by Frank James
Much of the Washington-based ire over the AIG bonuses has the feel of political posturing, with every politician in town wanting to surf the wave of populist anger.
A lot of that politically driven outrage will be on display at this morning's House Financial Services Committee hearing where Edward Liddy, the company's post-bailout chief executive, will be ritually scourged by both Democrats and Republicans, giving the two feuding partisan sides something they can for once agree on.
Liddy, who received a $1-a-year salary, will definitely be taking one for the team today.
Republicans have already signaled that they will blame the Obama Administration for not doing a better job of overseeing AIG. In past hearings, Democrats have blamed the Bush Administration for nearly every Wall Street problem and today is likely to be no exception.
Meanwhile, what about the fundamental claim by Liddy that AIG was contractually obligated to pay the $165 million in bonuses? That would seem to be the heart of the matter.
There's a smart op-ed in the New York Times by George Washington University Law School professor Lawrence Cunningham.
An excerpt:
If the government is serious about finding a legitimate basis for abrogating these payments, officials must look to basic legal principles. And if A.I.G. is serious that it is legally bound to pay these bonuses, it must do more than say nonpayment would expose it to damages or penalties. Nor is it enough to invoke the sanctity of contracts, because our legal and business system recognizes plenty of valid excuses from contractual duty and even justification for breaching.
There are numerous issues both sides must contend with to evaluate whether A.I.G. was bound to or excused from its payment duties. First, the specific promises that employees made or conditions stated in their agreements must be examined. Determining what promises exist requires only reading the contracts; identifying conditions (which will likely offer more wiggle room in A.I.G.'s duty to pay) requires both reading the contracts and understanding any negotiations that preceded them.
Poor Professor Cunningham. He's guilty of thinking logically, like a law scholar. Read the contracts? Who cares what the contracts say when the phone calls coming into the White House and law makers' offices are virtually all against the bonuses being paid by a wildly mismanaged company that's received more than $180 billion in taxpayer support?
Still, Cunningham makes well-reasoned points. AIG may have been legally bound to make the payments. But on the other hand, the contracts may have contained clauses that would have allowed the company not to pay up, at least in some instances. The only way to know the truth is for the particulars of the contracts and the employee circumstances to be closely scrutinized.
Another excerpt:
Without reading the contracts, understanding their background and learning about employee performance, one cannot say whether A.I.G. is legally bound to pay or legally excused from paying these bonuses. But we won't resolve this question by simply trading nebulous assertions and hysterical threats.
Surely, Cunningham has been in Washington long enough to know that when it comes to making "nebulous assertions and hysterical threats," our nation's policymakers have few equals. In fact, that's a lot of what today's AIG-Liddy hearing will be about.









Comments
If AIG had not been bailed out, those bonuses would not have been paid because they would have been on the street. We own 80 percent of that mess...it's time to take it over and fire everyone of those losers on grounds of poor performance. It may seem Socialistic, but you sell off the losing parts...right the ship and then sell it. like any other good business person does. Flat out, AIG, CITI and a few otehrs are way too big for their own good and need to be paired down. The alterantive is economic ruin thanks to the mistakes over the last two administrations.
Posted by: Mike | March 18, 2009 9:03 AM
Agree-
Lot of sword Rattling from The Obama Camp and will die down like all other Obama Scrapes-Ayers, Blago, Wright, Birth certificate and etc.
Posted by: Inky | March 18, 2009 9:29 AM
This kind of outrageous behavior has been going on for years in other places. Go after the people who paid the bonuses. You can not change a culture purely by regulation you need to remove its leaders. You need to punish the people who gave retention bonuses to people who were no longer in the employment of AIG.
With regard to the banks, it appears that those in charge are too secure in their position. Nationalization of the banks is needed. The first step towards doing that may have to be firing Geithner. Obama better take heed because I am someone who has supported the bailout all along. When I see outrageous behavior like AIG's management did and the government owns 80% of the institution, I know that Geithner simply does not get it. He is too interested in pleasing the bankers.
My patience with the Sec of Treasury is wearing thin. We need an about face or a change in the person in charge. The president better start thinking about firing because I have been one of his staunchest defenders. If people like me are uneasy then trouble lies ahead.
Posted by: Ron M | March 18, 2009 10:13 AM
From clusterstock.com: Tim Geithner is now completely on the defensive. In a long letter to Nancy Pelosi, he explained how and why he approved the AIG bonuses (troubling) and described a plan to "recoup" them. The letter will not likely stop the growing chorus of criticism that may well drive Geithner out of office.
Geithner's new plan will not "recoup" the bonuses at all: It will merely reduce the amount of the next taxpayer handout to AIG from $30 billion to $29.835 billion. This is not likely to quell the outrage: What most people are angy about is that AIG paid $165 million of taxpayer money in "retention" bonuses to executives who blew up the firm (many of whom aren't at the company anymore).
The more troubling part of the letter, though, is Tim Geithner's description of his own approval of the bonuses. He says he registered "strong objections" and then asked for a written legal analysis of why the bonuses had to paid. This does not sound like the behavior a man who has the guts necessary to stand up to the many constituencies that want to roll right over him right now (which is the kind of man we need during this crisis). It sounds like the behavior of a man who is already thinking of how to defend a decision he knows is a bad one.
Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2009 11:18 AM
Today’s question, what is the difference between Bernie Madoff and Senator Christopher Dodd?
Answer, Dodd is still at large.
As a career politician when it was time for him to show leadership while reviewing the AIG bailout he completely failed. The officials of Connecticut did the right thing when Travis the monkey went on a rampage, now it is time for the people of Connecticut to do what Dodd’s political cronies in the senate won’t do and remove this empty suit from the halls of congress. Dodd’s actions if not criminal surely underscore his total lack of competence as a legislator. Using his name and family as a political crutch for almost 30 years, he provides poor judgment and sound-bites to chastise businessmen while never holding a private sector job. Christopher Dodd is ethically and truth challenged and needs to be stripped of his chairmanship of the senate banking committee. Regardless of one’s political stripe the retention of Dodd in the Senate is part of the problem and his defeat next year would be part of our country’s economic solution.
Posted by: Mike C | March 18, 2009 11:18 AM
This AP story goes to the heart of the matter:
"For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back."
In short, all this phony outrage by Obama and the other politicians is just a ruse to disguise their own responsibility.
Any bets on how long the DNC Swamp journalists will continue covering up these facts?
Posted by: Bruce | March 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Yeah, Mike, but dontcha see:
Paulson had to bail out AIG, because his baby GOLDMAN SACHS was on the other side of a lot of its very expensive "contracts" (and I don't mean employment contracts).
GOLDMAN had to be bailed out, indirectly, through AIG.
Kash&Karry is still there bailing out GOLDMAN'S counterparties.
Anyhoo, Prof. Cunningham makes the same pt. I made yesterday: many ways around contracts.
But he omitted an important point: all the big Wall St. law firms have departments that specialize in "executive compensation" i.e., drafting those golden parachute , pension, stock option, and related agreements that so favor the Golden Ones, the Masters of the Universe.
So don't be surprised after the tussle over the subpoenas, etc., that the only thing that comes out of the folder for each beneficiary of a bonus here is a single sheet of paper, pro forma, which may not even have any fingerprints on it.
Maybe an illegible set of initials somewhere approving a $6 million "retention" bonus for someone who already "retired".
All according to the boilerplate in that exec's employment agreement drafted by his attys at some Wall St. firm.
good luck with that.
I think that if the truth were known, Paulson & Co. had the panic attack planned as soon as it appeared likely Dems wd take over the govt.
The legislation the panic enabled, constitutes the greatest transfer of wealth to Wall St. since....
well, one is tempted to say since the privatization of Social Security, which as we know did not happen.
This is the next best thing from their point of view--at least if you're at Goldman or Morgan Stanley.
Posted by: ornery | March 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Hey Mike, what was that rule in the stimulus bill that allowed executives to be paid bonuses from bailout funds, again? Oh, that's right, the DODD AMENDMENT RULE! I wonder who wanted it?
Posted by: Jeff | March 18, 2009 12:09 PM
Why worry about the bonuses? I am more angry about all the money that went to bail out all the foreign entities in France, Germany, Switzerland, and others as well as domestic banks such as BOA & Goldman Sacks without our knowledge? More deceit on behalf of AIG and our politicians. It has to stop!!!!
Posted by: Bill | March 18, 2009 12:26 PM
Wake up FOOLS – WHO OWNS AIG???
Aside from the monies given by the UNITED STATES government – the largest shareholders are GOLDMAN-SUCKS and WARREN’short-laughing-pudgy’BUFFET besides ‘original owners’ forced out by the NY AG E – L – I – O – T SPITZER when he was not dabbling with PROS-TEE-TOOT-EES on the public’s money – and now NY AG ANDY’lil-mafioso-in-training’CUOMO has taken up the ‘populist’ class-warfare banner in the hopes it will land him in the GOVERNOR’S MANSION or a SENATURD SEAT!!! AIG is one of the largest insurance underwriters in the world and much of the ‘BAILOUT’ MONIES went to GOLDMAN-SUCKS + WARREN’should-have-been-indicted-for-bond-fraud-at-Salomon-for-KATRINA-insurance-scam-for AIG-fraud’BUFFETT and only a fraction FRACTION to BONUSES!!!NESIDES THESE WERE ALL GOOD DEMBHOLES LED BY GEITHNERBut heh ‘the OBAMA’ is ‘outraged’ so it must be so right??? THE STOOPID CONGRESS LED BY SENATURD CHRIS’ise-got-mines-loan-from-Countrywide’DODD + REPREHENSIBLE BARNEY’play-with-my-schmeckle-and-get-a-loan’FRANK set up this procedure to benefit their ‘friends’/donors and now it comes back to bite them on the backsides!!! NOW THEY PRETEND NO KNOWLEDGE ON WHAT THEY – THE US CONGRESS HAS ARRANGED AS IF THEY WERE INNOCENT PARTIES AND HAD BEEN DUPED!!! FOOLS!!!JUST LIKE PREZ BARACH’incurably-dishonest’OBAMA told us the economy was in the toilet when he needed his STIMULUS CRAP PORK ROLL + BUDGET FIASCO PASSSED for all those DEMBHOLE+REPUBLICANT pork projects or the world would end??? Ha. WHAT STOOPID MORONS FOR LISTENING TO THESE JERKHOLES!!! ‘the OBAMA’ don’t know nothin about this til last month he says(except he knew for a year this would happen!)cuz ‘the OBAMA’ wents to HARVARD!!! ANOTHER LIAR IN A CONGRESS OF LIARS AND FOOLERS OF THE PUBLIC – AS LONG AS THE GET WHAT THEY THINK IS ‘THEIRS’ BY RIGHT!!! And we are the STOOPIDEST of all – for voting them in to expect ‘HOPE&CHANGE’!!!
Posted by Jaimot’s Jargon at 10:51 AM
Posted by: Zyskandar A. Jaimotkandar A. Jaimot | March 18, 2009 12:37 PM
Is there a Pashtoon interpreter in the house?
Posted by: ornery | March 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Ya know, ornery, when I see posts like that - shouting, overpunctuation, namecalling - I just skip to the next post. Life's too short.
Posted by: DaveB | March 18, 2009 5:58 PM
"Jeff", turns out Dodd and the Democrats put that provision in protecting the AIG bonuses.
Dem Senator Chris Dodd (who received scads of campaign cash from AIG execs) admits that yes, yes, he did support AIG bonus protections before he was against them:
"Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.
On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision."
Throw them all in jail....
Posted by: Hope N. Change | March 18, 2009 7:43 PM
You are wise, DaveB.
Posted by: ornery | March 18, 2009 7:50 PM
Dodd also said that someone from the treasury department asked him to do it. Turbotax Tim is the only senior member staffing treasury right now. Dodd should resign from the senate immediately and apologize for his participation in this latest of a long line of financial scandals. If he doesn't the people of Connecticutt will do it for him in 2010. Remember, he had a countrywide mortgage from the "Friends of Angelo" list and now this. What scum.
Posted by: Jeff | March 19, 2009 1:02 AM