Congress, White House Pointing Fingers Over Who Killed Bonus Provision

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Congress, White House Pointing Fingers Over Who Killed Bonus Provision stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

April 2, 2009 at 07:13 PM

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Aig Six

The question of who killed a provision that could have reined in lavish bonuses issued by bailout recipients remains a mystery, with key players either declaring innocence or pointing the finger at someone else. Senior Hill aides insist that the main congressional suspects were not involved, and contend that they are still searching for answers themselves.

On Tuesday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) told the Huffington Post that a measure sponsored by he and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) -- which would have levied a 35% tax on bonuses issued by TARP recipients exceeding $100,000 -- was inexplicably and anonymously removed from February's stimulus bill during House/Senate negotiations.

The result was that the legislation, while targeting future bonuses given by bailed-out firms, allowed companies like AIG to award senior executives $165 million for 2008.

"Whenever I went to one of these special interest groups that I knew were one of the people that was likely trying to unravel this, they would say 'oh my goodness. It wasn't us. It must have been someone else,'" Wyden recalled. "And so it was sort of a pin-the-tail on the donkey kind of exercise to figure out who was actually responsible for killing it."

The difficulty in finding the culprit underscores just how sensitive a topic these bonuses have become. Many sources on Capitol Hill claim to be totally in the dark about what happened during the conference committee. Others have simply been mum.

One name floated as a suspect is Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). He chairs the Senate banking committee, has received large financial support from AIG, and is the insurance company's home-state Senator. But, in a statement released on Tuesday, the Connecticut Democrat said he supported Wyden's legislation: "unfortunately, that provision was removed from the stimulus bill in Conference." Moreover, as one Hill aide notes, Dodd wasn't even part of the conference committee.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), on the other hand, was a member of the conference committee. But the Finance Committee Chair, according to officials, was not granted purview of executive compensation. That was considered Banking's domain. And in a statement to CNN on Tuesday, he noted that the stimulus was constructed in such haste that he "didn't have time and other conferees didn't have time to address many of the provisions that were modified significantly." His office confirmed the quote, which seems to indicate that Baucus was not involved..

Then there is Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was also on the conference committee, and has long recoiled about using the tax-code as a "political weapon." But the longtime Harlem Democrat, like Baucus, doesn't have jurisdiction over the bonuses. One House Democratic aide noted: "This issue was put forward by the Senate Banking Committee and was never dealt by other members of the conference committee."

If not Dodd, Baucus or Rangel, then who? Much of the ensuing speculation has focused on the Obama White House and/or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Dodd, for starters, said that a separate provision limiting executive compensation that he introduced to the stimulus was modified at the insistence of the administration to include exemptions for bonuses protected by contracts.

Moreover, during the crafting of the stimulus, "senior administration officials" were letting it be known that they were concerned with hard caps on compensation. Publicly, chief adviser David Axelrod acknowledged that Geithner and Larry Summers "had concerns about" stringent limits.

A call to the White House to discuss this issue was not immediately returned. And while the president's press secretary Robert Gibbs has not been asked specifically about what happened during the stimulus conference committee, he has defended the administration from accusations that it dropped the ball on the bonus front.

"Understand that the compensation structure for executives prior to the President of the United States, Barack Obama, laying out the way we're going to do business changing, there was -- Barack Obama came in and there was a new sheriff in town on executive compensation," Gibbs said on Tuesday. "He changed the way we did business here and the way Wall Street did business, by instituting the toughest executive compensation rules that had ever been entered into, changing the lawlessness with which all of this was governed prior to that announcement."

The question of who killed a provision that could have reined in lavish bonuses issued by bailout recipients remains a mystery, with key players either declaring innocence or pointing the finger at so...
The question of who killed a provision that could have reined in lavish bonuses issued by bailout recipients remains a mystery, with key players either declaring innocence or pointing the finger at so...
 
Comments
223
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)

We really need a serious non-partisan congressional oversight committee with strong legal powers.

It should be crystal clear who took this provision out of the legislation, and I have a hard time believing Republicans were capable. This had to come from the "Democrats."

What makes anyone on this blog question me about that?

Would it be Democratic rubberstamping of retroactive immunity for telecoms, continued funding of the illegal occupation in Iraq, the absolute refusal of the Democratic majority to impeach and obviously criminal president, Democrats that raked the Big Three over the coals forcing them to abrogate union contracts and smack down working Americans salaries and benefits when it is their ridiculous trade policies that made it impossible for them to compete, while turning around and lying to us that they can't break contracts of a corporation that would have gone bankrupt had they not raped our treasury to save them, or the Democratic majority that passed the first round of corporate welfare without any strings attached?

Wake up folks. It is time to stop voting along party lines and start voting with common sense. It is time to start paying attention to the votes that determine you and your family's standard of living, instead of wasting your vote on irrelevant, trivial hot button issues.

This goes for both Democrats and Republicans, by the way.

How much bonus money would have been in a Nader or Kusinich stimulus plan have contained?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 03/18/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

On CNN, Sen. Dodd stated that in response to a request from the Treasury Department, he "agreed" to have a provision inserted that invalidated bonus restrictions if they conflicted with contractual provisions that became effective before February 9, 2009. He claims he did this to avoid having the anti-bonus provision thrown out in its entirety, but the amendment pretty much does that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:36 PM on 03/18/2009

Jesus, can you read???

Wyden's provision "would have forced bailout recipients to CAP their bonuses at $100,000. ANY amount paid ABOVE that would have been taxed at 35 percent."

Don't you understand.??..the provision that was "inexplicably removed" would have merely capped bonus paid a LOW tax rates at 100,000 BUT IT WOULD NOT STOP AMOUNTS PAID OVER THIS AMOUNT -- it would merely have taxed it at higher rates. I don't get it -- Wyden's bill still sounds like a bonus from taxpayer money to me..why all this "who's to blame" and finger pointing about the "mystery" person who stopped Wyden's provision?? WYDEN's PROVISION STILL STUNK!!!! There was NEVER any "anti-bonus" provision to begin with! Get with it, people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 AM on 03/19/2009
- wlpc I'm a Fan of wlpc permalink

Very well said. We need to stop being 'sheeple' and pay attention to what is happening in the world around us. Concise, accurate information is not easily obtained but it is out there--if you can get through the noise of party line politics. Both sides have their hands dirty in this matter and those who are pointing the biggest fingers and yelling 'Not me' the loudest are probably the worst offenders. I am sick to death of the blame falling along party lines. Call your senators/congress persons out on this matter no matter whose side you or they are on. We need to put some politicians feet to the fire about this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:44 PM on 03/18/2009



Washington Post published an editorial in early 2008 (Feb) by Elliot Spitzer titled, "Predatory Lenders" Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,"
In this editorial, Spitzer explained:

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government"s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.

Too bad the "liberal" media covered this story up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 03/18/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

The story has been out there. It just takes more than two sentences to explain it, and in this sound-bite culture, those stories don't make the headlines.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 03/18/2009
- 1dogmom I'm a Fan of 1dogmom 6 fans permalink

The people who DID IT are the people who TOOK THE MONEY!

My husband is the chief financial officer at a major state university. ALL of the administrative officials gave up their merit raises and their annual bonuses, and gave the funds to financial aid for the students. When people are struggling to send their kids to college, it sends the wrong message for the administration to take out more money. My husband works 10 hour days at his job, and has kept the university afloat during this financial crisis, so he certainly deserved the pay, but, in the current crisis, everyone needs to man up and make some sacrifices.

Hey, you greedy SOB's--you have enough money! DO THE RIGHT THING!
Give the money back!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 03/18/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

Yes, but your husband didn't take the job just to make himself obscenely wealthy, as I'm sure all the AIG guys did ... Your husband and his colleagues have a social conscience.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

Just have him cut a couple of "studies" programs and a few other programs where obtaining a job after getting the BA in PMS studies is impossible. Then, he will be able to get the money he deserves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 03/18/2009

Where's Butchie65 and JohnTalbutt. Off somewhere eating crow I guess.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 03/18/2009

It's all a joke. B u s h is pointing and laughing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 AM on 03/19/2009

This whole incident have proved that Politician and rich people sees common people as stupid and idiot. Reasons;
1) Some Politician is demanding to reduce 160 million from next bailout money to AIG. So, they are expecting next bailout to AIG.
2) AIG has to disclose this to SEC before they grant bonuses, if Geithner or Obama is thinking they did not knew about this, then it is bunch of lie.
3) CEO is suggesting that it is very important to keep these people around to run the company, when the unemployment rate is about 7.7%, with some people fully qualified to take the job. These are the same people who brought the mess.
4) Everything will be forgotten because nothing is in common people hands, by the election time
there will be another issue which will be important that people would vote to elect either party.
5) When company does bad lowest level employee gets laid-off first, at the same time senior management gets the bonus of doing bad job. When company gets free bail out money, lowest level employees gets minimum bonus and senior management gets awesome bonuses.
So remember this.. common people always remain common people (with the exception of few). Don't raise your voice against these smart people (politicians and rich people), if you would like to pay your mortgage and wants to fulfill your basic needs or your small dreams because common people, you are nothing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:10 PM on 03/18/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

Sen. Dodd just stated on CNN that in response to a request from the Treasury Department, he "agreed" to have a provision inserted that invalidated bonus restrictions in the bill if the restrictions conflicted with contractual provisions that became effective before February 9, 2009.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 03/18/2009
- Ping I'm a Fan of Ping 63 fans permalink

After denying it yesterday on CNN, now he's blaming an unnamed Treasury official.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:56 PM on 03/18/2009

Jesus, can you read???

Wyden's provision "would have forced bailout recipients to CAP their bonuses at $100,000. ANY amount paid ABOVE that would have been taxed at 35 percent."

Don't you understand.??..the provision that was "inexplicably removed" would have merely capped bonus paid a LOW tax rates at 100,000 BUT IT WOULD NOT STOP AMOUNTS PAID OVER THIS AMOUNT -- it would merely have taxed it at higher rates. I don't get it -- Wyden's bill still sounds like a bonus from taxpayer money to me..why all this "who's to blame" and finger pointing about the "mystery" person who stopped Wyden's provision?? WYDEN's PROVISION STILL STUNK!!!! There was NEVER any "anti-bonus" provision to begin with! Get with it, people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 AM on 03/19/2009
- MarkBoston I'm a Fan of MarkBoston 18 fans permalink
photo

NEWS FLASH .... Bloody Dodd did it !!! He just now fessed up.. then why did he say he did not earlier today ???? Dodd lied to us !!!! WTF ?????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 03/18/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

Dodd received more money from AIG than any other Senator.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 PM on 03/18/2009

link?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 AM on 03/19/2009
- mauibob I'm a Fan of mauibob 20 fans permalink

This is only the beginning. I just read over at Drudge the Fannie Mae has just announced huge bonuses to key executives of $611,000 each and Freddie Mac says they will also pay bonuses. This Congress stripped out a bipartisan amendment that would have heavily penalized these bonuses and someone stripped them out. That had to be either a Democrat in the reconciliation process of the 2 bills, Geithner or Obama himself. Since Dodd and Obama received the most contributons from AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I would say that would be the first place to look. This is horrible and cannot be allowed to stand in the most "transparent" administration.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:57 PM on 03/18/2009
- mauibob I'm a Fan of mauibob 20 fans permalink

Sorry forgot the link. This has really pissed me off.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fannie-plans-bonuses-of-up-to-apf-14679491.html

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:01 PM on 03/18/2009

Oh yes, a Dem. Yep, cos only Dems are in Congress, right? You MO R O N!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 AM on 03/19/2009
photo

Who deregulated CDS, CDO's, etc.?

It was not Bush, it was Clinton and Rubin. You can blame Bush for a lot things, but this is not one of them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:56 PM on 03/18/2009

Washington Post published an editorial by Spitzer titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers,”
In this editorial, Spitzer explained:

The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government’s actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks.

Too bad the "liberal" media covered this story up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:07 PM on 03/18/2009

Thanks for posting this. I saw this a while ago....ironic how Spitzer was targeted soon thereafter..hmmm

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 AM on 03/19/2009
- Ping I'm a Fan of Ping 63 fans permalink

The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 sponsored by Phil Gramm of Texas-R.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:59 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

Geitner has not served this president well. He needs to get off the bus at the next available stop.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 03/18/2009

I agree. And add Summers to the list. Summers put in deregulation provisions under Clinton. Obama could have chosen fresh smart people and did not. He could have chosen - James Galbraith, Stiglitz, Krugman, Roubini and even Goolsby for some of these critical spots. Instead, he recycled Wall Street hacks. I guess Obama is too scared to be labeled a socialist, so wanted to prove his "Wall Street" credentials by picking these hacks. What a sad mis read of the nation's needs and the nation's mood and anger!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 PM on 03/18/2009

Isn;t Galbraith dead?! I like the Stig man. I agree. Add Kuttner

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:59 AM on 03/19/2009

More and more, it is sure looking like that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 03/18/2009

Educate yourself, please.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 AM on 03/19/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

If he doesn't get off voluntarily, he should be kicked off. Effective yesterday.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 03/18/2009

Hold your breath.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 AM on 03/19/2009
- TeeLolly I'm a Fan of TeeLolly 46 fans permalink

If he doesn't voluntarily get off, he should be thrown under it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

I don't think he warrants being "thrown under the bus" as he has not been malevolent in his actions, he is simply out of touch. That he thought Americans would get over this 'bonus" fiasco shows his ignorance of how it feels to be on main street. This is politics and guess what Tim, we do have a say in policy here on main street. Obama has to jettison "ANY" of his staff that pull stunts like this. He has been caught behind the curve twice this week, first the veteran insurance fiasco, now this. His staffers are failing him in this, the most important of times, the start of his presidency.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 03/19/2009
- Barbyrah I'm a Fan of Barbyrah 6 fans permalink

Ditto Geithner. And Summers. And Goolsbee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:08 AM on 03/19/2009
- salsmom I'm a Fan of salsmom 4 fans permalink

If I heard Mr. Liddy correctly he said that he told the Federal Reserve trustees (three folks - one woman and two men) about the bonus payments. He also said that he was not aware of any discussion that they may or may not have had with Treasury because the Fed Reserve trustees are overseeing the AIG bailout not Treasury. The one bright spot for me is that there are hearings on these matters - we at least are not hearing the cries of "executive privilege" as we did with the last administration as the reason to never allow public review of bad congressional and/o presidential administrative decisions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 03/18/2009

Thank YOU!!! Where are the docs from the SECRET ENERGY TASK FORCE held in CHENEY's back office? I'm waiting!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:00 AM on 03/19/2009

ooops.

not 304 billion, but 3-4 billion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:38 PM on 03/18/2009

Who was part of the original FED CONSORTIUM in Sep 1998, the one that fallback/bailed out LTCM, instead of letting a handful of hedge fund bandits eat it back then, at the 'peak' of the miracle 90s 'the' economy? Back then, it only took 304 billion of FED backup to 'save the entire free world economies from systemic failure and imminenet disaster.'

Wake up and smell the crony mob.

The folks at AIG clearly took some notes ten years ago on the topic of 'moral hazard.' Thank you, federal government, for establishing the precedent that there was no financial nonsense too insane not to be bailed out by crony friends at the FED.

It's a good thing that was a once in a hundred year event, or else, we'd be doing it every day.

Brilliant.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 03/18/2009

Moral hazard is overplayed...you know in the 30's people argued against FDIC (deposit insurance) because of individual moral hazards it may cause...but Fed argued it would help stabilize the system as a whole..haven't had disastrous bank runs since then...hmmm...

Regarding LTCM bailout, educate yourself, please:

"Goldman Sachs, AIG and Berkshire Hathaway offered then to buy out the fund's partners for $250 million, to inject $3.75 billion and to operate LTCM within Goldman's own trading division. The offer was rejected and the same day the Federal Reserve Bank of New York organized a bailout of $3.625 billion by the major creditors to avoid a wider collapse in the financial markets. The contributions from the various institutions were as follows: [19] [20]

* $300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Credit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P.Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Salomon Smith Barney, UBS
* $125 million: Société Générale
* $100 million: Lehman Brothers, Paribas
* Bear Stearns declined to participate.

In return, the participating banks got a 90% share in the fund and a promise that a supervisory board would be established."

Although the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) facilitated the takeover,it did
not bail out LTCM

EDUCATE YOURSELF PLEASE!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 AM on 03/19/2009
- harveyr2 I'm a Fan of harveyr2 17 fans permalink

It's Obama's stimulus bill so he, or someone in his administration removed the provisions. No surprise as the politics of the past continue and the Obama promises fade. Not change we can believe in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 PM on 03/18/2009
- Pleneras I'm a Fan of Pleneras 53 fans permalink
photo

?????? zzzzzzz.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 03/18/2009
- butchie65 I'm a Fan of butchie65 7 fans permalink

Hey Harv, where's the proof !

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 03/18/2009

Do dd just stated on cnn that the Treas. Dept requested the provisions be removed. I guess Obama's indignation is a load of bull.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

This may have been a mistake by the administration and some heads need to roll (Geitner) if it is, but fixing this mess is going to be messy. You can't get down and unclog the sewer system without poo getting on you. Obama did not create this mess. Lax regulation and republican CEOs did.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

The AIG bailout began under GWB/Paulson; so using your logic GWB or someone in his administration blah blah blah ....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 03/18/2009

Sweety you are simply delusional .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 03/19/2009
- Chbronze I'm a Fan of Chbronze 6 fans permalink

Dick Cheney did it, in the library, with a scalpel. How could this not be blamed on the Bush administration, they did everything else.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:32 PM on 03/18/2009

You have it. Surely Bush and Cheney must be responsible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 03/18/2009

Where are the criminals hiding??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 AM on 03/19/2009

That is who usually gets the blame for everything, including the weather.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:43 PM on 03/18/2009
photo

it IS kind of chilly and I DO blame Cheney ... ummm?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:50 PM on 03/18/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last » (6 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect