Companies That Took Bailout Money Owed Back Taxes, Meanwhile Obama Argues For More Taxes

Loading

The way this administration has been bumbling everything it touches this does not shock me: (h/t Michelle Malkin)

Thirteen of the companies receiving billions in federal bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in delinquent federal taxes.

That’s the word from the chairman of a House subcommittee overseeing the federal bailout of financial firms. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia said Thursday that two of the companies owe more than $100 million apiece. In his prepared remarks, Lewis says that the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight discovered the delinquent taxes in a review of records from the IRS.

The revelation is sure to spark outrage on Capitol Hill, where the House is expected to vote Thursday on a bill that would impose steep taxes on employee bonuses at firms that have received bailout money.

Meanwhile Obama say’s hey! It’s ok to tack on higher taxes to those who already pay the majority of this country’s taxes because they can afford to pay it.

President Obama told Californians during a campaign-style town hall meeting on Wednesday that rich people can afford to pay higher taxes in selling his budget plan as an investment in the nation’s future.

Mr. Obama pushed back on people who say he is overtaxing the nation, saying his tax increases on families earning $250,000 or more a year are reverting to the tax system under former President Bill Clinton. The president added he will pay higher taxes himself as a result.

“These folks can afford it. They were rich back in the ’90s,” he said. “It’s not like suddenly they’re going to have to go to the poorhouse. But what that does is it allows us to pay for health care reform for a lot of people.”

Going after a line of attack Republicans have used against him, Mr. Obama insisted, “I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I don’t think that’s socialism.

It is unreasonable and almost all of your policies could be defined as Socialism Mr. Obama.

Best of all, there are alternative plans out there that would not raise taxes and controls the spending spree Obama and company are on…but no one is listening:

Republicans sense the opportunity. The House GOP leadership deputized the top Budget Committee Republican, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to prepare an alternative budget. The GOP budget won’t raise taxes, gets spending and debt under control, and will result in a stronger economy with more jobs. House Republicans plan a major selling effort back home during the coming recess. Minority Leader John Boehner is already up on YouTube extolling the plan.

Senate Republicans will not prepare a complete alternative, but they will offer a robust package of amendments, with a wave of proposals for each of the three weeks the upper chamber will devote to the budget. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander foreshadowed the GOP’s theme by saying the Democratic budget taxes, spends and borrows too much.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not Good.
“Give back the bonuses.

That’s the message to AIG executives from more than three out of four Americans, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll.

The national telephone survey found that 76 percent of those polled think the executives receiving $165 million in bonuses from the bailed-out insurance giant should be required to give the money back.”

“The poll showed 88 percent of Americans say they are following media coverage of the bonuses at least somewhat closely, with 55 percent following coverage very closely. The cross section of people not following the AIG story is a skimpy 2 percent.”

“In addition, the survey found 68 percent think most of the taxpayer bailout money so far has gone to the same people who caused the economic crisis.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/19/poll-quarters-americans-want-aig-employees-return-bonuses/

So basically people are primarily blaming the wrong people for the crisis,
and all for blindly punishing those that may have had nothing to do
with the problem while ignoring contract law.
Wonder how they would feel if it was them on the hook?

I’m pretty sure that a lot of the bonuses are indeed going to many people responsible in large part for the failure of large banks and insurance firms, and It’s likely that a lot of innocent people are getting bonuses and retention “packages.” But one has to wonder if bonuses are at all reasonable if a corporate entity is in such bad shape that taxpayers have to foot the bill for bailing the place out.

Without a bailout, these employees would lose their jobs if their business failed, so employees should be content with the fact that money from other people allowed them to keep receiving a paycheck, let alone think about bonuses.

I firmly believe that if taxpayers have to “suffer up” their hard-earned money to bail a company out, that company should kick in all funds not used for meeting the minimum requirements of keeping the business operational.

If I was in their shoes, you’d better believe I’d be ecstatic just to ave kept my job. I’ve been through austere times, when all employess were asked to forego bonuses in return for keeping the company aflot and not have to worry about losing a job. I can live without bonuses until the business is back on its feet and not requiring propping up by taxpayers to be profitable.

Asking the taxpayers to keep a company viable while paying out bonuses of any kind is very ungrateful action indeed. Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth!

Jeff V

It’s clear that not only doesn’t Congress have aclue what they are voting on, they don’t read the Constitution either.

If they were not contractually required to do so, I would agree with you
Jeff.
What I also find disturbing is the mob mentality and the claim that most
of the money went to those who caused the problem. The dems caused the
problem and forced banks to make loans they likely wouldn’t have.

So we have people swallowing the propaganda hook-line-and-sinker when the
real culprits are in Congress screaming about AIG bonuses.
The dems interfered with the market and it crashed. Now they are
getting away scott free….so far.

I cannot believe all the piling on by media over all these little, minor oversights that Obama has had. Come on, really…

Oops! That’s right! These aren’t small mistakes. Oh, and, the media is not even paying attention.

His ineptitude is hilarious if this wasn’t so serious. That makes this terrifying when something real serious happens.

http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/

“Sign the paper, ask questions later”…….what’s wrong with this picture?

First of all, i’m a filipino and somewhat i’m not directly affected with anything Obama does but here’s my opinion. Bailout first and foremost is really for me giving away taxes every constituent work for. there are times in fact that they give thousands or even millions to hopeless companies. with obama asking for more is just weird. wrong move sir.

Curt and Mata,

I don’t disagree on the contractual obligations at all. In fact, if you notice, I said nothing about giving the bonuses back; I merely implied that they should never have been allowed as a condition of accepting taxpayer funds. the contracts should have been renegotiated with a taxpayer advocate involved (a real advocate, not the gov’t – they don’t give a damn about the taxpayer!)

In fact, Geithner ought to have to explain why he did NOT require taxpayer recovery, since he was instrumental in the design of the AIG bailout plan (I know why; it’s because we’re just the ttle people who give the government its allowance. Other than that, we’re despised by Congress.) Who in government is going to explain to the taxpayer just what the terms are for us to profit from the AIG bailout?

I feel the same about the mortgage bailouts. People who accept taxpayer help (whether through incentives for themselves, the banks, or otherwise) should forego gains made on the sale of the house, or in some other measure repay the aid plus interest. Remember in the beginning that the bailout plans were being called taxpayer “investments”? If I am forced to fork over my *very* hard earned money to pay for someone else’s poor decision or even bad luck, I should be compensated.

Is that too much to ask for?

ruaqtpi2, you said:

I don’t disagree on the contractual obligations at all. In fact, if you notice, I said nothing about giving the bonuses back; I merely implied that they should never have been allowed as a condition of accepting taxpayer funds. the contracts should have been renegotiated with a taxpayer advocate involved (a real advocate, not the gov’t – they don’t give a damn about the taxpayer!)

How can you not disagree on contractural obligations, then turn around and say they should negate the contractural obligations as a condition of the bailout cash?? Those are in conflict.

Even Larry Summers, a man of which I am not fan, agrees that government meddling in private contractural law is bad juju.

As recently as Sunday morning, White House economist Larry Summers was saying the bonuses were regrettable but there wasn’t much that could be done to stop them. “We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts,” he said, with great good sense. Assorted Congressmen then did what comes naturally, which is declare their mock outrage. Rather than keep his legendary cool, Mr. Obama and the White House panicked as well and joined the braying pack.

I might also add that the government work around – attempting to get them back by targeted taxes – doesn’t even sit well with Charlie Rangel…. go no.

This is all too much even for Rep. Charlie Rangel, the House’s chief tax writer, who says the tax code shouldn’t be deployed as a “political weapon.” He’s right. AIG’s managers may be this week’s political target of choice, but the message to every banker in America, indeed every business in America, is that you could be next. At least we haven’t yet seen the resolution that was proposed in the English parliament, in 1720 in the aftermath of the South Sea bubble, that bankers be tied in sacks filled with snakes and tipped into the Thames. But it’s still early days.

Oh, yeah, ya’ll who voted that Kenyan weasel into the most powerful position (not for long if he keeps this up) in the World, wasn’t one of the reasons that he told you that he was going to go after big corporations, and not let them hog all the dough? I just have one word for ya’ll. DIMWITS!

Mata,

I apologize for being unclear. What I meant to say was that that renegotiation of the contracts should have been a PRE-CONDITION for accepting taxpayer money. The taxpayer is seen as nothing more than an endless source of funds, and AIG is just another government mandated charity. I think Congress has gotten so accustomed to being able to write blank checks on the taxpayer’s back, and it has to stop.

I would like to see Congress adopt the following policy for dealing with failing institutions: If the institution requests funds, these funds should be treated as a collateralized loan (where possible.) In addition, the institution should have to enact a reasonable set of austerity measures to demonstrate its committment to recover. Such measures could include salary freezes or even mild to moderate salary cuts, staffing cuts, elimination or significant reduction of current and future bonus plans, etc., with renegotiations where necessary. A time frame for repayment of the loan should be formalized, and the loan should be repaid WITH INTEREST at least equal to the rate of inflation.

Our government has drifted far from the ideas of forefathers espoused, and I believe we need to raise one hell of a stink until the politicians *really* get tthe message. How about a million-man/woman march to the White House? I’m ready. In fact, I’m more than ready!

Jeff V

@ruaqtpi2:

I’d like to see the current Congress replaced with people who know what they are doing.