Outrage over bonuses could have been avoided

The Washington establishment is great at proving itself to be a body that has the wrong priorities.

President Obama said the economy still faces “systemic risks” - and questioned the legality of a move to slap a 90 percent tax on executive bonuses paid by companies bailed out with taxpayer bucks, according to the Associated Press.

“There are certain institutions that are so big that if they fail, they bring a lot of other financial institutions down with them,” Obama said Sunday night on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

He warned against attempts to punish Wall Street and executives at American International Group, Inc., who helped cause the worldwide economic crisis - yet still raked in huge bonuses.

“We can’t govern out of anger,” Obama said.

I applaud Obama for keeping a level head and being responsible early in his term when it would be easier to govern from an emotional standpoint.

It is this same Congress that put language in the stimulus package last month that allowed for the bonuses that AIG executives received, that are now causing an outrage.

On March 18, Sen. Chris Dodd confessed to adding language to a spending cap in the stimulus bill last month that specifically excluded executive bonuses included in contracts signed before the bill’s passage, according to FOXNews.com.

Dodd (D-Conn.), told FOX News that Treasury officials forced him to make the change.

“As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language,” he said. “They wanted some modifications to it. They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes and the changes at the time did not seem that obnoxious or onerous.”

But the provision has become a flash point for criticism amid the controversy over $165 million in bonuses given out by AIG after securing more than $170 billion in federal aid, according to FOX News. The language in the stimulus bill wasn’t specific to AIG, but some have expressed outrage that it appears to have created a loophole.

Reps. Steve Austria (R-Ohio), Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) and Patrick Tiberi (R-Ohio), stated on the House floor on Tuesday that they didn’t get a chance to read the legislation thoroughly before it was passed.

Because no one noticed this provision for the bonus pay, there is now outrage throughout the nation.

There are a number of variables to consider with the executive bonuses, including the contracts signed by the executives. But regardless of what has been argued, this situation points clearly to the fact that the system is flawed and those at the top are only making things worse.

How assuring it is to know that not all of our representatives in the House thoroughly read the legislation that passes through their body. What were these representatives elected to do but pass laws that have passed a thorough examination?

When these representatives fail to be thorough, huge mistakes are made involving large amounts of money, and there are situations that could have been avoided.

It is important that these represenatives, entrusted with responsibility of passing legislation that will effectively help Americans overcome the issues that face the nation, not simply do an incomplete job and offer unnecessary bonuses to executives while so many common folk are suffering.

• Facebook Comments
• Site Comments

5 comments

Tom Goetz

Sat Mar 28 2009 01:30

What continues to amaze me is the American public reaction to selective incidents. A combination of public interest, political manuvering and media hype such as Fox News over $167 million dollars. The bonuses are certainly ill-advised and poorly thought out, but where is the public anger and uproar over numerous other cases of spending tax payer money far exceeding that amount. Where are the millions of unaccounted dollars spent in the Congressional budget for Iraq? Where is the uproar and anger when a single Pentagon defense project far exceeds this amount in cost overruns or false charges? There are certain segments in the American public and Congressional folks who are too willling to overlook one incident over another.
It is not the issue of the amount of money involved, but the selective reaction by the American public to certain questionable speending issues that grabs their attention. If the American public wants some credibility then it should be consistent with it's anger and displeasure over any and all misuse of tax payer monies. The same for certain news media outlets.

Ron

Sat Mar 28 2009 01:28

How do you like the way Barak "warned against attempts to punish Wall Street and executives at American International Group, Inc". As if he wasn't in on it.

R. Murphy

Fri Mar 27 2009 22:37

Lawmakers didn't want to read the bill anyway. Many of them received money from AIG. They knew there would be anger after the biil passed, but by claiming they didn't have time to read the bill before they voted for it they could pretend to be outraged later. It's all a sham,folks, and once again the American public are the fools. But if people are truly upset there would be protests in the street. The chances of that happening are nil. We're more interested in sporting events than political corruption and losing our liberties. Bread and Circuses.

ge wiebe

Fri Mar 27 2009 22:29

These bonuses are certainly outrageous, since they are being payed to upper management at AIG, people who came very close to bringing the global financial system to ruin.
GEORGE E WIEBE MD

Deb

Fri Mar 27 2009 12:37

Of course the lawmakers didn't get a chance to read the bonuses, the Democrats forced a vote just hours after they made the text available. For over a thousand page bill, NO ONE could have read the entire thing, not even the Democrats. Poor leadership on their part. It's not the change I thought would happen!

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out