"Blaming Dodd for AIG-Gate Misses the Mark"

[Mike 03]

I offer this for what it's worth. I'm still trying to figure this all out myself, but this blog entry seems sensible. Quite honestly, I'm still confused about the entire "blame" issue regarding the bonuses. I think we will get clarification once Liddy releases his list of all the Congresspeople who were apprised of the situation in December but conveniently forgot.

SNIP:

There’s a new argument coursing through Washington in the last 48 hours, which lays the blame for the AIG bonus scandal at the feet of Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) for altering his recently-enacted executive pay proposal to exclude AIG.

The blame is misplaced. Here’s why.

The Dodd executive pay amendment, which was attached to the $787 billion stimulus bill last month, prohibited top executives at bailed-out firms from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their salaries. The amendment, which was opposed by the Obama administration, passed the Senate by a voice vote on Feb. 12.

Afterwards, at the urging of the White House, Dodd agreed to add a clause ensuring that the restrictions wouldn’t apply to “any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009.” This is the language in the final bill signed by President Obama, and because AIG’s controversial bonuses are contractual, it’s also the reason that the insurance giant isn’t subject to the Dodd amendment’s limits. (As Daphne points out today, there are legal questions about whether Washington can meddle with those contracts in any event, but let’s assume for a moment that the original Dodd provision would have empowered Treasury to do so — if only because that’s what Dodd critics are doing this week.)

In a statement issued Tuesday, Dodd said that the language modifications were made “to ensure that some bonus restrictions would be included in the final stimulus bill.”

The implication was that if he didn’t agree to the compromise with the White House, the entire provision would have been stripped out. And there was good reason to fear that would have happened. Indeed, two other executive pay provisions that passed the Senate were deemed unacceptable to the Obama administration.

MORE HERE

http://washingtonindependent.com/34688/blaming-dodd-for-aig-gate-misses-the-mark

He does go on to slightly implicate Geithner, which I hope is not true. I really like TG and would hate to see him left to twirl in the wind as a result of some oversight he made while trying to handle this incredible disaster.

[FrenchieCat]

1. This is not AIG-Gate, it is BonusGate.

AIG-Gate is part of BUSH-Gate, but since your post focuses exclusively on Democrats
and what they did, it doesn't have anything to do with why AIG needed a bail out to being with....
and that is AIG-Gate!

[lyonn]

6. Love it FrenchieCat

These jerks that go around with the title repub act like none of this mess has a thing to do with them. Schuster just did his hypocrisy watch and had quotes from 3 major repubs changing drastically their story from the Feb. hearings on helping corps out vs telling them how to spend their money. Best I've heard all day.

[burythehatchet]

2. These days, DU, which was once a place where acuracy and honesty was respected

has become a filthy mob.

[Thrill]

3. The Bush Administration should of put restrictions on the AIG bonuses

Democrats need to start pushing the message instead of going on defense

[Traveling_Home]

4. Chris Mathews asked him a great followup yesterday

"The implication was that if he didn’t agree to the compromise with the White House, the entire provision would have been stripped out. And there was good reason to fear that would have happened. Indeed, two other executive pay provisions that passed the Senate were deemed unacceptable to the Obama administration."

Mathews asked who had the clout to stop the entire provision. Dodd wouldn't answer that question.

[biopowertoday]

5. It was the WH that was pushing Dodd along with Treasury......

These are Axelrod's words and he says Obama was outraged feb 15.

and Think progress also has a piece about this issue from Feb 15:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/15/exec-pay-debate /


.....................



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/15/white-house-concerned-abo_n_167041.html

February 15, 2009 10:21 AM

The Obama administration acknowledged on Sunday that its top economic officials had expressed concerns to Congress that the sharp restrictions on executive compensation included in the stimulus package could be counterproductive. Moreover, they did not rule out the possibility that the president could loosen the restrictions.

In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, chief strategist Axelrod said that the President and Congress shared the same "outrage" over the "spectacle of gaudy bonuses for executives at firms that are getting extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers." But he also acknowledged "concerns" that the restrictions in the stimulus went too far. Critics of restrictions believe they will encourage top-officials to leave their companies or persuade banks to not participate in the TARP program.

"Well, obviously, Secretary Geithner and Mr. Summers had concerns about that," said Axelrod. "And they expressed those concerns. But the concerns are at the margins and the goal is one we share."

The president has said he favors capping compensation. But in the final version $787 billion package, Congress also put restrictions on the size of bonuses that bank executives could receive, and expanded the pool of impacted companies beyond what President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner announced in early February.

Here is the transcript:

CHRIS WALLACE: It now turns out that buried in the economic stimulus plan that was passed this week by Congress is a measure that would sharply restrict bonuses for top earners on Wall Street. The White House is reportedly worried that this could result in a brain drain from the firms. That some firms may pay the money back more quickly than they responsibly should so they don't have those restrictions. Is the white house going to try to soften that set of restrictions on pay?


AXELROD: Let me say the President's been very clear that he shares the outrage that most Americans feel about the spectacle of gaudy bonuses for executives at firms that are getting extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers. It's not right. It shouldn't move forward. He's announced his own guidelines for how we should restrict that. In some ways they're tougher than the ones that the Senate passed. They have a hard cap, for example, on compensation. And in other ways they differ. So we're going to work with them... with Senate and the House -- to come up with an appropriate approach to this........

[tonggrv]

7. bailout scam

Either Obama didn't read the final bill wording before he signed it, he wasn't told that that wording was included or he approved of it prior to signing...

The fact that it was signed confuses me to how and why they (congress) thinks they can now charge a sur-tax...