Hey J.C.!! Even the socialists are having a hard time stomaching former New York Fed President and admitted tax cheat Timothy Geithner....It would not shock me to see Geithner axed before the end of the day:
============ *Analysis: AIG bonuses new cloud over Treasury boss* By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 35 mins ago http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/whither_geithner_analysis WASHINGTON – If not distancing itself from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the White House is placing firmly on his shoulders responsibility for how the government handled the $165 million in bonuses paid to about 400 executives and traders at American International Group Inc. "Secretary Geithner last week engaged with the CEO of AIG to communicate what we thought were outrageous and unacceptable bonuses," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. Then he volunteered the answer to a question being asked all over Washington: Did Geithner still enjoy President Barack Obama's confidence, given the whopping bonuses the failed insurance giant paid Friday after receiving taxpayer bailout money? "The president has complete confidence" in Geithner, Gibbs said. Is Obama satisfied that Geithner informed him of the impending bonus payments in a timely fashion? "Yes, the president is satisfied," Gibbs replied. Those, of course, are statements that wouldn't need to be made if Geithner's status were clear. Not just a president's confidence, but his "complete confidence" can be a well-worn political signal that the person allegedly enjoying it should start circulating a resume. In case anybody missed the point: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuelcategorically dismissed to The Associated Press any suggestion that Geithner is in trouble. AIG is the demonized insurance giant now 80 percent owned by the government after getting $170 billion in federal bailout funds to pay money it owed to U.S. and foreign banks. Geithner told senior White House officials about the bonuses last Thursday and they in turn told Obama the same day, according to a timetable provided by the White House. Geithner sent a flurry of letters to lawmakers Tuesday night on measures he's taking — including bringing in Attorney General Eric Holder — to try to recover as much of the bonuses as possible. For the time being, Geithner, formerly president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, remains a key player in the gargantuan task of slowing the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. But his future could soon be as murky as the economy's. His short tenure has been shaky at a time when the new president and the Democratic-led Congress are trying to project confidence to the markets and the nation. When asked, Democrats issued statements of support for Geithner that ranged from concise to vague, but none called for his resignation. Geithner's nomination was dogged at the start by news that he initially failed to pay $34,023 in self-employment taxes earlier in the decade when he worked for the International Monetary Fund. As treasury secretary, Geithner oversees the Internal Revenue Service. Although he was confirmed — with a third of the Senate voting against him — Geithner's rollout of Obama's stimulus package was widely panned for being short on substance and delivered in a televised statement that made him look younger than his 47 years, and more uncertain. The markets tanked. Not helping his cause was the news this week that Geithner failed to persuade AIG chief executive Edward Liddy to change or cancel plans to pay the bonuses Friday. Whatever Geithner's culpability in the AIG debacle, Republicans did much to get the speculation going Tuesday by uttering the "R word," resignation. "I don't know if he should resign over this," said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the Senate Banking Committee's top Republican. The White House swiftly hit back, supported by Sen. Chuck Schumer, like Geithner a New Yorker and an early supporter of Geithner's nomination. "Secretary Geithner is a capable, smart and dedicated leader of the Treasury Department. He is the right person for the job in these challenging times," Schumer said in response to a request for comment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was less concise. Asked how much confidence he had in Geithner, the Nevada Democrat avoided replying directly. Instead, he reframed the premise and suggested a discussion of "what we have accomplished this Congress" and issued something short of a blunt endorsement of Geithner's service. The economic picture, Reid said, revolves around the fortunes of the housing market. "I feel very comfortable with what the treasury secretary has done, what the housing secretary has done," Reid said. "Housing is the main focus of the problems we have with our economy. That's where it started, and everyone says, until we work out the housing issue, we will never be at the bottom of this economic crisis." ___ On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 11:27 AM, J.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not disagreeing that Obama should have stepped up and stopped > these before the firestorm; however, I do believe there needs to be > some perspective on the formation of the bonuses. > > There is plenty of blame to go around on this - for both the current > and past administrations. > > On Mar 18, 8:51 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > That Bush did not stop them is reason for Obama to justify and approve > > the Dodd amendment on his watch??? What you are telling me is that > > Obama should have known about the issue from the git go, and then did > > little to stop it... And now to fain outrage under that circumstance > > is outrageous... The amendment of Dodd gives Obama ownership of the > > AIG bonus... Then to ask for tax codes changes to "punish" Americans, > > well, Obama's fine spun narrative is spinning out or has spun out of > > control... And for Obama, that is a major negative... > > > > Not unlike the earmaks issues... Maureen Dowd said today > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1 > > > > >>> At first, on the nutty bonuses, Team Obama thought it could get away > with the same absurd argument used to justify the nearly $8 billion in > unnecessary earmarks it allowed Congress to jam into this year’s overdue > spending bill: It was written last year; we’re just signing off on it; we’ll > do better in the future. > > > > On Mar 18, 10:26 am, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > This isn't entirely true, and I'll tell you why. > > > > > The bonuses were actually filed with the SEC several months ago; > > > Bernake and Paulson knew that AIG was planning on paying the retention > > > bonuses when the FIRST bailout bill was written, and provided no > > > oversight to stop them - in fact, Paulson came out publicly against > > > limiting executive bonuses. > > > > > From the Seattle Post Intelligencer: > > > > > AIG's plans to pay hundreds of millions of dollars were publicized > > > last fall, when Congress started asking questions about expensive > > > junkets the company had sponsored. A November SEC filing by the > > > company details more than $469 million in "retention payments" to keep > > > prized employees. > > > > > Back then, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., began pumping Liddy for > > > information on the bonuses and pressing him to scale them back. "There > > > was outrage brewing already," Cummings said. "I'm saying (to Liddy), > > > 'Be a good citizen. ... Do something about this.' " > > > > > Around the same time, outside lawyers hired by the Federal Reserve > > > started reviewing the bonuses as part of a broader look at retention > > > and compensation plans, according to government officials who spoke on > > > condition of anonymity. The outside attorneys examined the possibility > > > of making changes to the company plans - scaling them back, delaying > > > them or rescinding them. They ultimately concluded that even if AIG's > > > bonuses were withheld, the company would probably be sued successfully > > > by its employees and be forced to pay them, the officials said. > > > > > In January, Reps. Joseph E. Crowley of New York and Paul E. Kanjorski > > > of Pennsylvania wrote to the Federal Reserve and the Treasury > > > Department pressing the administration to scrutinize AIG's bonus plans > > > and take steps against excessive payments. > > > > > "I at that point realized that we were going to have a backlash with > > > regard to these bonuses," Kanjorski said in an AP interview. In a > > > meeting with Liddy later that month, he said he told the AIG chief > > > that "all hell would break loose if we didn't find a way to inform the > > > public ... and that we should take every step to put that information > > > out there so we wouldn't have the shock." > > > > > ********** > > > While I don't agree with the backroom deal made by Obama this time, > > > the blame for this does not rest entirely with him; a good chunk of it > > > rests with the previous administration, because the legislation > > > preventing these bonuses should have been written into the first > > > bailout bill, which, by the way, was written in May of last year, > > > after the collapse of IndyMac Bank. > > > > > Another interesting side note: > > > > > While AIG was begging for money from the government, it was spending > > > an intense amount in lobbying - nearly $11 million. Why? To stop the > > > passage of a mortgage fraud bill. > > > > > Seems kind of stupid, doesn't it? Personally, I think AIG should be > > > allowed to collapse, and every one of the execs should be sent packing > > > (since 11 of them have already packed up after receiving their $1 > > > million bonus). > > > > > On Mar 18, 8:16 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > between Democrats in Congress and Obama in the rush to pass the > > > > Stimulus Bill should not say the Stimulus Bill is aptly named??? Can > > > > one see Obama's rage in any other light than dishonest as he demanded > > > > immediate passage without giving Congress a chance to READ THE BILL > > > > FIRST??? > > > > > >http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6715304 > > > > > > >>> During a late-night, closed door meeting last month, negotiators > for the House, Senate and White House agreed to strip an amendment to the > stimulus bill that would have restricted bonuses to any company receiving > federal bailout funds. Instead of that measure, another measure by Senator > Chris Dodd (D) from Connecticut was inserted that limited "executive > compensation," but specifically exempted bonuses.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
