Congressman John Murtha was recently awarded the Department of the Navy's highest public service award for non-employees by the Secretary of the Navy. This is an outrage. As you probably know, John Murtha has been the worst of a bad lot in Congress who exploited those serving in combat for political purposes. He was the most outspoken member of Congress in aggressively attacking Marines as "cold blooded killers" who "murdered women and children" after the Haditha incident in November, 2005, BEFORE AN INVESTIGATION WAS EVEN CONDUCTED. In fact, he slandered the Marines to such an extent, and with such disregard for the truth, that one of them sued him for libel (rumor says there's another libel suit to come soon). It is inconceivable that the Secretary of the Navy would give such an award to such a man, yet it happened not two weeks ago with muted response. I have created an online petition to express our outrage and disgust and I'm asking you to join me in signing it. Please use the link below to visit the petition and sign it; it will take less than two minutes. Additionally, please send it on to everyone you know who cares about the reputation of our active duty military and combat veterans, we can't allow this to pass by unnoticed. Once we receive enough signatures, it will be noticed. It is essential that you forward on the link to others, it's the only way this will generate momentum. Please take a few minutes to make sure that this petition doesn't stop with you.
Fight Back
Semper Fi
gledeen@vetsforfreedom.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , sends you the enclosed page from PetitionOnline.com:
#1
I sent this to a friend who is a member of Naval Academy email group that share anything and all that affects the honor and tradition of the Navy. This will get some high level play, believe me.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe the Navy is blowing smoke up Murtha's arse because Murtha is House Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I could see the Dipwad of the Year Award instead of the Navy Public Service Award.
#6
I'm Navy, handcuff Murtha to an anchor, then drop it.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/19/2009 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Naw, Jim, keelhaul him. On the Nimitz.
Keelraking (from bow to stern, rather than port to starbord) him would be better, but it is really only practical on sailing ships, since the rope tends to get tangled up in the screws.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/19/2009 21:10 Comments ||
Top||
Kass is a good antidote to the rest of the bad news.
With Illinois taxpayers about to get their blood drained by Gov. Pat Quinn's new 50 percent state income tax hike--and all that costly political corruption oozing out of Chicago's City Hall and Springfield--one thing is perfectly clear:
We taxpayers need a new state animal. Our old state animals are lame. So, as a public service, I am announcing our new Illinois mascot in today's column. It won't cost you a dime.
But first, let's acknowledge that our current official state animals--the whitetail deer, the tiny bluegill, the chirpy cardinal--are victims. These prey animals just wait until they're pounced upon by bloodthirsty carnivores.
Sort of like us taxpayers, getting socked with increases from politicians who make their friends rich, and who, upon retirement, will receive six-figure pensions for the rest of their lives. The rest of us will be so broke, we'll end up drizzling Worcestershire sauce on dog food for dinner.... Read the rest
So, since it was allowed to go through to prevent lawsuits, there will now be...lawsuits.
Acting with lightning speed, the Democratic-led House has approved a bill to slap punishing taxes on big employee bonuses from firms bailed out by taxpayers. The vote was 328-93.
Said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers."
Republicans called it a legally questionable ploy to paper over Obama administration missteps. Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill was "a political circus" diverting attention from why the administration hadn't done more to block the bonuses before they were paid.
The bonuses, totaling $165 million, were paid to employees of troubled insurer American International Group, including to traders in the unit that nearly brought about the company's collapse.
#2
Since Congress is the ultimate cause of 90% of this mess, they should have their pay taxed at 90%, too.
ALL of their pay.
After all, they're always whining about fairness....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/19/2009 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Political posturing, nothing more. I am certain there are loop-holes big enough to drive a truckload of cash through. That or there will be processes written into next years tax code to cover this. How stupid do they think we are??? Money was given out and will never get back. Next elections will see tons of cash going into reelection campaigns.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/19/2009 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Obama must make Hugo green with envy
Posted by: European Conservative ||
03/19/2009 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'd really love to see how they are going to collect on the foreign employees who received the bonuses....in London where the offending AIG unit is based.
#6
I would prefer they forget about AIG and not make fools of themselves by passing a retroactive bill of attainder. Instead, they should prevent the payment of bonuses at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Better yet, disestablish them.
Okay. Let's see how much coverage this gets...
The Obama administration waved a white flag of surrender Wednesday, dropping a budget proposal that would have billed private insurance companies for treatment of service-connected medical problems at Veterans Affairs Department hospitals and clinics. It was total capitulation, one participant said at a meeting Wednesday with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in which 11 veterans groups vowed they would fight to the end to kill the proposal.
AmVets Executive Director Jim King said he was glad the White House promised to kill the idea, which was distracting from the good news of the Obama administrations proposed $4.9 billion increase in the VA budget, and which would have hurt disabled veterans, their families and maybe even employees at the same companies.
Billing private insurance to pay for veterans health care would make disabled veterans less desirable employees for companies worried about holding down health care costs, and could have led to veterans and their families paying higher premiums even raising premiums for everyone working for the same company, King said.
Veterans groups met Monday with President Barack Obama to discuss the controversial proposal, but Obama promised only to look at the issue.
On Wednesday, Emanuel said he was wrong in his earlier support of the proposal, King said. The 11 groups spoke with one voice, and he accepted that.
The announcement of the reversal came from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., not from the White House.
I feel something good happened for veterans, King said, adding that the White House deserved criticism for proposing the idea in the first place but also credit for quickly dropping it.
Disabled American Veterans also commended the reversal. The president was very open and candid when he met with veterans groups earlier this week, and we are pleased that he has heard our concerns and taken them to heart, said David Gorman, executive director of DAVs Washington office.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs confirmed the White House had changed its position. In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans, Gibbs said in a statement. However, the president listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families ability to access health care and agreed with them. The president has instructed that its consideration be dropped.
In an effort that could be viewed as making up for some of the political damage caused by the controversy, Gibbs said that President Barack Obama wants to continue a constructive partnership with military and veterans groups and is grateful to the groups that worked with him on the proposal, even in opposition.
The White House is not talking about reversing current policy, which does bill the private insurers of some veterans for treatment not directly related to a service-connected injury, illness or disease. If anything, billing for nonservice-connected care could become even more aggressive in an effort to generate money for health care, which is what Emanuel told veterans groups was the whole reason for even considering expanding insurance billing.
The White House idea was not getting support in Congress. On Wednesday morning, before the change was announced, Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., the House Veterans Affairs Committee chairman, issued a statement saying he would not even consider such legislation. The Obama administrations proposal to charge third-party insurance companies for service-connected medical treatment will not be taken up by the Veterans Affairs Committee, Filner said. Our budget cannot be balanced on the backs, or legs, or kidneys or hearts of our nations combat-wounded heroes, he said.
The proposal gave Republicans an opening to question whether the Obama administration really wants to help veterans. Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a decorated Air Force veteran and former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called the insurance billing idea sad and shameful. As a combat-wounded fighter pilot who served in two wars, I find the White House idea of charging wounded war heroes for care absurd, abhorrent and unconscionable, he said in a speech on the House floor.
#1
The White House is not talking about reversing current policy, which does bill the private insurers of some veterans for treatment not directly related to a service-connected injury, illness or disease.
They've been doing that with retirees for years now. Once you retire and take employment elsewhere, they bill the employers health insurance for medical care received, by the retiree and spouse, at military or VA facilities. Congress et al has billions for pork, but reneges on obligations committed when they paid levels which would qualify below the poverty line on a deal of deferred benefits.
#2
According to the Commander of the American Legion who met with Obama and Emmanuel, the whole conversation was "surreal". Every time he mentioned the "moral", "ethical" or even "traditional" obligation of the nation to its wounded warriors and vets, Obama kept changing the conversation to saving money. And Gibbs (what a little weasel he is) gives a wimpy story about 3rd party paperwork or whatever. We are seeing The Gong Show as Presidential performance.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Vets Insurance Billing would have been stillborn very early and the political cost would have been very significant.
You open with an outrageous offer, then counter-offer with something still way to your advantage when you're met with the expected response. The customer gets a sense of satisfaction from his emotional outbust, while the seller gets exactly what she wanted in the first place.
In this case, I predict you'll be seeing 'service connected treatment' defined quite narrowly in the future; fees for treatment for 'non-service' will go up significantly.
Rep. Maxine Waters' reelection campaign lent $25,000 last August to a nonprofit run by the California Democrat's daughter, according to campaign finance records.
Waters herself serves on the board of the nonprofit group African-American Committee 2000 and Beyond, the lawmaker's financial disclosure filings show. Sidney Williams, the congresswoman's husband, has also been a director of the nonprofit, according to recent tax filings for the group.
In 2004, the Los Angeles Times reported that Karen Waters' nonprofit "collected hundreds of thousands of dollars" to underwrite similar galas at the 2000 and 2004 conventions. Donors included Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and UPS, among others.
A Waters spokesman said he would relay questions on the campaign loan to the congresswoman, but no comment was ever provided. Karen Waters did not return calls to her business and personal phones.
#5
Sometimes I think I'm so jaded that nothing would surprise me that comes out of Washington--NOTHING. Well maybe if the headline said Congress collectively resigned or that the donks were going to get off our backs and reduce taxes. Ahhh, but then I am enjoying some especially good fantasies today.
The House was scheduled to vote Thursday on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.
"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.
'Family incomes abouve $250,000' could easily include families where both parents work as, say, senior IT professionals. It's not uncommon for such jobs to be tied to retention bonuses ... you get paid less standard salary than normal in exchange for large bonuses if you stay.
This is the single most hypocritical and destructive thing I've seen out of Congress in the last 5 decades. Against stiff competition.
#2
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Apparantly, no one in the House has read this part of the Constitution. It means Congress can't pass retro-active laws and taxes and can't penalize anyone for something that was not unlawful before the law was passed.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/19/2009 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
since when has the requirements of the constitution ever been a limitation on obama and his ilk?
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/19/2009 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ditto Deacon. They know it alright, the language of the Constitution, but they are happily throwing fuel on the smoke screen and deflection fires. The bonuses were approved or permitted by them and represent a miniscule, (knat on arss of the bull olifant) fraction of the insanely corrupt bailout or more correctly....welfare program.
#6
Mountain you are so correct. That was the whole idea behind the financial crap of LBJ and Nixon and Carter. The buzz work was "bracket-creep" which became "bracket-gallop". Inflation pushed you into a higher tax bracket at the same time it was decreasing what your money could buy.
Who makes the first real call for the pitchforks and torches?
#7
I think they can under Amendment 16 - please check me on this......
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Section in quotes clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/19/2009 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I hope they do this and that one of the AIG "retainees" takes it to the Supremes. Its been a while since the Supremes have knocked the Congress down a peg or two. Another reason for a new Constitutional Convention.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You have to admit its ironic for Rep. Charles Rangel, an admitted tax cheat, to lead the charge of punishing people who have legally fulfilled a private contract through the tax system.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm. Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward -- after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. . "We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill," Dodd told CNN's Wolf Blitzer this afternoon. "But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all."
Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd's spokeswoman denied the senator's involvement.
The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who's responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.
Dodd's role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd's stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.
UPDATE: Dodd put out the following statement this evening:
"I'm the one who has led the fight™ against excessive executive compensation, often over the objections of many. I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of Administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG. Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.
"Reports that I changed my position on this issue are simply untrue. I answered a question by CNN last night regarding whether or not a specific date was aimed at protecting AIG. When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight -- that this had nothing to do with AIG.
"Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers. Again, I have led the fight™ to curb excessive executive compensation, and will continue to do so." Gag
Posted by: ed ||
03/19/2009 06:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued...
Ah. Ye Olde Misconstrued Comment.
Been happening a lot lately to Angelo's friend...
#2
Lesson. When you are caught out telling a lie, tell another story fairly close but with enough subtle differences to make it distinguishable and then add in a lot of motherhood stuff. Then talk really quickly jumping all over the place and leave the questioner gasping.
Wouldn't it be simple for a questioner to just say " Doddy baby, why did you lie?"
"I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of Administration officials,"
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/19/2009 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Any member of Congress who voted for that bill deserves the same level of opprobrium currently being aimed at Dodd. They didn't write it or read it, but they voted for it.
#5
Let me be clear -- I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.
Translation: Even though Im the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Treasury wonks, my staff,and lobbyists wrote the damn thing and I didnt bother reading it.
Oh my goodness. And the best thing will be that not a single progressive blogger (I wager) will find any of this to be objectionable in the least. Let's see what they say.
As he empathized with recession-weary Americans, President Obama arranged in the days just before he took office to secure a $500,000 advance for a children's book project, a disclosure report shows. The terms of the book deal were disclosed in a Senate financial disclosure report filed Tuesday.
Can anyone imagine the outrage if Dubya or Johnny Mac had done the same thing?
Analysts say there don't appear to be any rules that would bar such transactions after a president takes office, but it's unclear whether an incoming or sitting president has ever signed a book deal upon entering the White House.
"I don't recall any sitting president entering into a book deal," said campaign finance lawyer Jan Baran, former general counsel to the Republican National Committee. "They all have historically done that after they leave office. I recall the only ones who did sign book deals while living there were first ladies, and my recollection is they gave it to charity."
Just remember how wrong it is to give a bonus to an executive at AIG ...
Mr. Obama approved the $500,000 advance on Jan. 15. The advance is against royalties under a deal with Crown Publishing, a division of Random House. The project calls for an abridged version of his book "Dreams From My Father" for middle-school-aged children, according to the disclosure.
A White House aide said that the deal had been in the works for weeks and that the publisher will abridge the book. The aide, speaking on a condition of anonymity, said the publisher will get half of the money while Mr. Obama will sign off on the final version.
In addition, the financial disclosure showed Mr. Obama brokered an amendment to an existing book deal with Crown Publishing to put off writing a nonfiction book until after he leaves office.
Wonder if Crown got any bailout money ...
The book deal came on top of nearly $2.5 million in book royalties paid to Mr. Obama last year for "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," according to the Senate report, which was filed by Robert F. Bauer, who served general counsel to Mr. Obama's presidential campaign.
The disclosure also cites income, listed as more than $1,000, paid to first lady Michelle Obama from the University of Chicago, where she had worked as vice president for community and external affairs.
Just as in 2007, public interest in Barack Obama the presidential candidate helped Barack Obama the author earn lots of money from book royalties, according to his latest financial disclosure report. Last year, Mr. Obama reported earning $949,910 in royalties from "Dreams From My Father" and $1.5 million from "The Audacity of Hope." In 2007, he reported $3.2 million in book royalties from Random House. Mr. Obama's books have helped boost the Obamas' income considerably in recent years, from about $1 million in 2006 to more than $4 million in 2007.
After getting permission from the Senate ethics committee in January 2005, Mr. Obama agreed to a $1.9 million advance for two nonfiction books and a children's book, of which $200,000 was to be donated to charity, according to his 2007 financial disclosure.
Ken Gross, former associate general counsel at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and a campaign finance expert, said there doesn't appear to be any rules that would prevent Mr. Obama from signing book deals while in the White House. "There are members of Congress who have had deals and they get paid, I don't know that he would have needed to sign that before January 20," Mr. Gross said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pretty much the same exact thing Newt Gingrich got tossed overboard for...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/19/2009 0:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well I suppose he is already underway on the project with all the teleprompter notes being recycled. It sounds a bit of a fairytale, so it can serve to purposes.
Some of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners could be released into the United States while others could be put on trial in the American court system, Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.
If a single Gitmo hard boy is released into the US and then commits a single act of terrorism, President Obama will be done. Holder will be impeached and removed as AG, and Obama can kiss his political legacy good bye.
Holder, who was chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the administration's efforts to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba within a year, said the review of what to do with each of the prisoners had begun. About 240 terrorism suspects, including suspected planners of the September 11 attacks, are being held in the prison. Many have been detained for seven years without charges and some were subjected to interrogation techniques denounced by critics as torture.
The administration faces intense political resistance to the idea of bringing the prisoners to the United States as part of closing the detention camp.
Why is that, Mr. Attorney General?
The administration seeks to transfer some detainees to Europe or other countries while freeing others.
And the Euros don't want them either ...
Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration's review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released. "For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country," he said.
Sure Mr. AG. You go right ahead. You'd better be really, really certain of what you're doing because you aren't going to get a free pass.
#4
Magic 8 ball sez: "release them in the US", huh, Mr. AG? Dipshit.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/19/2009 7:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Not at all surprising. We knew this was coming, hence the recent terms of reference changes concerning terrorists, "enemy combatants," etc, and deletion of the term "GWOT." No worries, they'll meld right in with all the other criminals being released in California.
#9
This whole thing may play out faster than I expected.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
03/19/2009 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#10
If a single Gitmo hard boy is released into the US and then commits a single act of terrorism, President Obama will be done. Holder will be impeached and removed as AG, and Obama can kiss his political legacy good bye.
Obama is already racing towards being the earliest lame duck in recent history. This is his political legacy.
Coach K was asked about Obama's final four picks on sports center and responded that while he respected and admired the President, he thought Obama should be working on the economy, not college basketball.
#12
One thing to remember is if Bush had already tried these guys instead of giving them 3 hots and a cot for 7 years, Barry would not have this. Why is this not already a done deal?
Bush failed to follow through after capturing them and this is the consequence.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/19/2009 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
If a single Gitmo hard boy is released into the US and then commits a single act of terrorism, President Obama will be done. Holder will be impeached and removed as AG, and Obama can kiss his political legacy good bye. I don't see it that way. Obama is super-good at deflecting blame. The identity of any terror perp will be transmogrified into something else, as will the very definition of 'terrorism.'
#15
AH9418 is correct. They are not, after all, 'terrorists' - they are accused ... um ... insurgents.
If and when they do something - and get caught - well, that might be a problem, but you'd almost have to catch 40-50 of 'em at the same time with the TNT (etc.) in their hands entering the basketball tournement.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/19/2009 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Send them to Minnesota. Franken needs the votes. Then let them leave for Somalia after they have voted.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Another lead trial balloon like the veteran's insurance scam he wanted to test. He'll get crushed like a bug on this one too.
#18
Watch the tall buildings in your neighborhood. These terrorists will probably end up getting jobs with ACORN which will be subsidized by our Federal Government. This is insanity.
#19
The administration seeks to transfer some detainees to Europe or other countries
Yemen? Qatar? These guys have a thin playbook on this one. Look for Obama to swing at whats in his wheelhouse break his campaign promise, rescind his executive order, and blame it on Bush.
#21
Fortunately or unfortunately - depending on your POV, if any of these guys are released here, the Feds will likely do their jobs well and prevent anything that may otherwise have happened. Saving Obamas ass in the process.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
03/19/2009 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
So...will the congressional lynch mob have to be reconvened? Or are they gonna let this one slide since Fannie and Freddie are kinda part of the club? And what might their tax rate be readjusted to? Fannie Mae plans bonuses of $1M for top executives; Freddie Mac has similar plans
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company. So...how will million dollar bonuses to 4 guys keep "hundreds of employees from leaving"?
Rival mortgage finance company Freddie Mac is planning similar awards, but has not yet reported on which executives will benefit.
The two companies, which together own or back more than half of the home mortgages in the country, have been hobbled by skyrocketing loan defaults. Fannie recently requested $15 billion in federal aid, while Freddie has sought a total of almost $45 billion.
Fannie Mae disclosed its "broad-based" retention program in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company was only required to disclose the amounts for the top-paid executives, who will pocket at least $470,000 on top of their base salaries. The bonuses are more than double last year's, which ranged from $200,000 to $260,000. Another round of bonuses ranging from $330,000 to $429,000 are planned for next February.
A company spokesman declined further comment.
Fannie Mae said regulators determined that the bonuses were needed because keeping key employees "was essential to ensure our viability through 2010, which would allow Congress, the administration and other parties involved time to determine what the form and function of the company will be in future years."
The bonuses were authorized last year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which seized control of Fannie and Freddie in September and ousted the companies' former CEOs. "It was critical to retain their most important asset -- their employees -- who are being asked to play a vital role in the nation's economic recovery," James Lockhart, the agency's director, said in a statement. "As the previous senior management teams left, it would have been catastrophic to lose the next layers down and other highly experienced employees."
But the generous paychecks could prove politically touchy amid outrage over roughly $165 million in bonuses paid out over the weekend by bailed-out insurance giant AIG.
Michael Williams, Washington-based Fannie Mae's executive vice president and chief operating officer, is due to receive a $611,000 retention award this year on top of his $676,000 base salary. Williams received a $260,000 retention bonus last year and is in line for another $429,000 next February, for an expected total of $1.3 million, according to the SEC filing.
David Hisey, the company's deputy chief financial offer, is expected to receive a $517,000 retention award this year in addition to his $385,000 salary and $160,000 cash bonus. He received a $220,000 retention award last year and is due to receive $363,000 next February, for a total of $1.1 million.
The other two executives receiving the bonuses are Thomas Lund, who oversees the company's single-family mortgage business and Kenneth Bacon, who heads up housing and community development. Both are receiving about $1 million.
The company's two top executives, Chief Executive Officer Herbert Allison and Chief Financial Officer David Johnson, did not receive the awards because they were new to the company last year. Allison is taking no salary, while Johnson is receiving a base salary of $625,000 and no bonus. So do a lousy job boys, and we'll take care of you next year...
#1
Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million...
Does anyone believe it makes any difference whether these clowns are retained? TVA has paid bonuses for years--I don't recall that they were specifically called retention bonuses--just bonuses. Maybe they should be called "boneuses" since we all end up getting boned by the govmint.
#2
Notice they didn't lose as much as AIG so they get paid less bonus money. They are doing to good a job in reversing the bleeding - why pay a retention bonus. What Fanny and Freddie should be doing is hiring those guys from AIG that quit once they got their bonus. Then they could turn them into the direction Barney Frank prefers - from the rear.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't know the details of the Fannie setup.
But generally in industry the way retention bonuses work is that you accept a *lower then normal* salary base in exchange for a bonus at the end of the retention period. That incents you to stay, since the salary + bonus are generally a bit higher than you would make in straight salary elsewhere. It also benefits the organization, which avoids the hidden costs of a new employee search and training or integrating a new hire.
Keep in mind too that the FMs were run by ex-Clintonites at the top who, together with Congress, demanded that the pursestrings be opened and that risk be ignored. Quite likely some of those getting these bonuses a) earned them by staying while working during a turbulent, tense time and b) unlike the political appointees at the top, did their best to make the stupid decisions imposed politically work out as best as could be managed.
#4
I can't argue with performance bonuses - sort of like piecework pay for manual labor - but retention bonuses bother me. If they are such high-value (to you) employees, pay them. If not, let them go to where they are that valued. The track record of a lot of these people clearly shows they were NOT such high value employees after all.
That said, I do hope FM doesn't fold up - darling daughter is currently trying to stimulate the economy by buying a house with FM 'money' and marginal income (with a somewhat higher income co-signer.)
Sen. Chris Dodd for the first time Wednesday acknowledged he was instrumental in creating legislation that cleared the way for disgraced executives at taxpayer-rescued AIG to walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. "My seat's safe. My voters have the IQ of carp and the instincts of lemmings. So, yeah. I dunnit and I'm glad. And I'll be back here come next election. Thhhhhp!"
The Connecticut Democrat also had to explain the receipt of more than $100,000 in campaign donations from AIG workers, including some from Leonid Shekhtman of Redding. Dodd vowed to return any tainted contributions from company executives, but that issue will likely be dwarfed by the huge AIG executive bonuses. "I turn those back, they launder me some new ones, and I look virtuous. Whoopdy doo. This is all play-acting."
In an interview Wednesday afternoon, the senator said he had hoped an amendment he drafted to limit executive pay under last year's Targeted Asset Relief Program would have ruled out hefty bonuses. "I thought we covered that," Dodd said. "But since we didn't, oh, well. It's only money. There's lotsa that where I sit."
His amendment passed the Senate, but was later relaxed by the conference panel that works out differences between versions of legislation passed in the two chambers of Congress. "Whoopsy."
But later Wednesday, Dodd told CNN he agreed to change his amendment -- at the request of the Obama administration -- to ensure that previously enacted bonus contracts would be honored, despite billions of dollars that would go to bailout beneficiaries. "The alternative was losing the amendment entirely," he told the network. Administration officials feared that without the language the bailout measure would be deluged with lawsuits. "Now we're just deluged with noise. Don't we sound ferocious? We're not actually doing anything, but we sound like we are."
Dodd's admission is likely to intensify Washington politicians' scramble to explain to an outraged public why they supported a bailout bill that granted giant bonuses to executives who had so mismanaged their companies. "Feh! The outraged public has an attention span of six months at the outside. Next time I run, I'll tell 'em I 'led the fight against corruption' and they'll eat it up."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2009 07:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We got your message Senor Weasel but how about coming clean on the sweetheart deal loans on your properties?
#2
March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last months $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.s bonuses.
Oh. So this is what the bottom of a bus looks like...
Posted by: Barry O. ||
03/19/2009 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Administrations come and go, every 4-8 years. Senators can be around a whole lot longer than that and they control appropriations.
Edward Liddy, the head of American International Group (AIG), a US insurance giant, told the US Congress that the "cold realities of competition" forced the company to pay out $165m in bonuses that have enraged the US public.
Liddy, under intense questioning from politicians in Washington, said on Wednesday: "Americans are asking quite simply, why pay these people anything at all?" about the bonuses handed to over 400 of its staff or former staff.
"I'm trying desperately to prevent an uncontrolled collapse of that business.
"This is the only way to improve AIG's ability to pay taxpayers back, quickly and completely, and the only way to avoid a systemic shock to the country that the US government [bailout], was meant to relieve."
Despite definding his legal obligation to pay the bonuses, Liddy asked employees to "do the right thing" and return at least half of the "retention payments" that have outraged American taxpayers who spent billions bailing out the troubled insurance giant.
Testifying under oath at the Congressional hearing, Liddy said he understood the rage over executive bonuses and said some AIG executives already have stepped forward to give money back.
Paul Hodes, a US Congressman, said on Wednesday AIG now stood for "Arrogance, Incompetence and Greed."
Gary Ackerman, a fellow Democrat, spoke of "a tidal wave of rage" sweeping the recession-hit United States.
But Alex Brill, a former economic adviser to former president George Bush told Al Jazeera: "These contracts were put in place prior to the bailout, prior contracts between two entities. "Now the taxpayer has gotten involved, and Washington is involved, they don't like the agreements on the ground between AIG and its employees, and they're discovering it right now."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Liddy was brought in AFTER the fiasco to try to preserve a) the banking system from being pulled down by AIG and b) the taxpayer's value.
Many of these bonuses went to people who weren't in the iffy side of the business - i.e. the people who ran their units well and who are the only spot of value in the company right now. Go ahead - abrogate their contracts and watch them walk out the door.
Yeah, some scumbags got retention too. Maybe they should be lynched. Or maybe they're the only ones sufficiently familiar with what is going on in that side of things to aid Liddy in fixing what can be fixed.
Short, short, short-sighted, those lynch mobs turn out to be.
#3
When the 'elite' screw up and make decisions out of malice or ignorance which drive their businesses to taxpayer rescue they are 'too valuable to lose' and warrant million dollar bonuses, while the contract clerks & custodians working for the same company, who did nothing wrong, don't even qualify for unemployment comp. (None-the-less, they have contracts, and it's cheaper to pay than break them, even if the contracts were quite ill-advised.)
#5
How many of those executives were part of the profitible portions of AIG? And how many were derivative speculators in London who gambled billions away? A lot of condemnation being passed out but precious little facts. Can we forces a nonUS citizen in another country to give up his contracted bonus? More facts, please.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
03/19/2009 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I have always thought it strange that companies would pay "retention payments" to individuals who played a large part in pissing said company down the drain.
Hell, pay me. I could piss a company down the drain easy. And for a helluva lot cheaper then these "experts"...
Who hired Ed Liddy as a "dollar a year man"? [Hank Paulson]
Who was Chairman at Goldman Sachs when AIG sold them Credit Default Swaps as insurance against their very toxic CDO's? [Hank Paulson]
Who was Chairman of AIG when they got most of their bailout investment from the Federal Government? [Ed Liddy]
Who was Treasury Secretary that gave them the bailout investment? [Hank Paulson]
Who then paid up Goldman Sachs $18 billion claim for the swaps against the hedged CDO's? [Ed Liddy]
Getting the picture? Smelly fish in Denmark have nothing on the trail that keeps leading to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan, Citi and their man at Treasury Hank Paulson and their former man at New York Fed now Treasury - Tim Geithner. There is more to this story than we all know.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
03/19/2009 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I have always thought it strange that companies would pay "retention payments" to individuals who played a large part in pissing said company down the drain.
How do you know? You have access to the AIG contracts?
#10
"These contracts were put in place prior to the bailout, prior contracts between two entities
Bottom line, if these people legally and ethically fulfilled their contracts they deserve what is rightfully theirs to keep. If the government, at that time, felt the contracts represented egregious compensation they had a Constitutional obligation to renegotiate or withhold their investment. Legally, that must be done before rather then after the fact. There was that little thing called the Revolutionary War that was supposed to correct this type of tyranny.
First, the contract opens the kimono and details A.I.G.s share of profits from the companys financial products division. A.I.G. itself received 70 percent of the distributable income, with the employees of the financial products division taking home the remaining 30 percent. The definition of distributable income was not in the agreement itself, but it does appear to be profits. So, if I am right and if you think about the financial products division as a hedge fund (and it was), this is quite a fee they were taking home.
Hedge fund managers typically only receive 20 percent of the profits and a 2 percent administrative fee. If the funds have losses, the managers receive nothing and they lose substantially because they have a significant amount of money invested directly in the funds itself. The managers are not then paid until they make back these losses.
In A.I.G.s case, however, employees got 30 percent with very little personal risk (we dont know how much of their compensation was in stock) and their overhead covered. The arrangement shows the cavalier attitude of A.I.G. management and the power the financial products division had.
Second, back to that risk part and the hedge fund analogy. The agreement confirms that A.I.G. indeed flipped this notion on its head. It also confirms what was publicly disclosed. These bonuses are payable regardless of performance and are calculated at 100 percent of 2007 compensation for all employees except senior management, who receive 75 percent of 2007 compensation. The amount is payable unless they are fired with good cause, resign without good reason or fail to meet performance standards. For those hoping that these employees could now be fired, good cause is defined in the agreement as a very high standard. This is normal for these agreements.
The agreement states that cause means conduct involving intentional wrongdoing, fraud, dishonesty, gross negligence, material breach of the AIG Code of Conduct or other policies of AIG-FP or AIG, or conviction of or entry of a plea of guilty or no contest to a criminal offense.
Similarly, failure to meet performance standards is another hard test to meet. If you could meet this latter standard, the contract provides that the employee still keeps his or her 2008 payments, just not next years. So even if the employee fails to meet performance standards this past year, they still keep the money paid this past weekend.
The contract also appears as inviolable as it states. Of course, this is not to say that it cannot be broken some other way, such as through bankruptcy, taxation or perhaps legislation. And there are many contract doctrines that allow for abrogation of contracts that might apply here. Its against public policy, it was based on a mistake, it becomes impracticable, and so on.
But as Andrew Ross Sorkin has pointed out, we may not even want to do that as we need these people. Of course, this contract should have been better written to align pay with going-forward performance (in this case money saved in unwinding these trades). This leads to my final point:
This was not a boilerplate contract. Rather, it was highly negotiated. And it was highly negotiated to pay retention fees at high levels without regard to performance. This is obviously shocking. But it makes me wonder: perhaps one area of direction here should be actually looking at who negotiated this and why?
It strikes me that the A.I.G. financial products division received an unbelievably sweet deal. Did its managers slip it under the radar? Did the managers act in good faith? And who at A.I.G. signed off on this and did they focus on the risks and rewards? Yet more avenues for possible litigation.
But of course, this is all merely a diversion for what should be the main focus: Where did the $170 billion go that taxpayers spent on A.I.G and why, and what we are going to do with A.I.G. going forward.
#12
That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the question of how much of the bonuses went to employees of the financial services division and how much to those of the main part of the company that wasn't gaming the system internaionally.
#13
You still haven't verified your blanket statement that they [all] pissed it away. Tar. Brush. Apply liberally.
But - we enage in a pissing contest ourselves. Note the last few paragraphs of your article:
The contract also appears as inviolable as it states. Of course, this is not to say that it cannot be broken some other way, such as through bankruptcy, taxation or perhaps legislation. And there are many contract doctrines that allow for abrogation of contracts that might apply here. Its against public policy, it was based on a mistake, it becomes impracticable, and so on. But as Andrew Ross Sorkin has pointed out, we may not even want to do that as we need these people. Of course, this contract should have been better written to align pay with going-forward performance (in this case money saved in unwinding these trades). This leads to my final point: This was not a boilerplate contract. Rather, it was highly negotiated. And it was highly negotiated to pay retention fees at high levels without regard to performance. This is obviously shocking. But it makes me wonder: perhaps one area of direction here should be actually looking at who negotiated this and why?
It strikes me that the A.I.G. financial products division received an unbelievably sweet deal. Did its managers slip it under the radar? Did the managers act in good faith? And who at A.I.G. signed off on this and did they focus on the risks and rewards? Yet more avenues for possible litigation.
In essence: The contracts are legal. Abrogating them is possible. But it just might wreck a company where the US government holds 80% ownership.
For once I agree with Besoeker. Move on from the bonus brouhaha to the more substantial issues. It does no good to put the red-cap on a pike and wave it around screaming "vive la revoution', except to slake some populist lizardoid fantasy.
Send the Justice Department in to litigate how the bonuses were negotiated and awarded. Then investigate where the 170 billion went, fix it so it doesn't happen again, and figure out how to get AIG working so the 'taxpayer' has a hope of getting some of the money back.
#15
I agree with you. It stinks to all hell, but it's a contract, it's legal and ought to be paid. My point is why is it that in the corporate world these people are almost always rewarded, and usually quite handsomely, for plowing their company into an iceberg instead of being handed a Dunkin Donuts cup and being told to hit the bricks?
I gotta perform on my job. If I don't, bye bye. I just can't comprehend this shit.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Sen. Chris Dodd for the first time Wednesday acknowledged he was instrumental in creating legislation that cleared the way for disgraced executives at taxpayer-rescued AIG to walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. 
