15 of top 20 bonuses returned by AIG employees
posted at 6:55 pm on March 23, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Did I say AIG? I meant AIU Holdings, of course.
All it took to get the money back was a national witch hunt replete with aborted plans to descend on AIG executives’ homes. Good work, Congress.
Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo of New York announced late Monday afternoon that 9 of the top 10 bonus recipients at the American International Group had given back their bonuses.
He also said 15 of the top 20 bonus recipients in A.I.G.’s financial products division had given the money back, for a total that he estimated at about $30 million. “Those bonuses will be returned in full,” Mr. Cuomo said during a conference call with reporters…
Mr. Cuomo reiterated Monday that his office was sensitive to the security and privacy concerns of A.I.G. employees and that it would conduct a risk assessment before releasing name. More than 400 people received bonuses in A.I.G.’s financial products division.
Exit question one: The White House, to its credit, has been noncommittal when pressed on whether Obama will sign a bill taxing the bonuses. Does this give The One the political cover he needs to say no? Bear in mind that public support for recouping them is at 77 percent. Exit question two: Has the political damage already been done? Opposition to further Wall Street bailouts is dangerously close to majority levels…
Update: The One gets legal cover too from con-law expert Laurence Tribe:
Tribe says the main problem is that it’s hard to make the case that the law isn’t “punitive.”
“Its punitive intent is increasingly transparent,” Tribe says. “when you have Chuck Grassley calling on [executives] to commit suicide, and people responding to pitch fork sentiment, it’s hard to argue that this isn’t an attempt to punish an identifiable set of individuals who are the subject of understandable outrage.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
When will Freddie Mac and Fannie mae return their bonuses ?
Maybe Obama can ask his new housing cheif when he will give back bonus money ?
William Amos on March 23, 2009 at 6:58 PM
This is insane.
So when are bonuses at Freddie & Fannie being cut?
Barney Frank, call your office…
Wanderlust on March 23, 2009 at 6:59 PM
So Obama won a battle but may have lost the bailout war? Timmy needs up to a trillion for TARP II, as well as the automakers?
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Chicago rules.
the_nile on March 23, 2009 at 7:00 PM
Big deal!
Call me when Teleprompter Prez, Dodd, McCain and all the rest of the crooks in Congress return their campaign contributions.
Knucklehead on March 23, 2009 at 7:01 PM
Meanwhile China is beginning to slow its purchases of Treasury bonds, as has been reported recently.
Someone had better begin tracking China’s T-bond activity monthly. When they stop buying altogether and begin selling, it’ll be time to head out to that place in Montana.
Wanderlust on March 23, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Institutions that are on the “public teat”, that is, those that have taken public funds to guarantee their survival, should be forced to have all employees live under the “GS” schedule for government employment wages, effective at the time they take the public funds. The general rule is this: If we backstop you then you live on public-sector salaries. End of discussion. If you object to this then return the public money and have a go of it on your own.
- Denninger
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM
I say, good luck with TARP II, lads!
They just got everyone all angsty with the banks. How will they now go give them another trillion?
blatantblue on March 23, 2009 at 7:03 PM
Will Dodd and Obama return their campaign contributions?
backwoods conservative on March 23, 2009 at 7:04 PM
I would most definitely NOT be giving the money back.
I’m a capitalist and I’m not ashamed of the money I earn. If I kept up my end of the contract and got the money legally, I’d keep it.
JadeNYU on March 23, 2009 at 7:04 PM
AIG changes name to AIU Holdings. Should have been IOU Holdings!
Getting the money back through coercion and intimidation = the Chicago Way. The protection racket comes to D.C.
Ordinary American on March 23, 2009 at 7:05 PM
How will these executives be able to afford campaign contributions to politicians if they don’t keep the bonuses?
malclave on March 23, 2009 at 7:06 PM
There was no witch hunt, just some light shown on the cockroaches.
Yah, I didn’t think we would see any pictures of the mobs breaking into the castles of all these socialists/welfare queens/incompetents favored by the political royalists class getting paid like big successful capitalists on the taxpayers and kids and grandkid’s “dime”.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Yeah … great, thanks.
Now how about returning the billions?
darwin on March 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM
I wouldn’t give it back either so I guess that makes me and you RAAAAAAAAAACISTS
Knucklehead on March 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM
These AIG “executives” and other AIG employees are for all $$$$$$$$$$ intents and purposes government employees, arguably more like welfare queen wards of the state, so why should they get paid like big capitalists?
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM
To it’s credit? What’s that song?….Don’t be fooled again…
Instead of singling out TARP recepients, Obama will widen the tax to affect a broad spectrum of greedy capitalists.
Buy Danish on March 23, 2009 at 7:12 PM
its not it’s.
Buy Danish on March 23, 2009 at 7:13 PM
Consumer Watchdog’s executive director Doug Heller said: ‘As the owners of AIG, American taxpayers have a right—and the government has an obligation—to demand that not a dime of bonus money is paid to anyone who broke the law, defrauded a shareholder or can be tied to the disastrous collapse of AIG that led to the bailout”.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:14 PM
I saw Chuckie Cheese Schumer at a St. Pat’s parade yesterday and he was kvelling over taxing them at 100%.
Of course he dummied up and ran for cover when I asked him when he was going to return his Bernie Madoff contributions.
JammieWearingFool on March 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Audacity.
sesquipedalian on March 23, 2009 at 7:16 PM
If we had a righteous man for an AG he would be going after AIG with RICO and almost certainly have a field day.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:16 PM
You don’t ask that after you sign the contract, then you ask the sucker who signed it.
the_nile on March 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Who is John Galt?
TheTrollhammer on March 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM
Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Summers the simple question that has haunted the American public since the bailouts began last fall: “Do you know, Dr. Summers, what the banks have done with all of this money that has been funneled to them through these bailouts?” What followed was a monologue of evasion that, translated into English, amounted to: Not really, but you little folk needn’t worry about it.
Yet even as Summers spoke, A.I.G. was belatedly confirming what he would not. It has, in essence, been laundering its $170 billion in taxpayers’ money by paying off its reckless partners in gambling and greed, from Goldman Sachs and Citigroup on Wall Street to Société Générale and Deutsche Bank abroad.
Summers was even more highhanded in addressing the “retention bonuses” handed to the very employees who brokered all those bad bets. After reciting the requisite outrage talking point, he delivered a patronizing lecture to viewers of ABC’s “This Week” on how our “tradition of upholding law” made it impossible to abrogate the bonus agreements. It never occurred to Summers that Americans might know that contracts are renegotiated all the time — most conspicuously of late by the United Automobile Workers, which consented to givebacks as its contribution to the Detroit bailout plan. Nor did he note, for all his supposed reverence for the law, that the A.I.G. unit being rewarded with these bonuses is now under legal investigation by British and American authorities.
- Frank Rich
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Why , they didn’t do anything illegal , it was all official.
the_nile on March 23, 2009 at 7:18 PM
The problem is most people who are complaining are just jealous about the bonuses. After a national temper tantrum the executives at AIG found it easier (and safer most likely) to just give in to the whiners. You should never give in to children to quiet them and keep the peace. Believe me the current administration is filled with children who always whine till they get their way. Oh how I wish the exects at AIG would have stood up, but I do understand why they backed down.
It is still a shame though, such a teachable moment (the phrase of the week). The jealous whiners should have studied harder when they were in school. Maybe then, they too could have been in a position to receive a bonus.
Tommy_G on March 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Is AIG’s Reinsurance Side a House of Cards, Too?
March 20, 2009
So it sure sounds like AIG may be hiding its own special version of reinsurance $hitpile in Bermuda.
I’m developing an increasingly gloomy belief that every single one of these bonuses–the AIGFP ones we’re all talking about, but also the 4500 bonuses to people in the so-called “healthy” insurance side–are tied to an amazing financial fraud. And we, the taxpayers, are bribing these people to stick around their fraud long enough to try to undo it.”
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM
All of the bailout bonuses must be returned – not 30m of 165m.
sethstorm on March 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM
I am sure the death threats had nothing to do with it.
Terrye on March 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
They are frauds and Welfare Queens. That’s about it. When they made money with their reckless gambling, and probably criminal fraud, they were big capitalists. Now they are nothing but socialist Welfare Queens sucking at the goobermint teat.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:23 PM
If they’re criminals , they should face the law and not some fake outrage over bonuses.
the_nile on March 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Does anyone else think the government might still make them pay the 90% tax on the money they gave back? A 190% tax rate isn’t all that unbelievable.
jbohanon on March 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Mr Madoff’s already been through the judicial system.
sethstorm on March 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Why? Obama, Dodd and Geithner worked hard to protect them.
Chuck Schick on March 23, 2009 at 7:24 PM
AIG epitomizes the worst of “capitalism” and the worst of socialism. Privatize the profits, probably fraudulent, and socialize the losses onto the peasants and their kids and grandkids. They are nothing but a gaggle of Welfare Queens now.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM
It is easy to give away other people’s money.
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2009 at 7:30 PM
blah blah bad news erryday
:[
blatantblue on March 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM
True.
I guess I’m just figuring — if these people are mad that the greedy banks are wasting their money on planes, bonuses, hangars, wont they be pissed if Obama, after chastising them, just goes and gives them more?
blatantblue on March 23, 2009 at 7:31 PM
They likely are criminals but will also likely be protected, even by those among the royalty who have expressed outrage.
As far as the outrage being fake, well not on my part it isn’t and not likely on the part of the rest of the non-royalist class either.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Great! Now that we know this, where do Dodd, Frank, and all the Congressmen who took campaign contibutions from Fannie and Freddi live?
Christian Conservative on March 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the folks who turned in their bonuses were women and minorities?
Y-not on March 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Obama, Dodd, Waters and Geithner next.
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Not to mention Franks.
Johan Klaus on March 23, 2009 at 7:34 PM
So, any guess what their retention rates will be given the removal of retention bonuses?
Obviously sethstorm thinks we shouldn’t pay to get quality people in to fix the company. Makes sense to me, but couldn’t we have let it fold $180 billion dollars ago instead of keeping it afloat and draining money?
Or do we not want it to fold, but also not want valuable people and not want job retention? How exactly does this work again?
We pay crap, scapegoat our employees, set lynch mobs on our executives, and expect high productivity workers to fix problems…
Either these people are not useful/necessary and are in fact part of the problem, in which case quit fiddling with bonuses and fire them (as the Govt. owns 80%, I’m guessing this is possible).
Or these are people you actually need to keep in order to get the company to the point where the Govt. might actually recoup its investment, in which case robbing, slandering, and attacking them might not create the loyalty required to keep them.
And if in fact we do “need” someone to fix these companies; are they going to work harder knowing that harder work will result in no raises, no bonuses, and no benefits for their hard work?
If you believe people will be willing to work harder for nothing; come work for me. I’ll pay you nothing to begin with so I know you’ll be the hardest working “employees” in America.
gekkobear on March 23, 2009 at 7:39 PM
It’s a good thing I didn’t get one then, because not only would I not be giving it back, I’d tell you, Fwank, and any other idiot politician grandstanding over this non-issue to go f**k yourselves.
xblade on March 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I know the gutter and I know the stink of the street
For too long now I have pressed through this festering heat
All you AIG beauties who towered above me
You who gave me the smack of your rod
Now I give you the gutter
I give you the judgment of God!
The world may be ugly, but each man must do what he must
Give in now and in a year you will be dust
Come let our Lady of Justice possess you
In her breathtaking, hair-raising bed
She will tingle your spine
As she captures your heart and your head
PercyB on March 23, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I believe we have a poorly coded bot here.
sethstorm on March 23, 2009 at 7:47 PM
More on Timmy’s Pyrrhic victory from Geraghty at NRO.
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM
What about all those campaign contributions to Dodd, Obama, McCain, etc?
Knucklehead on March 23, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Yes, but the “socialism” side of your complaint is the government’s fault.
The solution is not to give the government the power to coercively undo private contracts. That’s just piling problems on top of problems.
sandberg on March 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM
The list is almost endless but I will go for whatever low hanging fruit can be gotten now and hope that a ladder can be found later to go for the higher hanging.
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:51 PM
And the millions paid Chrysler executives, too?
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM
“The Judicial System” also ruled in a lawsuit in 2003 that Iraq played a part in the 9/11 attacks. Decision was handed down by a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge.
BTW I was unaware that Mr. Madoff had already gone on trial and either found innocent or convicted. When did this trial take place?
Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2009 at 7:55 PM
To celebrate this great event, getalife announced that she was returning the 25 cent per post bonus that Begala and Carville have been giving her.
Life is good.
Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Pled guilty and saved the US the cost of a trial.
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
If just ONE of them had the balls, they would have laid out the facts in a press conference. Obama knew, they earned it, etc.
marklmail on March 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Private contracts are undone all the time.
A contract with an employee was signed?
There’s nothing to be done?
Goodness.
Does AIG think the American public is a bunch of rubes?
A legion of lawyers makes its living challenging such contracts, under a variety of legal theories, including fraud.
Walk into any civil courthouse across the country and just watch.
There is also no shortage of theories from financial analysts on how to give AIG leverage to renegotiate those contracts, including making the AIG business unit that cut those bad deals into a separate company and threatening to put it into bankruptcy and end its obligation to pay the bonuses.
In short, there’s plenty that can be done to stop payment on those bonuses or radically slash them.
- Chicago Sun-Times
Courts Unlikely to Strike Down AIG Tax Law, Legal Experts Say
MB4 on March 23, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Corporate CEOs don’t have much expertise in press conferences. You might get a Lee Iaccoca once in a generation.
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Then why are we still spending money on his case?
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzmado206076144mar20,0,229786.story
Del Dolemonte on March 23, 2009 at 8:03 PM
The govenrment doesn’t undo contracts. One of the parties files for breach of contract. The bases for a judge voiding a contract is certainly set out in law, but if there was a meeting of the minds, the parties were adults dealing at arms-length, the terms were not ambiguous, and if this was a common practice in this type of business, you’d have a hard time setting it aside. (outside of bankruptcy court)
The government is restricted by the Impairment of Contrcts provision in the Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1.
The tax does not “undo” the contract. It simply taxes the consideration received by one party at a confiscatory rate.
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Trying to figure out how much damage he’s done before he’s sentenced. Restitution is obviously an option.
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 8:07 PM
I didn’t read the article you posted, but they found another billion dollars today that Bernie had stashed in Gibralter. They’re busy trying to find his stash, going to set up a fund to try and recoup some of the money his investors lost.
They’re also trying to nail his wife. I say go for it.
Knucklehead on March 23, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Hotair has gone topsy-turvy with its latest parlour game
Defending these AIG Queens from night to morn
Some dress themselves in a wreath of indignation at the very hint of any of them to blame
You’d think that in them saintly Joan of Arc had been re-born
Others imagine those with torches and pitchforks assaulting them and their ill gotten gain
You’d think that it was the Devil himself that them did cane
But the jackanapes are always runnin’ round in some disguise
What they hope to accomplish, God alone knows
PercyB on March 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Seth- you make exactly one type of post here. Broaden yourself a little would you?
Chuck Schick on March 23, 2009 at 8:22 PM
I wouldn’t pay my bonus back until Barney Frank is arrested.
d1carter on March 23, 2009 at 8:50 PM
Sen. Dodd’s wife was a director of an AIG subsidiary
Wethal on March 23, 2009 at 9:06 PM
..After they took all my money, It may sound funny but I come to get my money back, and everybody says don’t you know Jack…..
Dr Evil on March 23, 2009 at 9:13 PM
They had plenty of time to show for it, and all they do is evade accountability and responsibility – as business has managed to do for the last 30+ years.
sethstorm on March 23, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Obama thinks the AIG bonuses are small potatos.
It sounded to me that Obama, on 60 minutes, expressed concern that the AIU bonus bill may be unconstitutional because it singles out a small group of people.
But that could be overcome by extending the bill, demanding that all sorts of financial execs return bonuses. That I don’t think Obama would object to. In fact, he expressed desire for this today.
DarkKnight3565 on March 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Conservative congressmen are rare birds in California and I was shocked when some (including mine) voted for the tax. A lot of strange things are happening and it pays to look a little deeper.
Tom McClintock explained his vote and it’s worth a look.
Many will disagree, but he makes a logical case for his vote.
Feedie on March 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Undone? That’s a little vague. In what ways exactly? Through breeches? Annulments? Abrogation? Termination? Expiration? Mutually? Unilaterally? What about an arbitrary unilateral breech from one party (which happens to be the federal government-thus giving different meaning to private)…with a little ex post facto legislation to boot?
Adhering to the language of original contract amounts to fraud in what way?
Cases inside civil courthouses does not equate to automatic validity of said cases. So what is to be learned exactly by witnessing several cases around the country? That volume is a substitute for a reasoned and sound argument?
anuts on March 23, 2009 at 10:14 PM
We should have let the companies failed, and thrown everybody that committed fraud, from the homeowner, all the way up the corporate ladder in jail, and reinstated Glass/Steigel.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2009 at 10:49 PM
It’s a sly way to put the brakes on the bailouts, but hitting executives in the wallet is a sure way to discourage them from seeking a bailout.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2009 at 10:51 PM
There is enough finger pointing to go around, but AIG isn’t the problem, the problem is in Washington. Every one of the political aristocracy that voted for this are the one’s trying to bankrupt the country in order to save their own asses. If you follow the money it all leads back the Washington. They are ALL crooks, but its always everyone elses’ guy that’s bad, not mine. When you people wake up and figure out that its your guy screwing you, your children and their children, then maybe you’ll put his ass in the unemployment line.
belad on March 23, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Ok, I have no idea what you’ve just said.
If these people are useless, overpaid, or unnecessary; well the company is on the ropes financially. Don’t fiddle with bonuses, fire them. Trim the fat to try to save the profitable ventures.
If these people are useful, necessary, and their harder work can turn the company into a profit making venture; then bonuses for performance seem appropriate encouragement to get the desired performance.
Unless of course the goal is to punish everyone, drive out any good workers, discourage work, and funnel money into this sh*t sandwich until is finally dies losing the $170 billion plus in funding… in which case; your plan is perfect.
Is that the plan? Force a collapse and a loss of $170 billion (or more) with absolutely nothing to show for it?
If that isn’t your plan, maybe you need to specify how to get from where we are to where you think we should be.
I wish we hadn’t given them $170 billion in the first place; but since that idiocy is done and gone, can we at least try to get the business to function so we can get something useful out of it? Or does that offend you too much to try?
gekkobear on March 23, 2009 at 11:42 PM
It’s places like this where common ground might be forged by non-leftists against the mindless left. Commenters here detailed their experience with large construction companies forming their own mortgage units. It reeked conflict-of-interest, similar to the effect of repealing Glass/Stegall. Decentralized systems, with many feedbacks, are stronger.
Many things would not be possible without corporations, but to ignore the shadow side is folly. They are large collectives, and anyone who has qualms about how the bottom line is enhanced won’t be working there for long. A libertine approach to corporatism melded to big government gives an unpatriotic stew, an amoral nightmare. All human values can’t be reduced to a bottom line. The disconnects created by these modern entities (even falsely perceived!) are every bit as real to a community as a politburo in Moscow making decisions about heating in Siberia.
I am trying to make a distinction that would be exploited by leftists to trash all economic freedom. Leftism, with its taxes and regulations, sickens and kills small businesses. It encourages the corporate giantism that leftists claim to abhor. In our system, it takes big fish to grease the machine enough to function past the edge of profitability. That must change.
After the leftist madness burns out, I hope better minds can assess the 19th Century construct of corporatism and make some positive adjustments.
Feedie on March 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM
I’m surprised Tribe got thi one right after all, he is one of those that believe that the Constitution is a living document.
larvcom on March 24, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Not good enough, there must be BLOOD!!! RAWWWRR capitalist pigs!!
Grafted on March 24, 2009 at 7:53 AM
I am still waiting to hear from the first politician who is returning money donated to them by AIG or any of the other bailout firms.
JeffinSac on March 24, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Glad to see people voluntarily breaking contracts which are in their favor. Giving up – that’s the spirit that made America great!
hawksruleva on March 24, 2009 at 9:12 AM
The “or more” is probably closer. Liddy said the FD had unwound $1Trillion in bad assets, and had $1.6 Trillion to go.
But hey, saving a company from a Trillion dollar nightmare isn’t worth a bonus, right?
hawksruleva on March 24, 2009 at 9:14 AM
I’m still waiting for the outrage on that and other topics.
hawksruleva on March 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM
One has to wonder if we’ll see the same level of outrage when those executives start bailing on AIU. If you accept the logic that the bonus receipitents were the the best qualified I imagine resumes are flying.
No retention bonus should equate to no motivation to stick around working for a failing company. I guess we’ll end up depending on employees who weren’t deemed critical enough to get bonuses being able to fix the problem.
katiejane on March 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM
IMHO, the AIG execs should give back their bonuses when Obama and Dodd return the hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions they were given by AIG execs. Only fair!
BillyRuffn on March 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM
well i know 15 families with no stimulus one of the things that makes america great is the chance to earn as much as you can ,for the rotten goverment to step in and pass a tax law against them is a moral outrage these peoples 401ks have been destroyed obama wants union people to go to there houses to make there lives even worse.somuch for the new tone.by the way brain dead congress your tax law is unconstitutional look it up bone heads
wade underhile on March 24, 2009 at 7:17 PM
I would have moved to another country with my bonus.
chunderroad on March 24, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Comment pages: