Washington Post Claims Obama Admin Lied About AIG Bonuses

Scott,

Washington Post Claims Obama Administration Lied About AIG Bonuses

“Federal Reserve officials knew for months about bonuses at American International Group *but failed to tell the Obama administration*”

Do you see a contradiction between your headline and the that excerpt of the WaPo article?

Then you say:

“The Washington Post points out that Obama’s Treasury Secretary’s in fact knew about the bonuses months ago.”

When I read the excerpt below I see no mention of bonuses.

Then your final WaPo excerpt says that Michelle Smith said nothing about bonuses.

To sum up no mention in the WaPo article of the Obama Administration knowing about the bonuses.

Scott,

If in fact the contracts predated the bailout, the Administration may have been reluctant to break pre-existing contracts.

My understanding is that the contracts were from 2007.
The NYT (IIRC) ran a story on the bonuses in November 2008.
Per the San Jose Mercury News: “AIG disclosed its retention-payment program,” bonuses, “more than a year ago.”

They didn’t know? BS!

What’s really amusing about his whole thing is that the NY Fed is the organization that engineered the AIG bailout deal from its’ inception.

Who was head of the NY Fed you ask?

Well, none other than Tim Geithner…..yes, that Tim Geithner….Turbo Tax Timmy.

Why yes, he is the Secretary of the Treasury now.

Imagine that.

The very guy who headed up the creation and implementation of the AIG bailout deal last year is now saying “I didn’t know” about the retention bonuses.

So, yes, Turbo Tax Timmy knew about the bonuses.

Turbo Tax Timmy is part of the administration, so if the administration says they “didn’t know” they’re lying.

Finally these people who are shrieking and squealing about taxing this bonus money and canceling contracts need to take a little road trip over to that National Archives so that they can read the US Constitution.

The Constitution prevents the passage of ex-post facto laws, meaning that if something was legal last week when you did it, no law can be passed today which makes past events illegal.

The whole bunch in DC is clueless.

Well, the way I see it, as many of you also point out, is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to not only break binding contracts but also to tax any one specific group (even if they ARE crooks). This is all a “distracting dance” from the Dems, who knew full well what they were doing (money laundering)

After all, if there’s a very easy and LEGAL way to break contracts, LET THEM FAIL and go into bankruptcy.

Someone needs to start keeping track of all the “Constitutional Violations” of our congress. But then, I’m not sure it will matter, since truth itself doesn’t even seem to matter anymore.

I would like to see those contracts. Usually contracts have exculpatory clauses for acts of God, acts of government, bankruptcy, etc. which makes it impossible for the fulfillment or performance of the contracts as originally contemplated. AIG was insolvent, the fact that the government inserted money did not mean that AIG had a giant piggy bank that would allow it to claim it was fiscally sound. It had a loan. If AIG had progressed into bankruptcy, which looks more inviting every day, all those contracts would have been voided as they should have been. The bonuses for the half dozen or so former AIG employees who received retention bonuses but already left employment should have been negated. You were to get money to STAY, YOU LEFT, no BONUS, end of story.

More important, Aye Chihuahua, it’s a Bill Of Attainder. Such bills are specifically outlawed in the Constitution to prevent “trial by legislature” without the benefit of judicial review, targeting specific individuals. You know, part of that pesky “separation of powers” thing? Today’s Mad Dog Congress is doing just that. As if that’s stopped anyone lately…

I pulled this quote from a web site: In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.

If this does not describe the recipients of the AIG retention bonuses, I don’t know what does. Additionally, it IS ex post facto, much like Algore tried to pull off in the 2000 presidential election.

I’m astonished that this important constitutional term (Bill of Attainder) has not surfaced at all in the dialog lately. Let’s start talking it up, shall we?

“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”
— James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Update: Ron Paul used the term on the floor of the House today.

The Federal and State governments have been singling out one specific group of individuals for years with a continual series of increased taxation:

Tobbacco users.

No other legally sold product has had its level of taxation rise so drastically.

Back on subject: Geithner and Paulson failed to represent the people or to even follow the instructions given by the White House and Congress (to set specific conditions for the use of the bailout funds). Why are we so surprised that they all ignored the contractual bonuses? The correct thing for AIG to do would have been to arrange for those bonuses to be paid once they were solvent again. Geithner and Paulson should have told AIG that if they wanted a bailout, they had to tighten belts and not blow money on bonuses and other extravagances. It is not just the Bonuses that have people pissed, it’s also all the other money AIG committed to fund spending unrelated to ending their crisis. For US citizens, the bonuses are simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.

For the politicians, this issue of the bonuses is partially a diversionary tactic. (While the press is focused on this, they are ignoring other very important reports.) More disturbing is that the legislation they passed today is yet another example of their failure to uphold their oaths of office to uphold and protect the Constitution.