Irate Congress Takes Aim at AIG

[babylonsister]

Irate Congress Takes Aim at AIG
By Phil Mattingly, CQ Staff


Anger over revelations that bailout recipient American International Group Inc. doled out $165 million in bonuses boiled over Monday, and could result in legislation aimed at the company, top congressional Democrats indicated.

AIG, which is now 80 percent owned by the federal government, has been on the receiving end of $170 billion of taxpayer money. President Obama said Monday that he had asked Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to “pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole.”

That effort looked destined to come up short. Senate Banking Chairman Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., said Treasury lawyers had told him last weekend that there was little legal precedent to recover the bonuses. But Dodd and fellow Democrats were exploring proposing a tax that would be narrowly tailored to force AIG to pay back a percentage of the bonus money.

“We’d write a tax provision specifically targeted to that audience,” Dodd said Monday night. The tax could not recover all of the bonus money but could potentially recover a large percentage, he added.

There is a chance that legislation will be introduced by Tuesday, Dodd said.

But House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank , D-Mass., said Monday night that the tax idea, if it were too narrowly tailored, could give the company basis for a lawsuit. He said that because of the federal government’s 80 percent stake, a better option might just be for the government to assert itself as a majority owner.

“It’s a much stronger legal position than intervening in a contract between two other parties,” Frank said. “I think we should become one of the parties.”

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003076070

[Le Taz Hot]

1. Interesting that NOW they're outraged

but when the original Bush bailouts were proposed, the Bush Administration urged Congress not to ask questions about giving away OUR money and to no add any regulation or oversight. Congress' response? "OK." Talk about your "duh!" moments! I find it amusing that NOW they're outraged. Makes for a nice photo op.

[babylonsister]

4. I think the first bailout was crucial, but I didn't like the

'no strings attached' aspect of it. Now, AIG is just rubbing our noses in their shit, flaunting their self-perceived invincibility. I'm glad Congress finally got irate.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Yes, the first bailout was crucial

but Congress is supposed to be the stewards of OUR money and spend it wisely. (OK, I'll wait for the laughter to die down.) Any other entity, particularly an individual, would have had to have met certain criteria under which those funds could be distributed. It's just one more example of how Congress has one set of rules for the wealthy and another for the rest of us. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing and why they were doing it (paybacks for the people who brung 'em). This whole outrage charade has been worthy of Academy Awards.

[babylonsister]

6. The first bailout was authorized by the Federal Reserve, not Congress. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

7. So, you're saying that Congress

the poor little taken-advantage-of group that they are couldn't have done anything about it? No news conferences? No public appearances? No showing up on the talk shows? No rallying of public support? Well, my mistake then. Apparently they are innocent of all wrongdoing.

[babylonsister]

8. Go google it. I'm not making excuses for them, but you need to

do some research. Better yet, find a video of Barney Frank on Maddow's show last night. He explains it.

[Le Taz Hot]

9. I'm not doubting what you say and sorry, I missed

Maddow, I work the night shift. My contention is that Congress, at the very least, could have raised awareness of what was about to be thrust upon us. As I said earlier, THEY are the public stewards of OUR money Sorry, I don't have time to do the research at the moment, I'm reading what DU I can in between loads of laundry, clearing a path in my messy house, getting together tonight's dinner to put in the crock pot AND preparing lunches . . . before going to work for 9 hours. But I'll get right on that research the first spare moment I get.

[babylonsister]

10. Don't be so snotty. Here it is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D64gY2NgZA

[Le Taz Hot]

11. I'll refer you to my sig. line.

n/t

[babylonsister]

14. You're welcome! Thought I'd help you out since you're so busy.

:hi:

[Frustratedlady]

2. I was disappointed to read how many received money FROM AIG

for their campaigns. Dodd's response in the above article is disappointing, to say the least.

I think this has been handled with kid gloves mainly to keep from exposing further involvement by those supposedly fighting "in our interest".

[Mari333]

3. which ones are outraged, the ones who recieved contributions from AIG

or the ones who didnt..oops..looks like most of them did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5271913

feigned outrage imho, is so tiresome.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Uh Oh...Here Comes Another Strongly Worded Letter

As usual it's damage control...the deal is most of this money is gone...we got screwed again. If they're too big to fail, they're just the right size to Nationalize...and do it NOW!!

[pscot]

13. A circular firing squad might be appropriate

AIG has become the sin eater for the whole Wall Street mess, but the Congress was complicit in creating the mess. Their outrage over AIG is a convenient distraction from the larger issues, and gives some of them a chance to bash the President in the bargain.