Anyways, it's disappointing to watch the White House try to cannibalize one of their own in the Senate. Perhaps they fear some future battle with Dodd over civil liberties?

Seeing the sausage being made sure is unappealing.

It appears that Dodd isn't the villian here, but MM still has it wrong when they claim that the amendment as it passed in the final bill doesn't represent a loophole. It is- but it seems that it was the Treasury and WH officials who insisted on putting that exemption in, over Dodd's protests (that explains the part of his quote I saw yesterday which didn't make sense- he claims that he warned the WH that this would provoke outrage, which didn't jive if he had been the one who had written that exemption in.)

Here's how they quote the amdendment:
The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary [of the Treasury] or the designee of the Secretary.

And then inexplicably they go on to say that this was not a loophole to the restrictions placed on bonuses. WTH? Of course it's a loophole. The only thing I can figure is that they seem to be splitting hairs and saying it doesn't exempt those bonuses from all limits, just from the specific limits that were laid out in the prior part of the amendment.

But that's the point- he wrote this with a loophole. The reason for having the amendment to begin with was to create these caps or restrictions on compensation, and then he included this exemption. Saying that this wording didn't exempt the bonuses from any and all restriction doesn't matter, because the government would have no legal authority to abrogate the contracts otherwise.

Who pushed back against Dodd, and told him to neuter the provision? The WSJ says Geithner and Summers:

The administration is concerned the rules will prompt a wave of banks to return the government's money and forgo future assistance, undermining the aid program's effectiveness. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, who heads the National Economic Council, had called Sen. Dodd and asked him to reconsider, these people said.

Looks like the bankers are trying to bail their buddies out.

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?id=2250

Let me cut to the chase: _To follow the link to see the actual docs.

from the recipient of the emails. only an excerp included here:

“
This is the most amazing merno I have ever received in my buslness career' Frank Raiter testifying to congree.

Any request for loan leveltapes ts TOTALLY UNREASONABLÍII Most investors don't have it
and can't provide it. Neverthless we MUST produce a credit eslimate.
“

The evidence requires someone educated in the jargon, but there is a smoking gun IMO.

As far as how we do business today, it's built on a fudged rating system If the product is too complex, trust the rating of the security.

Anyway, just so you know i wasn't just on a rant that led to internet conspiracies.

On that note, I guess my view is the flip side of one that Jim S. often states (that people who believe that government is the problem can't be trusted to run the government, because they aren't motivated to make it succeed.) My flip on that is that people who believe that govenment is the solution can't be trusted to run the government either because they give the big government politicians the benefit of the doubt and fail to oversee or vote them out when appropriate. That actually is a worse problem in my view because it ends up enabling the corrupt people in the corporate world to form these unholy alliances with the corrupt people in the political world.

I'm honestly not opposed to prosecution where it is warranted and possible, Hemm- I just don't think that's the case here. You say that the ratings analysts have admitted that they never even examined the products- but do you really think someone's going to admit that under oath? And beyond that, although it's pretty plain to see the machinations that went on- creating products that were so complex that no one knew what they heck they were examining or buying or selling- the bottom line is that the way to have dealt with that would have been to keep the risk on the people who were creating and pushing the securities, and prevent the moral hazard of playing hot potato with toxic assets. We also shouldn't allow people to reap profit on the front end, which also creates moral hazard and passes the risk down the line. So I don't agree that we couldn't address the problem going forward- there are clearly solutions if our politicians have the will to enact them (see my link earlier about the recommendations to the SEC- will we demand that our politicians take these seriously, or will we settle for people paying lip service to the idea of reform while actually changing nothing about the underlying problems?)

Except the system is still rigged. The middle class is still hosed. and America continues to slip deeper into debt. If a nation of laws ceases to prosecute those in high office and high public trust, then what country is this? Without prosecution, the Dodds and Grahams of our system will “fix” the WS problem with a set of regulations that lets another loophole here and loophole there. All this just leaves you helpless and hopeless, right where they want you.

Publish the pictures of the executives with their name and the amount of bonus they received on the front page of the major US & British papers.

What a circus sideshow.

Liberals….AIG could not have even thought of bonuses had not Dodd given them the permission!!!!!!

Therefore, I am requesting the taxpayers (ie the 80% shareholders of AIG) hold a vote to award me a bonus for my own contributions to our national security. You can place a direct deposit in my bank account by April 1st. I think you know who I am by now. As a taxpayer, I would also like to request that the 80% shareholders' representatives (proxys ie: Congress) move to dismiss all previous upper level management at AIG without a dime of bonuses or severence pay for gross misconduct while on the job. New management may be interviewed and hired as qualified to not screw up like the first batch. Emphasis placed on those with the most community service listed in their resume's….as a personality-profile safegaurd, or “greed-screen” if you like..; )

Actually the political part is one of the few parts we have any control over. Talking about it is the first step in order to make sure they don't get re-elected (or that the Obama administration gets the message that they can't just talk about these reforms, they have to act.)

And I get what you keep saying about the ratings agencies, Hemm, but honestly I can't imagine that there's anyone who would know how to prosecute them. That actually is a case where I think we have to learn how to provide better oversight going forward, rather than looking to punish the current group. But even on that front it's discouraging- read this about the recommendations that were made to the SEC last summer, and how little of it so far is being put into place (so that the results have no teeth.)

It's the straw that broke the camel's back, if you ask me. Even men of peace can only take so much. To continue the analogy…. There comes a point in time that if another country threatens and attacks you then you stand up for yourself and the country you're sworn to protect.

In this case Obama is showing he is serious about these outrageous bonuses that you and I are paying for.

If AIG were a private enterprise they could pay their janitors a trillion dollars a month for all I care. But AIG is a failed enterprise and is only being kept aloft by the federal government and taxpayers.

Maybe many people don't care that their tax dollars are going to pay people with multiple homes, yachts, and the need never to work again (except for amassing more money). But I think my tax dollars should go to roads, schools, scientific research, and help those Americans who work two jobs at minimum wage and can't afford one house much less multiple homes.

What has this country come to if we are unwilling to have compassion on poorest who are losing their homes, but we are willing to bail out the richest so they can continue to live their lavish lifestyles? If these AIG executives were successful people running a private company, then they deserve all the money they get. But these AIG executives are failures and I don't want my tax dollars (and the tax dolars of future generations) going to them. They have enough money already.