Bailout King AIG Still to Pay Millions In Bonuses

Lamarr

Star
Registered
By David Cho and Brady Dennis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page A01

Insurance giant American International Group will award hundreds of millions of dollars in employee bonuses and retention pay despite a confrontation Wednesday between the chief executive and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.

But the company agreed to revise some executive payments after what AIG's leader, Edward M. Liddy, called a "difficult" conversation.

The bonuses and other payments have been exasperating government officials, who have committed $170 billion to keep the company afloat -- far more than has been offered to any other financial firm.

The issue came to a head when Geithner called Liddy and told him the payments were unacceptable and had to be renegotiated, said an administration official who was not authorized to comment on the Geithner conversation.

In a letter to Geithner yesterday, Liddy agreed to restructure some of the payments. But Liddy said he had "grave concerns" about the impact on the firm's ability to retain talented staff "if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury."

Read the rest here
 
<font size="4">
Obama to seek 'every legal avenue' to block AIG bonuses

</font size>


President Barack Obama said Monday that he'll seek "every single legal avenue" to block
the payouts of $165 million in executive bonuses
by American International Group, the
insurance behemoth that taxpayers are spending billions to bail out.

Unleashing his criticism in the White House East Room at an event announcing new help for
small businesses hurt by the recession, the president blamed AIG's financial woes on its
executives' "recklessness and greed," and asked, "How do they justify this outrage to
the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

`
 
Yet another example of govt. intervention having unintended consequences! We wouldn't be having this thread if the govt hadn't got involved and bailed them out! What behooves me is people want to blame this mess on Greed and Capitalism. Place the blame where it rightfully belongs: Govt intervention. AIG should be in bankruptcy.

Seriously, what did ya'll think AIG was gonna do?
 
I think it's fine for them to get their hundreds of millions.

Like they say, they earned it. :)
 
this fed mobster liddy talking about, retaing quality workers. its the fucking quailtiy workers that got them in this mess.

liddies job is to get the govt to spend as much federal money as they can...

he is a mole for the federal reserve........

and the federal reserve mafia is behind this whole shit...

they need this nation to be in debt..


and we so busy trying to up the next man, worrying about police officers aka armed security gaurds when we need to kill the head.

and we keep fuckin with the body...

allowing the head to grow more bodies....


thats one of the facts we need to wake up to...

fuck liddy

fuck that racist nazi camp for black people aig

and most of all fuck the federal reserve mafia

Power Love and Unity to all of the people
 
Provision To Rein In AIG Bonuses Was Stripped In Secret

Obama had better get ahead of this.

source: Huffington Post

Wyden: My Bill Could Have Prevented AIG Mess

Additional reporting by Arthur Delaney

Senator Ron Wyden said on Tuesday that the furor surrounding AIG's bonus payments could have been avoided had the Obama White House and members of Congress simply backed legislation that he and Sen. Olympia Snowe introduced more than a month ago.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the Oregon Democrat noted that during the crafting of the stimulus package, he and his Republican colleague from Maine introduced a provision that would have forced bailout recipients to cap their bonuses at $100,000. Any amount paid above that would have been taxed at 35 percent. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">The language made it through the Senate, but during conference committee with the House, it was inexplicably removed.</SPAN>
"The reality is, had that legislation been passed it would have been a very strong disincentive to anybody paying out bonuses in the future," said Wyden. "Earlier, the President had denounced those bonuses that came at the end of the year. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">And when Senator Snowe and I said it is not enough for those in elected office to say it was wrong, that they have got to have a plan to have them pay it back, we were able to get legislation through the United States Senate. Not a single United States Senator was willing in broad daylight to stand up and oppose our bipartisan amendment... but it died in conference."</SPAN>
Looking back, Wyden laments the missed opportunity, saying that it remains unclear who got the language stripped -- "it didn't die by osmosis." (Feel free to send along tips on who killed the provision.)

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Moreover, Wyden says frankly, the Obama administration should have been better prepared to handle what was an inevitable political train wreck.</SPAN>

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"I will say that I talked to most of the key members of the Obama team and I was not able to convince them of the value of the amendment that I authored with Senator Snowe," he recalled. "I think it is unfortunate. I think it was an opportunity to send a careful, well-targeted message, which would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses. I wasn't able to convince them."</SPAN>

That being said, he and Snowe have a remedy: they are reintroducing their stimulus provision as a stand-alone bill, only they are getting even stricter with bailed-out institutions. Instead of capping bonuses at $100,000, they are lowering the level to $25,000. The law would cover all recipients of taxpayer TARP money, as well as those firms -- like AIG -- which have received money outside of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. And it would deal with bonuses issued in 2008. If a company refuses to give up the bonuses, the amount that exceeded $25,000 would be taxed at 35 percent.

"They are either going to have to pay it back or they are going to be taxed," said the Senator. "And I think that is going to be pretty hard when they are already getting taxpayer money."

The legislation, as Wyden notes, effectively accomplishes several tasks -- punishing and dissuading firms for issuing bonuses, while not invalidating labor contracts. "Some of the best lawyers around have looked at it and their judgment is that this would be a legal approach," said Wyden. In a statement from her office, Snowe estimated that had their provision remained in the stimulus, AIG would have either been forced to "return the TARP money or pay out the bonuses and incur a 35 percent tax - equating to roughly $58 million."

Today, the political landscape is quite different from the one during the stimulus debate, with an even greater wave of populist outrage directed at AIG. In that vein, it would be hard to imagine -- should Wyden and Snowe's legislation actually make it to a vote -- Senators publicly opposing it. The Obama administration, too, seems likely to back some sort of measure, having declared that it would do everything in its power to recoup the bonuses paid out by AIG and curb similar practices from happening in the future. On Tuesday, Snowe and Wyden sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, asking him to endorse their approach.

And yet, Wyden still laments the missed opportunity to have put a policy in place from the beginning. Saying that his opposition to the bailouts were based on grounds that there was not "adequate oversight and accountability with respect to preventing these kinds of abuses," he concluded that his initial fears have been confirmed.

"When folks say that money from the TARP went out the door for these kinds of bonuses, what I have been saying is, I'm not exactly surprised," he said. "It was one of the fundamental reasons why I voted against both of those major bailouts."
 
Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

Republicans claim to be outraged over bailed out company executives getting huge bonus. While several weeks ago they were playing the conservative capitalist card of blaming the government of intruding on the free market. Boy does the public have a short memory.

source: Washington Monthly

February 6, 2009

GOP TARGETS BAILOUT SALARY CAPS
.... I was curious to see whether, and to what extent, Republican lawmakers would object to <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the Obama plan to "impose a cap of $500,000 for top executives at companies that receive large amounts of bailout money."</SPAN> It's an idea that's bound to have some populist appeal, so the GOP would have to tread carefully.

Who's going to stick up for exorbitant salaries for executives of failing companies that are already on the public dole? A few Republican lawmakers are willing to give it a shot.

"Because of [the executives'] excesses, very bad things begin to happen, like the United States government telling a company what it can pay its employees. That's not a good thing in America," Kyl told the Huffington Post.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">"What executives have done is troubling, but it's equally troubling to have government telling shareholders how much they can pay the executives," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL).</SPAN>

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) said that he is "one of the chief defenders of Obama on the Republican side," but "as I was listening to him make those statements [about executive pay], I thought, is this still America? Do we really tell people how to run [a business], and who to pay and how much to pay?"</SPAN>

Just to clarify, we're talking about companies that wouldn't exist were it not for federal intervention. We're talking about $500,000 salaries for CEOs whose companies are on the verge of collapse. They're taking our money, so we're applying some strings.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">This, in Inhofe's mind, is un-American? Funny, he and his colleagues have no trouble applying these kinds of strings when it's welfare recipients receiving aid.</SPAN>

We are in some ways still a nation of Puritans, and we don't much cotton to people who can't take care of themselves and end up sponging off our generosity. We demand that welfare recipients do an honest day's work for their checks. And now, since President Obama laid down the law Wednesday, we demand that the guys who ran our banking system into the ground abide by our pay scales in return for our bailing them out.

After all, what's the moral distinction between welfare recipients and the wizards of Wall Street, other than that the welfare recipients aren't the ones responsible for tanking the global economy?

Obama's decision to put pay restrictions on the top executives of banks seeking a federal bailout is a classic instance of saving capitalism from the capitalists. Wall Street may yelp, but it will be politically impossible to keep the financial system afloat unless the public believes its money is not going to reward the very executives who brought that system down.

I suspect Republicans won't invest too much energy in fighting Obama on this. Call it a hunch
 
Re: Provision To Rein In AIG Bonuses Was Stripped In Secret

Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
March 17, 3:01 PM ·

Obama3_17.jpg


Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.

The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:

A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.

With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.

Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?



Barack Obama (D)
Top Contributors


This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.





 
Re: Provision To Rein In AIG Bonuses Was Stripped In Secret

Geithner may get 'thrown under the bus' for this but then again, Who would want that Treasury Secretary's job?

Follow the money, follow the money, follow the money, I bet it leads back to the Federal Reserve.
 
Re: Provision To Rein In AIG Bonuses Was Stripped In Secret

I'm getting really close to saying FUCK ALL OF EM!!!

Obama included..

*waiting til June*
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

They need to fool their constituency into thinking that they were against it all along because it would be political suicide if they were to be found out to be the rats thet they are.
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

<font size="5"><center>
Chris Dodd AIG admission: Democratic Senator
says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses</font size></center>



Chicago Tribune
March 19, 2009


HARTFORD, Conn. — Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) suffered a political blow Wednesday with the admission that he had been involved in key legislative changes that helped pave the way for AIG to pay controversial bonuses.

In a retreat from earlier statements, Dodd said Treasury Department officials had come to him last month urging him to modify an amendment to the stimulus bill that capped bonuses for firms receiving aid.

On Tuesday, Dodd had said he was not a member of the conference committee that crafted the compromise bill and said the exception had not been in the bill as he drafted it.

But late Wednesday, Dodd admitted he had been involved in the change.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dodd_18mar19,0,1351121.story
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

<font size="5"><center>
Chris Dodd AIG admission: Democratic Senator
says he helped adjust bill to allow bonuses</font size></center>



Chicago Tribune
March 19, 2009


HARTFORD, Conn. — Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) suffered a political blow Wednesday with the admission that he had been involved in key legislative changes that helped pave the way for AIG to pay controversial bonuses.

In a retreat from earlier statements, Dodd said Treasury Department officials had come to him last month urging him to modify an amendment to the stimulus bill that capped bonuses for firms receiving aid.

On Tuesday, Dodd had said he was not a member of the conference committee that crafted the compromise bill and said the exception had not been in the bill as he drafted it.

But late Wednesday, Dodd admitted he had been involved in the change.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-dodd_18mar19,0,1351121.story

Not surprised. Both parties are fucking over the American people....
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

Not surprised. Both parties are fucking over the American people....

Would it be more accurate to say, There are individuals in Both parties are fucking over the American people ???

QueEx
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

source: The Hill

Troubled banks still donate to campaigns
By Silla Brush
Posted: 03/03/09 05:42 PM [ET]
Firms receiving billions of dollars in government bailout money have continued to contribute large sums to political campaigns.

The eight largest banks’ political action committees (PACs) spent roughly $225,000, not including operating expenses, between Nov. 25 and the end of January, according to a review of year-end and February filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Those same eight banks have received $170 billion of the government’s $700 billion financial rescue package, passed in October and currently being reworked by President Obama’s administration.

PACs of other banks receiving more than $1 billion in bailout money spent roughly $75,000 over that same period. The firms spent more money at the end of 2008 than the beginning of 2009.

Meanwhile, the PACs of General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, the ailing automakers that requested more than $20 billion in additional bailout money last month, spent roughly $67,000 in the period. Most of that money — $62,500 — came from Chrysler’s PAC in December.

The expenditures range widely, covering local, state and federal politicians, state and federal campaign committees, other PACs and 527 organizations. The financial-services industry has always spent heavily on political campaigns, but the latest contributions come at a time when lawmakers in Washington are slamming the bailout package and calling for new restrictions on how the money can be used. Some banks have been scolded for throwing lavish parties and giving out corporate perks while receiving government help.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a bill last week restricting bailed-out firms from “hosting, sponsoring or paying for conferences, holiday parties and entertainment events.” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) want to ban funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as the bailout is formally known, from being used for lobbying expenses. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill to demand a central database of how TARP funds are being spent.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Some lawmakers, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), have said they will no longer take campaign contributions from company PACs representing bailed-out firms. Most lawmakers and campaign committees have not said they will refuse the firms’ contributions.</SPAN>:lol:
“We think overall it was not appropriate and did not give a good appearance to receive PAC money at this time from institutions that receive TARP money,” said Jim Segel, special counsel to Frank.

Frank will also not receive personal contributions from the top five executives at the eight financial firms receiving the bulk of the TARP money, Segel said.

Dodd’s Friends of Chris Dodd PAC received two contributions from Goldman Sachs’s PAC in December and January worth a combined $4,500, as well as a $2,000 contribution from U.S. Bancorp’s PAC in January. The contributions are for his 2010 Senate reelection campaign. Dodd has returned two of the contributions and is due to return the third, according to an aide.

“Sen. Dodd’s campaign decided in September, when the TARP program was being created, that it will not accept PAC contributions from companies that have received TARP funds,” Dodd spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., which received $25 billion in bailout money last fall, was the largest bank contributor in the last two periods. The firm’s PAC spent roughly $87,000 since Nov. 25, including $5,000 to former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), $5,000 for debt retirement to Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and $5,000 to the New Democrat Coalition PAC.

“We operate our PAC so employees at every level can increase their civic engagement and participation in the electoral process if they want to. One hundred percent of our PAC money comes from more than 5,000 voluntary employee donations, out of their own pockets,” said Jennifer Zuccarelli, spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase.

Wells Fargo’s PAC also gave Coleman a $5,000 PAC contribution on Dec. 23 for his Senate Recount Fund. Huntington Bancshares, an Ohio-based bank, gave $5,000 to the leadership PAC of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Jan. 15. KeyCorp, another Ohio-based bank, gave $7,670 to Ohio Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in January.

Chrysler’s PAC made $62,500 in campaign contributions in December, including $25,000 to the Democratic Governors Association, $12,500 to the National Conference of Democratic Mayors and $25,000 to the Republican Governors Association. Chrysler has received $4 billion in TARP money. Chrysler Financial, a lending arm, has received another $1.5 billion.

“PAC funds are voluntarily contributed by Chrysler managers consistent with federal law for political purposes. We have not and will not use corporate money for political purposes,” a Chrysler spokeswoman said.

The government extended $17.4 billion to GM and Chrysler in December to prop up the ailing carmakers. In February, the two firms presented plans to the Treasury Department requesting another $21.6 billion in government aid.

But critics said that it was inappropriate for companies that have received government money to be turning around and contributing to political campaigns.

“Businesses that are receiving huge amounts of public funds to help salvage themselves from themselves ought to operate as semi-publicly owned entities and should not be making expenditures for influence-peddling on Capitol Hill that includes campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen.

Some firms’ PACs have spent nothing or very little during the period. Morgan Stanley’s PAC, for example, did not spend any money between Nov. 25 and the end of January.

Some of the leading trade associations representing the financial industry also have given hundreds of thousands since mid-November. The American Bankers Association PAC spent $132,000, and the Independent Community Bankers Association spent $106,000. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association PAC spent only $1,000, and the Financial Service Roundtable PAC spent roughly $17,000.
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

<iframe src="http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000123" width="800" height="1000"></iframe>
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

I co-sign with you bro :yes:!!!! Look at the 2 guys on the top of AIG donors list:rolleyes:, I wonder why the media is not putting this out on every news network or front pages :smh:.
opensecrets.org is a mutha!
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

I co-sign with you bro :yes:!!!! Look at the 2 guys on the top of AIG donors list:rolleyes:, I wonder why the media is not putting this out on every news network or front pages :smh:.



Look at the 4 guys on the top of AIG donors list.

Mr.small government and no earmarks!:rolleyes:
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

What’s hilarious about the whole thing is that the republicans are playing upset about the bonuses, but have no alterative answers because they know they are happy with the current system.

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/29772232#29772232" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><style type="text/css">.msnbcLinks {font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;} .msnbcLinks a {text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px;} .msnbcLinks a:link, .msnbcLinks a:visited {color: #5799db !important;} .msnbcLinks a:hover, .msnbcLinks a:active {color:#CC0000 !important;} </style><p class="msnbcLinks">Visit msnbc.com for <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072">News about the Economy</a></p></div>​
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

Oil prices reach new high for 2009 as dollar falls


NEW YORK – A weakened dollar and evidence that OPEC has significantly slowed production sent oil prices soaring to new highs for the year Thursday.

"I think we'll see higher oil prices for a while," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research. "There's an expectation that the market has bottomed out."

Benchmark crude for April delivery surged $3.47, or 7 percent, to settle at $51.61 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil prices hit $52.25 earlier in the day, a price last seen on Dec. 1.

Crude prices have increased 11.6 percent since OPEC ministers met in Vienna on Sunday. The group said it would not cut production again immediately, but there is growing consensus that the millions of barrels taken off the market already each day are starting to balance a supply and demand picture that has been skewed for months.

With the April contract set to expire Friday, most of the trading had shifted to the contract for May delivery, where prices jumped $3.14 to settle at $52.04 a barrel.


Even if the banking crisis is solved this 800 lb gorilla is still lurking in the background. The global economy is too complicated, we need to go back to the old ways of doing things.
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago


Don’t be fooled by the mock outrage and populist furor over the AIG bonuses. It’s just a sideshow which obscures & willfully distracts, with the connivance of the “media of mass distraction” the real den of institutional thieves who have played a trillion-dollar ‘three-card-monte’ scam on the entire world of capitalist ‘consumers’—the so-called little guy; main street.

Keith Olbermann’s special comment tonight (March 19, 2009) encapsulates the outrage against these banksters.

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/IZ4srCYX6bg&hl=en&fs=1[/FLASH]

<font face="arial black" size="6" color="#D90000">PERP WALKS INSTEAD OF BONUSES</font>
<font face="tahoma" size="4" color="#0000FF"><b>Wall Street’s Den Of Thieves </b></font>
<font face="verdana" size="3" color="#000000">
<b>by Robert Scheer

Mar 17, 2009</b>

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090318_perp_walks_instead_of_bonuses

There must be a criminal investigation of the AIG debacle, and it looks as if New York’s top lawman is on the case. The collusion to save this toxic company in order to salvage the rogue financiers who conspired to enrich themselves by impoverishing millions is being revealed as the greatest financial scandal in U.S. history. Instead of taking bonuses, the culprits should be taking perp walks.

I’m not just referring to the swindlers in the Financial Products Subsidiary of AIG who devised and sold those insurance policies on derivatives that brought the world economy to its knees. They do seem deserving of a special place in hell, and presumably the same divine power that according to Scripture labeled usury a high moral crime and threw the money-changers out of the temple will consider that outcome.

However, the enablers are the AIG leaders who, as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed Tuesday, signed those bonus contracts a year ago to reward the very people “principally responsible for the firm’s meltdown.” That’s a cool $44 million divided among the top 10 shysters, even though the depth of their chicanery was well known to top management.

As Cuomo noted in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank: “The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals’ bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before.”

The lame argument that those bonus-baby employees needed to be retained in order to sort out the mess they had created was also shot down by Cuomo, who revealed after his office’s initial investigation had pierced AIG’s veil of secrecy that “[e]leven of the individuals who received `retention’ bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6 million.”

But the $165 million in taxpayer funds used to reward them is but a sideshow in a far larger drama of moral decay swirling around the banking bailout. It should not distract from the many billions, not paltry millions, of our dollars being diverted to reward the very folks who brought us such misery. Consider the $12.8 billion of the $170 billion that taxpayers gave AIG in bailout funds that AIG then secretly diverted to Goldman Sachs, a company that evidently has a lock on both the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve no matter which political party is in power. It was the biggest payoff among those that AIG made to a score of foreign and domestic financial giants.

The bailout is a response to a banking crisis that resulted from the radical deregulation pushed by former Goldman Sachs honcho Robert Rubin when he was President Clinton’s treasury secretary. Another Goldman Sachs chairman-turned-treasury-secretary, Henry Paulson, in the Bush administration designed the trillion-dollar bank bailout that will go down as the greatest swindle in U.S. history.

It was because of Paulson that AIG was saved from bankruptcy hours after Goldman rival Lehman Brothers was allowed to go down the drain. Why that reversal of strategy in a top-secret meeting called by then New York Fed Chair Timothy Geithner, a Rubin protégé and now Barack Obama’s treasury secretary? Why was Goldman’s Lloyd Blankfein the only financial industry CEO in attendance? When that news leaked out, his role was defended as that of a noninvolved concerned citizen with expert knowledge, and whose firm had no direct monetary stake in the outcome.

That was a lie.

Goldman Sachs was into AIG insurance policies for at least $20 billion, which is why the firm got that $12.8 billion while Paulson was in charge. It took six months for the embarrassing facts to finally come out. The bailout program was administered by Neel Kashkari, a former Goldman Sachs VP; why are we not surprised at that?

Another pretend innocent in all this is AIG’s CEO Edward M. Liddy, famed defender of the $440,000 AIG executive retreat in Monarch Beach, Calif., held on the heels of the taxpayer bailout. His actions now are defended as mistakes made by a well-intentioned outsider who decided to work for a dollar a year after Paulson appointed him head of AIG. That is just garbage.

Liddy was complicit in Goldman Sachs’ role in creating this mess. As a director of Goldman Sachs, he was paid $685,770 in 2007 and would have come in for some questioning if the firm had gone down. Liddy even headed its audit committee during the five years before he resigned that seat to take over AIG in September 2008. As for his salary sacrifice, not to worry; in 2005, when he was still CEO of Allstate Insurance, he received $26.7 million in compensation.

What we have here is a rare glimpse into the workings of the billionaires’ club, that elite gang of perfectly legal loan sharks who, in only the most egregious cases, will be judged as criminals—Bernard Madoff, former chairman of NASDAQ, comes to mind. These other amoral sharks, who confiscated billions from shareholders and the 401(k) accounts of innocent victims, were rewarded handsomely, rarely needing to break the laws their lobbyists had purchased.
</font>
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

Obama envoy Holbrooke served on AIG's board!!!!!!




WASHINGTON – Obama administration special envoy Richard Holbooke was on the American International Group Inc. board of directors in early 2008 when the insurance company locked in the bonuses now stoking national outrage. Holbrooke, a veteran diplomat who is now the administration's point man on Pakistan and Afghanistan, served on the board between 2001 and mid-2008.

During that period, AIG undertook the aggressive investment strategies that led to a near-collapse and forced a multibillion-dollar federal bailout.



President Barack Obama has insisted his administration was not responsible for AIG's financial woes, and a White House spokesman said Thursday that Holbrooke was unaware of AIG's decision to award retention bonuses to key employees.

"Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses," spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Close to $165 million in bonus money was paid last weekend.

It remains unclear whether AIG's decision to grant the bonuses ever came before the board. A Holbrooke spokesman declined comment, referring calls to the White House.

Obama named Holbrooke as a special envoy on Jan. 22, two days after taking office. Vietor said administration officials were aware of Holbrooke's work for AIG during background checks this year — when AIG already had benefited from federal intervention.

"Disclosure of past board membership is part of the vetting process," Vietor said.

Holbrooke was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the final two years of the Clinton administration. and architect of the 1995 accord that ended the war in Bosnia.

Holbrooke joined AIG's board in February 2001 and resigned in July 2008, two months before the company nearly collapsed. Over more than seven years as a board member, he may have earned as much as $800,000 in cash and company stock, according to AIG financial documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since September, AIG has received $180 billion in taxpayer money to keep it from failing and causing more damage to the U.S. economy.

An AIG spokesman did not respond to telephone calls and e-mails Thursday.

Obama this week blasted AIG for what he described as the company's reckless course. He also defended his administration's handling of the company's rescue.

"Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in," the president said.

Vietor said Holbrooke "has not discussed AIG with the president, Treasury or any other member of the administration."

AIG chose to approve the executive bonuses in the spring of 2008 "despite obvious signs the 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo wrote the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday. Cuomo's office is investigating AIG's executive compensation programs.

For large companies such as AIG, boards of directors are typically made up of high-profile figures from business and academia.

Boards are expected to give the company's top leaders unvarnished advice. But with AIG on life support, the quality of the guidance the company received from its board is under fire.

"The role of a board is to keep a company from going over a cliff," said Robert Litan, an expert on financial institutions at The Brookings Institution in Washington. "I wouldn't be surprised if, in a future lawsuit, a court were to find the (AIG) directors behaved negligently."

For much of tenure on the AIG board, Holbrooke had a role in approving salaries and compensation. From 2001 until mid-2005, he was a member of the board's compensation committee. According to AIG financial statements, the committee sets the salary for the company's chief executive officer and gives advice on how other senior managers are to be compensated.

Holbrooke also led the board's public policy and social responsibility committee from 2005 through July 2008. The committee assesses how political and public policy issues might affect the company's business operations, performance and corporate reputation, according to AIG.

The actual amounts Holbrooke received as an AIG board member are difficult to pinpoint. Before 2005, the SEC reporting requirements did not call for dollar figures to be attached to the stock and option awards for directors. AIG stock awarded for board service may now be worth far less than the value it had originally.

According to the SEC filings, AIG paid Holbrooke $267,943 in fees and stock awards in 2007; he was paid $232,865 in 2006. Compensation figures for the six months he was on the board in 2008 are not yet available. By prorating his 2007 compensation, he could have earned about $107,500 in directors fees and stock.

Between 2001 and 2005 the records indicate he earned $200,000 in director's fees. He also received 2,400 shares of AIG stock and options to purchase 10,000 more during that period.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/aig_holbrooke
 
Re: Republicans Outraged At AIG Bonuses. They Weren’t A Month Ago

What AIG, Reps or Dems do isn't the issue. This is our country the question is 'What are we going to do'. For them it's like 'Is this all you got? LOL War, recession, depression? lol. Cmon you can do better than that, can't you? I mean you are the powers that be and all you can do is scare me? GTFOH, you're running out of time, better get your shit together, or you will see how the big boys play. Believe That.
 
AIG Wants Charity Money Back To Pay Executive Bonuses

source: New York Post

AIG CHARITY GRAB
BIDS TO CLAW BACK GRANTS TO PAY BONUSES


Insurance giant AIG is trying to seize a $490 million charitable endowment -- and claw back $27 million it already awarded to New York charities -- to pay executive bonuses, The Post has learned.

The endowment, called Starr International Foundation, is run by former AIG chairman Hank Greenberg, and has given millions to the Sept. 11 Memorial and Museum, Citymeals and other local groups.

At issue is a legal conundrum that started in the 1970s, when Greenberg was building AIG into the world's largest insurance empire, and wanted a way to reward his executives off the books.

He and several co-founders set up their own offshore piggy bank -- unaffiliated with AIG ownership -- and seeded it with their own stock shares that would pay dividends and build up nest eggs and bonuses for retiring executives.

The separate company, Starr International Co., worked well for decades. But in 2005, Greenberg was pushed out of AIG in a boardroom coup, foreshadowing AIG's collapse.

Greenberg closed his piggy bank for any future bonuses beyond 2005, though AIG executives who had vested by that point can collect when they turn 65.

The rest of the AIG shares held by Starr International Co. -- about 290 million -- were transferred to a charitable subsidiary, Starr International Foundation.

AIG said it's entitled to the whole pot of stock going back to 2005, when it was worth about $20 billion. A year ago, it was worth nearly $11 billion, until AIG's recent collapse. At Friday's close, the shares were worth $490 million.

AIG says it has the right to seize the stock because Greenberg set up the company specifically for company employees. The insurer says in a legal filing that it needs the foundation's money "for the exclusive purpose of being distributed to AIG employees in the future." AIG intends to go to trial in federal court June 15.

AIG lawyers said in documents it would seek not just the shares still left in the foundation's coffers, but the shares the foundation already cashed out in the past three years to raise $27 million in grant money. That money went to groups like the Sept. 11 Museum ($1 million), Seedco ($500,000) and Citymeals ($250,000).

AIG didn't return calls by The Post about how the seizure and potential clawbacks of assets would impact charities. Greenberg declined to comment.

AIG has stuck by its previous statement that it needs the charity's assets "so the company can attract and retain top employees to manage the business, preserve and restore stockholder value and ultimately repay taxpayers."

Legal experts say that if AIG wins its case, it would have the right to sue to claw back some of the $27 million already awarded to charities.

The government owns nearly 80 percent of AIG due to the Treasury's $70 billion cash infusion and loans for up to $85 billion.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who has often grilled AIG in congressional probes, said that if AIG wins the money from the foundations and other charities, "it should go to taxpayers, not for bonuses."
 
Re: AIG Wants Charity Money Back To Pay Executive Bonuses

:smh: The "Unintended Consequences" of Govt Inervention in the market! They should've been allowed to fail and their assets should've been liquidated. R.I.P. AIG. But 85 billion dollars later, Executive bonuses are still the talk! If we let all the "crooks" fail, the people can engineer the recovery but giving recognition to the "crooks" that led us to this point!
 
Back
Top