« In A Related Story... | Main | You Think You're Living A Cursed Life? »

March 24, 2009

If I Were An AIG "Executive"...

I'd tell Congress to get stuffed

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Executives at American International Group have started giving back their bonus cash in full, according to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

On a conference call with reporters Monday, Cuomo said that of the top 20 executives who received the biggest bonuses, 15 have given them back in full. The amount returned so far is about $50 million. Of the top 10 highest earners, 9 have returned their bonuses.

According to Cuomo, the investigation into the distribution of the bonus cash continues. "I am trying to get the money back because I believe that is what the American people deserve," said Cuomo.

"I am hopeful that more AIG employees will heed the example set by their colleagues and pay the money back," said Cuomo.

To those bonus earners who have returned the bonus cash, the attorney general said they have "done the right thing."

...Cuomo said that the Attorney General was going through the executives and calling them one by one, in collaboration with AIG.

Cuomo also said that for those AIG executives who returned the bonus cash, there was no "public interest" in making his or her name public.

This is mob rule and Darkness At Noon-esque legal intimidation and thuggery is disgusting. Whatever the faults in business acumen these folks have displayed, and clearly these are legion, they have a contract and it was created before any of these bailouts were ever even thought of. Noted tax cheat Geithner and his crack staff of 2 geriatric hamsters and an arthritic python were fully aware that these contracts existed, or they should have been, had they exercised anything approaching due diligence in the discharge of their duties. This is after-the-fact ass covering and a political ruse to distract the Public's attention from the mind bogglingly insane amount of money The One, Congress and noted tax cheat Geithner are flushing away here.

Here's an idea. If "getting the (taxpayer's) money back is what the American People deserve" when it is paid as salary who performed very poorly in their jobs, an idea which sounds all stirry and patriotic and lump-in-the-throat inducing I freely admit, I hereby demand that every Member of Congress be required/shamed/humiliated a la the AIG folks to give back every penny they've been paid for the past 20+ years.

Let's hold them to the same standard.

Posted by Mr. Bingley at March 24, 2009 07:00 AM

Comments

"If "getting the (taxpayer's) money back is what the American People deserve" when it is paid as salary who performed very poorly in their jobs, an idea which sounds all stirry and patriotic and lump-in-the-throat inducing I freely admit, I hereby demand that every Member of Congress be required/shamed/humiliated a la the AIG folks to give back every penny they've been paid for the past 20+ years."


A EFFING MEN!

I'm worried that this will usher in an era of unprecedented cash-grabbing by the gummint - "We did it to AIG so we can do it to you." "Oh, you don't need THAT much money. No, it doesn't matter that you say you EARNED it."

Feh. The AIG bonuses may have been wrong, but what Congress wanted to do was more wrong.

Posted by: ricki at March 24, 2009 07:34 AM

I remember a time when Congress crafted legislation then held serious debate before passing (or not passing) it. This Congress is jotting crap down on the back of cocktail napkins over drinks and sending it to Obama without any thought to what they're doing.

Vote the piggies out!

Posted by: Eric at March 24, 2009 08:32 AM

If we the public deserve to get the AIG bonus money back don't we deserve to get all the mortgage bailout money back? How is paying an AIG exec a bonus for doing a poor job of investing different from paying the mortgage of someone who did a poor job of investing?

Posted by: Retread at March 24, 2009 09:18 AM

Retread - the difference is, AIG is a business and Fannie/Freddie are de facto arms of the government. The government rarely punishes its own, loathes accounting for itself, and usually rules itself exempt from the laws by which we are bound.

For example - in the news just today. And they called Alexander Hamilton a closet monarchist? If he were alive today he'd have to duel two thirds of the Congress and the rest of the Cabinet.

BTW, love the headline. They're even losing the MSM - it's all the makings of a jilted lover scorned by the One she helped to power.

Posted by: nightfly at March 24, 2009 10:10 AM

"If he [Hamilton] were alive today he'd have to duel two thirds of the Congress and the rest of the Cabinet."

Maybe I'm in an excessively bloodthirsty mood these days, but my first response to that was, "That might just be an improvement."

I bet Hamilton was a far better shot than the majority of them.

Posted by: ricki at March 24, 2009 11:57 AM

ricki, Paco claims Old Paco thinks we ought to forego elections from time to time and instead hold a public hanging. Can't say I disagree just now.

Posted by: Retread at March 24, 2009 01:43 PM

The government rarely punishes its own, loathes accounting for itself, and usually rules itself exempt from the laws by which we are bound.

nightfly, how true that is.

ricki, I'd bet half the weenies in Congress don't know how to shoot, period. Guns are evil, doncha know? They'd just send their bodyguards anyway, a la Ted Kennedy. ;-)

Retread, that's an EXCELLENT idea!

Posted by: JeffS at March 24, 2009 02:54 PM

I can't get excited about those bonuses' coming back--isn't that, like, a drop in the bucket? I'm supposed to be clapping my hands in delight? What?

Posted by: Kate P at March 24, 2009 04:39 PM

This congress and administration are easily the filthiest, sleaziest pack of criminal scum that ever infested our halls of government.

…and it's only been two months.

Posted by: Gunslinger at March 24, 2009 05:20 PM

"I remember a time when Congress crafted legislation then held serious debate before passing (or not passing) it."

Really? I don't.

Posted by: Dave J at March 24, 2009 06:41 PM

I have been unable to discern the legal basis Cuomo is relying on to recoup the money. Surely it cannot be a criminal action, for these people committed no crime, therefore, it must be some sort of civil action. But, based on what legal theory? I'm not even sure Cuomo has standing.

It is one of the most disgusting and frightening displays of governmental abuse of power I have ever seen.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at March 25, 2009 02:22 AM

But Jim, the basis is outrageously outrageous outrage!

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at March 25, 2009 07:55 AM

I've heard it suggested that taking back the bonuses would be unconstitutional. Not sure the grounds, I wasn't paying that much attention.

I'd love to see the Supremes smack down the cash grab on Constitutional terms, though.

I just worry that if they can take back AIG bonuses, they will eventually twist the legislation to allow them to confiscate money from anyone behind the shibboleth of "for the good of the country." Kind of like the Kelo decision, only being extended to people's bank accounts.

Posted by: ricki at March 25, 2009 10:57 AM

Jim - there is a legal basis for this action. It is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution: the Bill of Attainder. (Yet another of the obstacles to true progress that Obama talked about.) Of course Cuomo didn't have to wait for that to act in NY State - he had the precedent of former NY Attny General Eliot "Shakedown #9" Spitzer; and AIG rolled over because they knew that the Congress would damn the Constitution, full speed ahead.

It's a pity that AIG doesn't have the public popularity to force the Congress to take the money back illegally. But this is the creeping tyranny the left warned us about... except that they're the ones who are doing it, and not creeping much anymore. Congress will pass the law, the President will sign it, and the Supreme Court will let it stand, all in defiance of the very document which gave them their authority and limits their power over us.

Posted by: nightfly at March 25, 2009 11:01 AM

I'm a tad confused. Cuomo certainly would not rely on the constitutional prohibitions of Bills of Attainder. That would be an argument raised by the persons from whom Cuomo sought to recover the money. (BTW, I don't believe the Supreme Court has ever invoked the prohibition against Bills of Attainder in non-criminal cases, which this surely is not.)

Cuomo sought to recoup these funds and, again, I ask, what legal theory would pemiit him to do so? These were contractual obligations, the payment of which was specifically authorized by the Congress.

Any civil action Cuomom might have brought, I predict, would have been dismissed on the ground of failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. It sort of like someone trying to sue me because I bought a blue car, or because I like cheeseburgers.

I also wonder if his suit would be dismissed for lack of standing.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at March 25, 2009 09:30 PM