Snowe: Obama Has 'Obligation' to Clarify Bonuses Stance
Centrist GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME), whose support the White House is counting on to pass health reform, the budget, and climate change, offered a warning to President Obama today: Clarify your position on taxing bonuses at bailed-out companies, or risk losing more political capital.
"I think the president has an obligation to address this [and to] explain why he doesn't think this is necessary," Snowe told reporters today, referring to Obama's initial embrace of taxing bonuses -- which was followed days later by a pullback from his advisers amid questions about the measure's constitutionality.
"We will not have the moral authority to declare a financial imperative in the future if we fail to address this situation right now," Snowe said, invoking Obama's famed oratorical fluency: "The president is the person who can connect that [public] anxiety, that frustration, that anger with the policies that are going to restore trust and confidence."
Snowe's plea for clarity from the administration on its bonus-taxation stance has a long history behind it -- she and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) saw their initial 35% tax on bonuses at bailed-out firms get chopped from the final version of the stimulus bill.
Meanwhile, changes made to a separate executive-pay measure commanded the public's attention, while a more stringent bonus-tax push in the House is dying on the vine, thanks in part to insufficient support from the White House.
Now the administration is left promising to rein in executive pay further, while facing pressure from Wall Street to pull back on the effort entirely or risk undercutting the latest iteration of the Treasury Department's financial rescue effort.
Will the White House heed Snowe's warning and offer a detailed proposal to claw back and/or rein in all types of compensation at bailed-out companies? If not, they could be risking a pivotal vote on the year's must-pass legislation.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
What are you talking about?
March 24, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Does Elena really believe that if Pres. Obama goes along with Sen. Snowe on the bonus tax provision, that will suddenly affect her vote on health care reform or cap-and-trade?
March 24, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. I don't recall Obama saying that the 90% tax wasn't necessary. I thought he had concerns over the legality of it.
But saying that he doesn't think it's necessary is guarantee to get a lot more attention than the actual response.
March 24, 2009 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weak legislative branch gasping that the fault lies with the executive branch and not with themselves. Cowards.
March 24, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh the drama. I'm on the edge of my seat.
March 24, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need Snowe. He will put Health Care and Energy under budget rules thus Obama will only need 50 votes NOT 60.
March 24, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taxing bonuses probably is unconstitutional.
March 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I am all for the AIG members of the derivatives department not taking any of their bonuses, hopefully by themselves, but I had a bit of a problem with what was described as the language of the proposed legislation for the 90% tax. What was floated seemed unconstitutional, I am not a legal scholar, but it would seem more than wasteful in time and money to propose a plan that ultimately would have to repealed down the road.
However the implication in this piece is that if Obama does not placate Sen Snowe than somehow he is throwing in the towel for any future legislation about health-care reform. Has Sen Snowe looked at much of the polling conducted in regard to health-care reform? It would seem a political gamble for the Sen to choose to fight over the issue when the American people are very much in favor of health-care reform.
I am really tired of seeing this sort of political gamesmanship in the press. It's frickin BS. The American people when polled seem overwhelmingly in favor of health-care reform, and this is not new. When Nixon was President there was a plan floated which was almost introduced which called for a similar system to the one which many are floating now. And yet we have had very little progress in this regard. I would bet if you polled most Americans and asked them who was more Conservative, Nixon or GWB, I think many would tell you Nixon(maybe this just shows how little of our history most Americans know)! So really what we have is a GOP party which advocates conservative positions which are much further to the right than those advocated even 40 years ago. Their goes that whole argument regarding how liberalism is eating away at the fabric of American society.
All I want done is to see progress in the areas health-care, tax-reform, Department of Defense (spending and direction), education and energy yet the ball does not really seemed to have moved much in 40 years (I would conclude that these facts are quite apparent and applauded by the GOP). I want to see that damn ball moved forward dammit!
March 24, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
she's a smart lady. this is the sort of reasonable statement an opposition senator should be making. it puts exactly the right kind of pressure on Obama that he doesn't seem to be getting from either his own party or the extremists in the GOP. It makes Snowe look pretty good in my opinion.
and she is probably right
March 24, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're seeing and hearing entirely too much from Congress on "someone else" providing leadership. And it's coming from both parties.
Want to Lead, madam? Then start with yourself instead of whizzing that the task belongs to others.
This is the exact legislative cowardice that voted this country into Iraq.
March 24, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if I remember right, the Harvard Law Review article that was written by Republican Senate staffers when Sen. Bill Frist was Majority Leader did not distinguish between votes on judicial nominations and votes on other bills. The Democrats should read that article and act accordingly.
March 24, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink