A.I.G. = The Audacity of Obama Voting Present

I am not going to offer my meager two cents on the obnoxious behavior of A.I.G. and its continued policy of giving seven figure bonuses to executives after receiving tax payer dollars in the bailout package; It’s wrong, it’s stupid, and the c**p has not even started falling because of this decision. Today, I am going to give my thoughts on how this will impact on Team Obama in the 2010 midterm elections.

President Obama is in a very prickly situation and one that he needs to quickly and decisively address. In September 2008, during the campaign candidate Obama did not take a side on the bailout vote. He was in Washington but only voted “Present”. In a column dated September 18th, Jonathan Martin almost finds out where Obama stood on the bailout of A.I.G. From the Obama campaign:

“Considering the fact that John McCain flatly opposed the bailout of AIG a day before he changed course and supported it, we’re not sure why on earth the McCain campaign wants to have a debate about economic indecision. Barack Obama does not second guess the Fed’s decision to take unprecedented action to prevent the failure of one of the largest insurance companies in the world from creating an even larger crisis, and he believes it must protect families who count on insurance.”

Jonathan Martin – UPDATE: In a Clintonian bit of parsing, Burton writes in to say I have it wrong: “At what point did not second-guessing become support?”

So Obama, who is being lashed today by McCain for refusing to take a position on the issue, is still refusing to say if he back the bailout.

JM: “So he’s not against the move — not ‘second guessing’ — but also isn’t expressing support?” I asked.

“Right,” Burton replied.

President Obama is not technically on the hook because he avoided the question altogether. It is this kind of non-leadership that got us into this mess. I do not want leaders who duck making the big decisions and then have the audacity to blame the Bush Administration for actually trying to do something. Obama has got a limited window of opportunity to redeem himself and actually take a stand either for or against any future corporate bailouts. If he does not make a decision this time, 2010 may turn out to a turning point that transforms his mandate for change to redefining his Presidency as just being present in the Oval Office until 2012.

9 Responses to “A.I.G. = The Audacity of Obama Voting Present”

1. CStanley says:

   March 17, 2009 at 12:41 pm

   Forget Obama for the moment- there's one particular Congressman who really needs to go home as a consequence of the AIG mess.

   Here's the audacity of Chris Dodd today:
   

   But the damage control did not seem to satisfy incredulous lawmakers in both parties, who said the image of financial executives taking huge bonuses from a taxpayer-funded rescue puts the president in a politically impossible position.

   “I warned them this would be met with an unprecedented level of outrage,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the chairman of the banking committee and part of a group of senators who pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to stop the bonuses, said yesterday.

   And here's the summary of the Dodd amendment to the AIG bailout:
   

   Dodd Amendment Rules

   * Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.
   * For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).
   

   So, what? He was warning Geitner and the administration that the bill he wrote would provoke outrage?
2. HemmD says:

   March 17, 2009 at 1:15 pm

   Is now the time to discuss just where the line is between PAC donations and bribery? The above bill makes good sense only if you wish to tell voters one thing and guarantee your donors the income they've paid for.

   The AIG mess is bigger than run of the mill politics. Follow the money, both Wall Streets fraud and pay offs to legislatures who made the fraud possible. I don't care who gets caught in that net, nail em.
3. elrod says:

   March 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm

   The problem is that the biggest GOP challenger to Dodd is Larry Kudlow. And there are few people who define Wall Street corruption worse than Larry Kudlow.

   Dodd is unpopular now in CT. But he will win again. Only Rob Simmons – the very moderate former Congressman – can give him a challenge.
4. elrod says:

   March 17, 2009 at 2:00 pm

   CS,
   I'm a bit skeptical of the reporting from Fox Business on the Dodd amendment. They didn't quote the language of the bill so I have to wonder if they paraphrased it to embarrass him. Not that it's necessarily BS. I just don't believe Fox Business on this quite yet.
5. mikkel says:

   March 17, 2009 at 2:07 pm

   Dodd and Frank are about the worst when it comes to being pawns of the financial powerhouses, which is depressing because it completely destroys any of their positive thoughts about individual liberties.
6. ChrisWWW says:

   March 17, 2009 at 2:47 pm

   mikkel,
   You can add Schumer to that list. However, I think we'd be foolish to pretend the stink is limited to even a handful of Congress members.
7. mikkel says:

   March 17, 2009 at 3:12 pm

   Yeah but they're the ones in charge of the respective committees…
8. CStanley says:

   March 17, 2009 at 3:15 pm

   Yeah but they're the ones in charge of the respective committees…
   Funny how that happens.
9. ChrisWWW says:

   March 17, 2009 at 7:21 pm

   Media Matters says the Dodd story is false:
   http://mediamatters.org/items/200903170026?f=h_top