AIG Benedict?

This letter in the NYT moved me. (For those who don't or can't go to the link, it's a letter of resignation tendered by an executive at AIG; not, evidently, one who had anything to do with the departments behind the disaster. He's angry at the failure of the new chief of AIG to defend the bonuses given to those working to fix the problems, and at the political demagoguery around the issue.) I know nothing about the man who wrote it, nor of the inner workings of AIG. But it makes me think I've been right in what I've said in a couple of posts here, and in response to some comments thereon: it's gotten way out of hand.

To be clear: this isn't a one party issue (except to the extent that the Republicans are trying to have it both ways; namely, whipping up anger and blaming those who whip up -- or fail to quell -- anger). Few are the things more disgusting than a politician who thinks s/he is riding the wave of populism. The windy self-righteousness of a Congressperson questioning certain witnesses is a testament to the hypocrisy and smallness of those we continue to elect. And I mean people of both parties. Nor is President Obama blameless: he's tried to apply some perspective and to suggest anger be channeled to positive use (whatever that means.) But he's failed to clarify what I think are some important points. So I will.

As mentioned in my recent post, it seems there are two kinds of bonuses: retention bonuses, and performance bonuses. Moreover, there are two kinds of AIGxecutives: those who f*cked it up, and those trying to put it together again. The proper outrage, in my book, is over money going to the guys who played fast and loose, made buckets of money on the risky financial vehicles which ran us off the road, and who then received bonuses to boot. But there is another group, of which the letter-writer was evidently a member, who came in (or stayed put) to try to make it right, and who had nothing to do with the shady dealings that brought destruction upon us all. For their efforts, they were promised bonuses. And they are the ones now bearing the brunt of the political posturing going on in Congress and in at least a couple of state houses. It speaks very ill of the Congressfolk riding high on their horses, going so far as suggesting a 90% tax on the boni, without making that distinction. Likewise those who threaten to release the names of those getting the money. Intimidation at best. Criminal recklessness at worst. Surely, even recognizing the self-aggrandizing egomania of most elected officials, and mind-numbing stupidity of many, those people know the difference. Seeing a chance for old-fashioned pandering and publicity-mongering, I doubt they care.

But I bet Obama does. Know, I mean, and care. You can see, I think, that he's trying to moderate the fury by saying he understands and shares it, but that it needs a modicum of reason. And yet I think he should have been clearer. Assuming what I've said here is a fair representation of the truth, and that the NYT letter reflects it as well, I wish the President would make a clear distinction between those who robbed the store and those who came in to clean up; between those getting boneri after boning us, and those putting in long hours to launder the sheets. As it were.

[Update, 3/28: Here's a useful and entertaining counterpoint.]
.

Told 'Ya

Demagogue AIG? Lie about it? Use it to try to take down Obama?

John Kyl (R-Hypocrisy) decried using AIG for political purposes. That was a couple of days ago. This was today. And here's a rare admission that it has nothing to do with fairness or facts.

Frankly, I think the White House and many Congressional Democrats have mishandled it as well. There was an argument to be made that the bonuses had to be paid, by contract. In fact, while driving to a lecture by Scott Simon while listening to NPR (thereby doubly showing my liberal credentials), I heard someone being interviewed who explained:

The money in question was in the form of "retention bonuses." Those occur, so he said, when a company is in trouble and is worried about losing key people. They offer a specific amount of money to be paid if the person stays with the company for a specified period of time. Common practice in certain circumstances, he explained. The payouts were not tied to performance (there were contractual performance bonuses as well, which were NOT paid); rather, they were in the form of a contract, signed, sealed, delivered, to certain people, who did what it was they agreed to do; namely, they stayed. Nor is it, this apparent expert stated, unusual to leave after the contractual time is up: after all, the company would likely be in the dumps. Better prospects elsewhere. Finally, these contracts were made before the government money was received; or so I recall.

I wish this had all been clearly laid out by the White House, and let the chips fall. Had they done so, I have no doubt the people of ill intent (i.e., the entire Congressional Republican gang and their screaming supporters) would still have lied, cried, and tied up the process. John Kyl would still be a hypocritical assh*le. (How can politicians like him do that: say one thing one day and completely another on another? Without batting an eye or showing the least bit of embarrassment? Their perfidy knows no bounds, quite literally.) But it would have been cleaner.

As it is, marshalling all their cynical self-interest and abject mendacity -- which they have in shameless and unrepentant abundance -- the minority party will use this tempest to try to bring down the president, and lots of people, eager for simple focus, will eat it up. Just as I said.

.

AIG On Our Faces

Much as I find it disturbing that AIG execs will get $165 million in bonuses after helping to screw the planet, I find the reaction much more worrisome. It goes to the point of a recent post, about how our brains work: given complexities, we reach for the simple. And simple, permuted through Congress and perverted by the right-wing screamers, can be dangerous.

Should those crooks get boni? No. Is it a big deal, percentage-wise? Not really. Can it be made to imply the Obama plan is faulty, even though the money in question came before his election? You betcha. Will it? Does a bear sh*t on the Pope?

On 60 Minutes Ben Bernanke said his only worry is whether we have the political will to do what's necessary to fix the economy. Mine, too. Given the commitment to fomenting failure we see from all quarters on the right, and given their willingness to say anything, including lying and distorting, quitting before the finish line is a real possibility.

For example: seizing on a couple of phrases, ignoring context in one case, and outright lying in another, it's being hyped that Obama people are saying, McCain-like, that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. It's hypocrisy, they suggest. He's a political hack, they imply.

So we have our simple little brains, which crave simple little answers, and we have simple little people in Congress and self-interested simple-minded screamers behind them only too happy to provide. In a sea of scary, the AIG bonuses represent an island of idiocy, perfect substrate on which to grow reactionary resentment. Populist rage, cynically manipulated by right-wingers desperate for power, might well lead to the failure of the thing the populace most needs. What's a good word for that?

Limbecked.

.