What do AIG bonuses have to do with health care and cap-and-trade?
SUMMARY: Several media outlets have asserted that AIG's payment of controversial employee-retention bonus packages could squelch or impede President Obama's ability to promote his policy agenda. Most of those reporting the claim failed to elaborate on how disclosure of the bonuses could impede Obama's ability to pass aspects of his agenda such as health-care reform and climate change policy.
In March 17 reports, several media outlets said that the American International Group's payment of employee-retention bonus packages could squelch or impede President Obama's ability to promote his policy agenda. For instance, in a March 17 Washington Post article -- headlined "Anger Over Firm Depletes Obama's Political Capital" -- staff writers Michael D. Shear and Paul Kane asserted as fact that the bonuses "dealt a sharp blow to his young administration and is threatening to derail both public and congressional support for his ambitious political agenda" and suggested that "the fate of the new president's sweeping agendas on health care, climate change and education" might be affected.
Other examples of the media stating or suggesting that the AIG bonus payments could impede Obama's agenda include:
- A March 17 USA Today article reported that "skepticism" over the AIG bonuses "could spill over onto Obama's agenda." The article continued: "Next month, he is expected to propose a detailed budget that will propose spending that will lead to a $1.75 trillion deficit in the name of ending the recession. He also wants to overhaul the nation's health care system. Those ambitious goals could be threatened if Congress rejects more heavy spending."
- In a March 17 Los Angeles Times article, staff writers Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook reported that Obama has returned to "campaign-style tactics" in order to "pressure lawmakers to back Obama's plans in Congress, particularly his $3.6-trillion budget. That would be a tough sell in any environment, with lawmakers and industry lobbyists skeptical of sweeping and costly plans to revamp healthcare, convert to alternative fuel and stabilize the financial sector." The article then asserted that "[c]omplicating the president's job were revelations over the weekend that insurance giant American International Group Inc. was paying $165 million in executive bonuses even though it had accepted a huge federal bailout."
- In a March 17 post on ABCNews.com's The Note, ABC's Rick Klein postulated: "In this environment -- until or unless the bonuses are canceled -- is it possible to imagine the president getting another set of cash set aside to bail out big banks? How about another stimulus package? How about his budget? And healthcare and cap-and-trade and education reform?"
- In a March 17 post on the New York magazine blog Daily Intel -- headlined "Are AIG Bonuses Ruining Obama's Big Plans?" -- Dan Amira wrote that the bonuses "could potentially tie Obama's hands going forward as he continues to try to salvage the financial system and push his vast agenda." Amira then linked to and summarized Shear and Kane's Post article and Klein's The Note post.
- In a March 18 Bloomberg News article -- headlined "Obama May Find Anger Over Bonuses Backfires on Agenda" -- Hans Nichols reported that "The public furor over the $165 million in bonuses AIG handed out to employees gives administration critics a new weapon to thwart Obama's agenda, from his budget to plans for financial-market regulation." Nichols later elaborated: "Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, said the party will try to take advantage of the bonus issue to weaken the president. 'The real target for the Republicans is to bring Obama back down to earth,' Reed said. 'The AIG issue over bonuses lies at his feet.' "
As Media Matters for America has noted, in their reporting on AIG's bonuses, in several cases, media failed to note that it was then-President Bush's Treasury Department that worked with the Federal Reserve in carrying out last year's bailouts and bought AIG stock, notwithstanding the existence of these bonus contracts.















correction mmfa, Geithner's hands were all over the AIG bailout, even back then. so your partisan shoring up for Obama's guy is futile. As for your question in the headline, the answer is in two words; government ineptitude.
The ANSWER is that the con's can use this BS as ammo to fill thier noise machine, fuel their invective, and do what they do best: Confuse the ignorant to vote republican, so that they can get back in power and continue to obstruct progrss on every issue on every front.
As for your question in the headline, the answer is in two words; government ineptitude.
And that's a perfectly expected thing for a true partisan hack to utter. But that is not something to report baselessly.
ya, I am partisan against a government that is ineffective and inefficient, sorry you aren't.
You missed my point.
What were you expecting, Victor? Years of training with broad, vague concepts of evil, and he was gonna get down to facts?
Nice try, little fella, but why your clueless-cretin credentials remain impeccable, I'll wager Vic was always against the brain-dead bushleaguers and the late, unlamented, gop-slime rubber-stamp Congress that put us in this fix in the first place.
I know I always was. Still, it's nice to see that you've finally come to your senses, little fella. Keep it up. You just may redeem your miserable existence after all.
Always a pleasure.
So... you voted against the republicans as well? Thanks. I would not have expected that from you.
Gee, thanks for clearin' that up, little fella, but I'll wager memories of eight years of brain-dead bushleague incompetence are still pretty fresh with most here in attendance.
He left one hell of a mess, but, fortunately, we've got a legitimate, competent, qualified, intelligent President to clean up after him. We'd be screwed if we didn't.
Always a pleasure.
What's with the "weasel words" ..........."may"......."could" and the like ?
Also, can someone help me with reporting based on questions ?
How about reporting the actual facts as you know them or nothing at all.
Still spewin' your psychotic back to the future slop I see, little factually-challenged fella.
Once again, feel free to cough up any and all evidence documenting just where and when Geithner went back in time to be part of the Bush Administration while simultaneously acting on behalf of the Obama Administration of the future, deaf, dumb and blind boy.
What did he do, pull some kinda Superman reversing the spin of the Earth on its axis to go back in time thing, little grasping at psychotic straws fella?
Nice try, but if he could go back in time on behalf of Obama, why would he stop at havin' him go back only a few months when he could just as easily have him erase the last eight years and start off with a budget surplus, a world at peace and the WTC still dominating the Lower Manhattan Skyline, shmendrik?
That would sure as hell make Obama and the rest of the world's job a lot easier, little lunatic-fringe fella.
Nice try. You can show yourself out.