Hang a few of the most egregious thieves and liars from the yardarm and the rest'll get it.
At least Congress and AIG Chairman Edward Liddy have started to give the impression that they get it.
The head of the insurance giant that accepted billions in bailout money now is saying that some of the company's executives are returning all or part of the $165 million in bonuses that outraged the cash-strapped, taxpaying public.
And Congress certainly tried to look busy as it examined ways to somehow recoup this bonus money, and assure that such embarrassing debacles don't happen again.
What the House came up with Thursday, however, was little more than a smoke-and-mirrors attempt to divert attention away from the Democratic blundering that set the table for allowing the bonuses. Worse, the plan -- to place a 90 percent tax on bonuses issued by bailed-out companies -- very well could be unconstitutional.
But at the absolute least, it gives Americans the illusion of movement, and some impression that the political and financial parties involved aren't completely tone-deaf to reality as seen by people who are stretching like contortionists to make their monetary ends meet.
For utter tone-deafness, though, we still have Citigroup.
The financial services group was another recipient of government largesse through not one but two bailouts last year -- capital injections of $20 billion and $25 billion, respectively, in October and November. And in February, the federal government offered up to $25 billion in exchange for a 36 percent stake in the company.
Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit said last month, "I get the new reality and I'll make sure Citi gets it as well." To punctuate that sentiment, he even canceled a $50 million order for a new corporate jet.
But that was then.
Now Pandit and his top executives apparently feel the need for brand-new offices, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. Wall removal at the second-floor digs on New York's Park Avenue already has cost $3 million. Total costs of the renovation is expected to be closer to $10 million.
Of course that's less than the $165 million in AIG bonuses. But it's still an expense outrageous enough to make an average American choke on the hamburger he's subsisting on because there's no way he can afford steak.
What the Citigroup people see in all this is just another item in a laundry list of corporate expenses where a million is just another number. What the public sees is an ill-timed, poorly conceived extravagance for executives who were shaking their paupers' tin cups at the U.S. government just a few short months ago.
The public needs to see less conspicuous consumption and more contrition from corporate America.
Comments
Hang a few of the most egregious thieves and liars from the yardarm and the rest'll get it.
There's a HUGE difference between regulation and oversight. The government needs to get out of the social engineering business and let the free market work, including letting failed policies fail. Having the f.d.i.c. insure minimum deposits doesn't relate to forcing the sub-prime loan and repackaging scam. One promotes savings, the other promotes economic collapse. No congressmen or senators are being held accountable. This whole stimulus / bailout is a giant smoke enema with the taxpayer on the receiving "end".
You guys are kidding, right? This congress getting it? Bahney Fwank, Motormouth Maxine Waters, and Odd Chris Dodd get it? What planet do you live on, because it sure as Hell isn't this one? The only things these liberal idiots get is that the voters are mad, and they are making a desperate attempt at "CYA."
It is social engineering. Learn to hate those who make more than $250,000. Bring them to public places to confess their sins. Ridicule them. Anyone educated who doesn't work in social programs like Obama did is suspect. Eventually everyone wearing eyeglasses should be taken care of because they may be intellectuals.
I guess every thing will be fine now. They get it. I don't know why we were ever worried. So we can all assume there will be no additional bail outs. I do think they had at least one great idea in this experiment in nationalization of businesses. That would be taxing AIG exec's bomuses at 90%. Any CitiGroup bomused should be at 89%, WalMart @ 66%, Exxon should be over 112%, but all of us middle class workers should get a drop in taxation. This will insure a few things. Big business will leave. Small businesses will suffer greatly. Class envy will escalate. If anyone's political future survives these dark days, we, as voters, have not done our job.
Now would be a great tim to put the fair tax in place. It would make it almost imposible for stupid politicians to use the tax code for social enginering.
Does anyone not feel scared that the Congress is now using the tax code as a weapon to single out a single group of people? This scares me. I think it is illegal and I hope the people who received the RETENTION bonuses take it to court. I am not happy that anyone is involved with the bailout got a bonus but what they did was LEGAL and AUTHORIZED in the bailout legislation. Congresses bad...they screwed up. BUT, the idea that, in order to cover their [filtered word], Congress has used the tax code as a punishment for a perfectly legal activity...after the fact...is scary as hell to me. They can punish people after the fact with taxes, but the guy who runs the IRS (Geithner) can avoid paying his taxes for years and no one thinks there is anything wrong with this picture. The values of right and wrong in this country have gone [filtered word] over tea kettle. The "show" that the indignant congress put on for the TV this week reminded me of Hitler when he was whipping up the masses against the Jews. This country is supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. A Republic means that the majority cannot make laws that infringe on any single group of citizens just because they are unpopular at the moment.
To be a member of Congress you should have to take a basic Business Math Test to be seated.
Hey, idiots: They're spending $10 million to consolidate two floors of offices into one floor of offices. They will then be able to rent out the now-vacant floor of offices for approx. $5 million per year. Imagine...bankers being better able than pols or op/ed writers to figure out what a good investment is. THIS is the 'moral hazard' that comes with all these bailouts. Citibank could be doing incredibly responsible, profitable things, or alternately could be doing incredibly stupid, unprofitable things, and if they had to do either one strictly with private capital, voluntarily invested, then the chattering ignorati would not have to weigh in on their decisions. Instead, since now we're "all owners" (that make you feel better, if you don't trust Citi to handle money?), anything and everything they do is somehow up for debate by the 40% of us or so who actually pay taxes???
chatering ignorati, good one johnsmith!
barny frank?..does this guy make you want to just throw up or what?...
mad max...it's even worse than that. Congress did not 'mess up' Congress did exactly as it was told. Geithner's Treasury INSTRUCTED Dodd to modify the bailout legislation so that these guys would get their bonuses. Here's the deal (liberals, stop reading here, or risk exposure to the f-word and feel your brain shrivel): Sometime last year, it became evident that AIG's financial products division was going to collapse. Insurance was profitable, but not all these exotic "instruments." So, along with all the 10's of $B in bailouts, AIG had to plan to close down the FP division; literally lock the doors, sell the desks, and the carpeting for salvage. They wanted the people who had experience in those divisions to stay-even though those were "toxic jobs," with no more than a year or two's future, and not resume-enhancers-so they offered them the infamous "retention bonuses." In other words, like ending a war, you don't just drop your guns and leave-that leads to chaos. These employees have recovered something like $1Trillion in assets in the process of closing out these operations. Had AIG just padlocked the doors and walked away, the company might have recovered a tenth of that.
In fact, had the company not put skilled people in charge, they might not have recovered any $ for whatever assets were still worth something, but damages and lawsuits could easily have cost additional losses. And since both the Bush and the Obama Treasury departments had their heads up AIG's rectum and couldn't imagine life w/out this WONDERFUL corporation, BOTH administrations gave them tens of $Billions, the difference being that Obama's admin did it just about two weeks ago, and then lied and said, "We had no idea! We're shocked, SHOCKED, to find bonuses going out at AIG..." Geithner told Dodd to protect the retention bonuses, and he wasn't wrong. If you're going to bail them out, rather than let them fail (as should've been done), then you'd better not prohibit the very incentives that might keep talented people there to get whatever you can from the wreckage...
Don't forget, folks, the ONLY reason that bonuses and stock options form such an important part of executive compensation in the U.S., is that the tax code is structured in such a way that my salary is only a business expense up to X dollars, but "bonuses" and "options" are always business expenses. Are we going to blame "the greedy CEO's" for the tax code? I'm quite sure they'd rather get their $10Million as a flat salary, rather than having to produce fake books to make it look like they hit an earnings goal in order to get $500,000 in salary and $9,500,000 in "bonus" and "options"...
Wow...you all still don't get it... Here's from today's NYT: "That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at the American International Group, which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board." So, let's see, the SecTreas (unelected) in consultation with the Fed (unelected) decides that he needs to "seize" and "wind down" oh, I don't know, some company that has made critical remarks about the president, or that has associations that the president considers unsavory. And, of course, the president, In All Things Genius (peace be upon him), will know exactly whether or not to pull the trigger on such a company. WHAT, I ask you, dear readers, could POSSIBLY go wrong???
Hey guys and gals, it is all smoke and mirrors to divert attention away from the feds 1 trillion dollar decision to buy treasury notes and savings bonds. UH, who are they buying the from, Uh, the fed. Moving money from one pocket to the other just ain't helping!
I will personally file suit in Federal Court challenging the taxation of bonus money. If I make a mistake in my negotiation of contracts, I must deal with it. Congress wrote a bad law, tuff excrement. Peterstealmore, your 8.26 is exactly the Obowelmovement tactic: divide, distort, distract, destroy. Meanwhile, he signs book deals, makes millions and approves tax law which will not outlast his administration. He'll never pay the higher tax rates. Revolt. Peaceful Civil Disobedience. A 5 million taxpayer march on DC. GOP/DEM, throw all the bums out. Have a good night, y'all.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
