Posted on 03/29/2009 10:22:21 AM PDT by joelgaines
The AIG executives accepting bonuses seems to have drawn a lot of ire from folks on both sides of the aisle.
On the left, there is the typical vilification of the rich. To these folks, no one should make millions of dollars - except, of course, their own leaders. They deserve millions because they spend their lives "enlightening" us with their elitist drivel.
On the right, I have heard many say the AIG execs have ruled over a failing business model and since we are now bailing them out they deserve no bonus. A simple (on the surface) results-oriented argument.
From the left, we can expect little else - but I ask those of you on the right to redirect your outrage with these thoughts.
Those executives SHOULD reject the money (and some have), if they are altruists faithfully executing their positions for the good of the American economy and humanity as a whole. If these guys are stalwart moral giants, they would refuse the bonuses and restructure their companies' operations to strengthen the American economy, and by extension the economies of the rest of the world. But let us be just a tiny bit realistic.
The money is theirs – they were given contracts several years ago that cannot simply be invalidated because they accepted government handouts. That is not usually how government handouts work anyway. When have we ever asked ANYONE to be a better, more morally straight person, after providing for them from the government dole?
The AIG execs were given $173.3 billions and not asked to do anything but survive and underwrite the loans of the banking infrastructure (which they are doing - and now that's being called "laundering").
Next - the bonuses are available to AIG execs because congress and the Obama administration made them possible. Someone in the administration or congress made a loophole available because they need the support of these people at election time. If the Obama administration did not want those execs to have those bonuses, they would have found a legal means to block them. If you believe the Chicago boys are so inept as to have overlooked this, you are fooling yourself. They are playing the emotional set (the left) not the rational set (the right). AID bonuses are part of the Chicago Way of doing business and the execs will be asked to give back to the administration later. Some of them have returned their bonuses, which shows they don't want to be a part of the back scratching when the bill comes due later. It is purely political.
Geitner knows this is political. Summers knows it’s political. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell knows this is political when he condemns the Obama administration for allowing these bonuses to be paid out.
David Axlerod said as much when he recently stated that people were not sitting around their kitchen table worried about AIG bonuses – they are worried about their own jobs. This can only make you realize how little the Obama administration cares about this topic. All the outrage is just to keep this thing in the news so they can get support for shoving more taxes at the rich.
We are being manipulated into rage over something completely different than what we should be angry about.
You should be angry that they spent this money to begin with – there is no, “well since we spent it – since we bailed them out - we should expect X”. You are allowing yourself to become part of the problem. The leftists are spending your money in such a way as to curry political support later and the Republicans are using this political straw man to fight fire with fire, as it were.
What Republicans on the hill should be using as their message is exactly what I have told you today. Once the money is spent – it’s gone. You cannot expect that companies which operated on greed to get into a situation are all of a sudden going to have a come to Jesus moment when someone hands them 173 billion they didn’t have to risk anything for. The people you should be holding accountable are not AIG executives – you can’t expect they will have changed without being forced to by market conditions. You should hold accountable those who gave them the money.
I have been articulate, perhaps. The key here is “if they are altruists faithfully executing their positions for the good of the American economy”. This is, of course, unrealistic to say the least. People do this to make money - nothing wrong with that. Let’s not expect more of the Execs than is realistic.
For the record, I DO NOT believe these executives are under any moral, contractual, or emotional obligation to refuse or give back ANY money they have been contractually granted.
The definition of ‘Red Herring’ should be replaced in the dictionary to AIG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.