing the banks but stupid bonuses...that is different. Cause that makes much more sense to be dividing Obama's attention.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
March 19, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellent link. Thanks!
March 19, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to co-sign this an eleventy-thousand times, if possible.
March 19, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that is the largest tax amount I've ever seen! While I support this, it seems as if it sets the precedent that "The House at any time can change taxes on a whim." Sure, there was plenty of rational and validity behind this decision, but hopefully this type of action only occurs in very extreme cases. I'm sure it won't be a common practice, though.
March 19, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure it won't be a common practice, though.
Have you listened to the idiots in congress lately?
March 19, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this is ever challenged in court it will be held as unconstitutional so I wouldn't worry too much. AIG isn't going to challenge it - they can't afford the bad PR. But if Congress tries to start using reactionary tax legislation like this with any kind of regularity, they'll be challenged and they will lost.
March 19, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not according to the leading expert on the relevant constitutional issue.
March 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not AIG, the unhappy employees who stayed with a company in trouble long enough to earn the pay and not violate their employment contracts.
You may think $1M is too much. You're welcome to your opinion, everyone is.
If it comes out that the contracts were fraudulent, that's something else entirely.
This bill is totally bogus.
March 20, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the smell of a split caucus in the morning. The only political value this vote serves is to alienate Republicans from one another as they scramble desperately to keep public opinion from picking them off in their next election.
March 19, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reaction to the reaction is overblown. If the amount of taxpayers' dollars that the AIG bonuses used is trivial and not worthy of consideration, then why aren't the actions of Congress in taxing them just as trivial and unworthy of consideration?
I think taxing the bonuses is a good way to set a precedent. The next time some bailout beneficiaries decide to give taxpayers the finger and say "Nyah-nyah, we're going to keep rewarding ourselves for fucking up the economy and you can't do anything about it," they might have to think twice about that.
And, it's certainly no surprise that Nutzoid Bachmann would vote against it. After all, America's running out of rich people, you know.
March 19, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Score one for Lawrence O'Donnell, putting the heat on Eric Cantor and making him vote for the bill.
March 19, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
haha. I think Sean Hannity's head blew off just now as I was listening to him when I picked up my car from the garage.
If anything, listening to the right wing nutjobs on the radio and T.V. whimpering is worth the vote today.
America 1
Right Wing Whacko's 0
I guess now we'll find out if there are people to fill their shoes once they all start leaving. Hopefully someone smart can figure out how to unwind the remaining 1.5 trillion in derivatives still left out of the original 3.2 trillion or whatever that crazy number was.
March 19, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> then why aren't the actions of Congress in taxing them just as trivial and unworthy of consideration?>>
Because Congress changed the law! They used a sledge hammer to kill a fly and probably destroyed the whole darn table in the process.
March 19, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this is disrupting my life how? Talk about manufactured outrage.
March 19, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I didn't know we were only commenting on things that impact our lives personally.
Yes, I'm bothered when my elected officials do knee-jerk bullshit like this and try to single out and punish a particular group. It never turns out well.
I recall the crack cocaine outrage in the 1980s. Congress passed laws that made the punishment for having 1 gram of crack got the same as having 10 grams of coke. All it did was punish poor, black drug users ten times harder than white affluent drug users. They didn't see that aprtheid-esque disaster coming because they were so busy feigning outrage.
March 19, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how much the tax burden has shifted over the past decade or so from the upper 1% to the lower 99%, and considering how much of the 14,000 or so pages of tax code were written expressly to reduce or eliminate taxes for that upper 1%, and also considering that I was never a party to that code revision that resulted in the shifting of the tax burden, I'm hard-pressed to give a flying fuck about any change in tax law that might inadvertently impact some of that 1% in addition to those who received the bonuses.
The wealthy can take care of themselves. I'm sure they won't even notice, much less appreciate, your shedding a tear for them.
March 19, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This won't accomplish any of that since it's unenforceable. It was a colossal waste of time, just an opportunity for some grandstanding.
March 19, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is enforceable. It might miss a large segment of the intended targets if many of the AIGFP executives are not U.S. citizens, but it's perfectly enforceable against U.S. citizens who received bonuses from $5+ billion TARP recipients.
March 20, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this tax bill doesn't become another fake outrage.
I admit it felt sick in the stomach when the news about the bonuses first broke.
But after following the media and political circus, witch hunting, and over blown caricatures- I really couldn't careless. TPM sadly has also been in the front and center of this ugly, over the top and fact-free reporting.
We have become a nation fully incapable of multi-tasking or reason. The B/S that surrounded this is far more dangerous for this country than the actual rip-off.
March 19, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
March 19, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be funny if AIG now increased their bonuses so that the net amount remains the same.
March 19, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
O'Donnell deserves credit for Cantor's vote.
March 19, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is dumb. i would much rather see heads roll.
March 19, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if the bill is as described, it sounds like a bonus tax on company's receiving government money instead of something just for AIG. Even if it can't recover any money from international employees, it may have an effect on large payouts for other banks too and serve as the check that should have been put into the first bailout.
The outrage to me is just overdue not outsized. Of course, previously sleepy investors were holding the bag for these people, now it's the taxpayers.
I'm curious about the employees of financial products though... usually the people saying we have to let the fox guard the henhouse are the people who weren't watching in the first place. Is there any way to get independent eyes to look into, (instead of only comment on) the internal situation at AIG? So we can determine how truly complicated matters are there. Pragmatism usually goes hand in hand with due diligence.
March 19, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama vetoes this. It is stupid and possibly will make the situation even worse.
March 19, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink