CNN's Bash falsely claims recovery bill language required AIG bonuses "to stay in place"
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Dana Bash falsely claimed that "a clause" of the economic recovery act "effectively made sure that the contracts that were in place for the past couple of years with companies like AIG -- why those had to stay in place and why AIG had to give the bonuses." In fact, the relevant provision in the recovery bill actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses in the future; it did not mandate that AIG -- or any other companies -- pay bonuses.
On the March 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash falsely claimed that "a clause" of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "effectively made sure that the contracts that were in place for the past couple of years with companies like AIG -- why those had to stay in place and why AIG had to give the bonuses." In fact, the economic recovery bill did not require that compensation contracts entered into by companies like AIG "had to stay in place," nor did the bill require AIG "to give the bonuses."
Rather, as Media Matters for America has documented, the relevant provision in the recovery bill , which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving funds under the act to award bonuses in the future; it did not mandate that AIG -- or any other companies -- pay bonuses.
From the March 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
WOLF BLITZER (host): Let's get right back to the AIG bonus mystery, and it's a huge mystery. Before those checks were even written, $165 million, someone in Congress inserted a huge loophole allowing the bonuses to go forward. So far, no one is owning up, but we have some new developments. Let's go to our senior congressional correspondent Dana Bash. Dana, what's happening?
BASH: Well, Wolf, we've been talking about this mystery of why, in effect, AIG was able to get these bonuses and why this happened during a stimulus debate. Actually, the stimulus bill. Why there was a clause put in it effectively made sure that the contracts that were in place for the past couple of years with companies like AIG -- why those had to stay in place and why AIG had to give the bonuses.
Well, here's what we have learned. We have learned from a Treasury official I spoke to, who did not want to talk on the record, but was authorized to speak to me, what they said is that the Obama administration, the Treasury Department did actually raise the concerns and effectively pushed to have that clause put into this. Why? They say it is because they were concerned that the Treasury Department and the government would be sued if they prohibited companies like AIG from giving bonuses because the contract was already in place.
She doesn't know what she thinks without the gop slime machine feedin' her talking points to read.
Read earlier on here that Dana is married to John King.
Now this is getting creepy. You've got Campbell Brown w/John Senor. Andrea Mitchell w/Alan Greenspan. Carville w/Matalin. And now Greta van Faux's husband is apparently going to advise Simple Sarah. I'm sure I've missed some. Don't these people EVER leave the beltway?
Read the language of the Bill it is written by Dodd so that there would be no confusion that the Bonuses would stay.
This is what Media Matters does all the time, they just declare by fiat that something is a lie, and then cite to it later claiming they documented a lie.
Read the language of the amendment; without it, the government could stop the bonuses and the amendment encouraged the bonuses.
Read the language of the Bill it is written by Dodd so that there would be no confusion that the Bonuses would stay.
Read the language of the amendment; without it, the government could stop the bonuses and the amendment encouraged the bonuses.
What...? Do you have any cites to back that up?
Gops with facts and evidence in support of their psychotic slop. That's a good one.
Ten bucks says that'll happen shortly after the cow jumps over the moon and the dish runs away with the spoon.
It is a lie. Nothing in the amendment tells any company to pay bonuses and it doesn't protect bonuses. There is nothing stopping the government from taking action now other than lawsuits brought by AIG employees whose contracts may be voided.
Okay...but did you know that the stimulus bill has $5 billion set aside for ACORN? And a Frisbee golf course in Austin, Texas? And a train from Anaheim to Las Vegas? And saving the salt marsh harvest mouse in San Francisco? Another lie...another day at the GOP? What else is new...?
This whole mess with AIG is just more evidence that if you want something screwed up...let the govt. try to run it.
National health care...I can't even fathom the mess they would make of it.
There are a lot of fingerprints on this bonus screw-up...but the bill was amended and signed under Pres. Obama's watch...hence this statement from Pres.Obama:
-- Ultimately I'm responsible, I'm the president of the United States...The buck stops with me. --
And then this deja vu moment from Pres.Obama:
-- I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner...You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand. --
Sounds a lot like the "You're doing a heckuva job, Brownie" during Katrina...
You have got to be kidding me. This whole episode is an example of the obtuse, greedy and corrupt nature of the private sector. The company was on the public dole and the executives still insisted on taking bonuses. How stupid can you get?
Compliments to our own bruce1a for the great link describing this whole AIG mess.
Some snippets:
-- The Obama administration acknowledged on Sunday that its top economic officials had expressed concerns to Congress that the sharp restrictions on executive compensation included in the stimulus package could be counterproductive. Moreover, they did not rule out the possibility that the president could loosen the restrictions. -- Huffpo Feb15
-- On the Sunday shows this morning, White House aides David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs indicated that they wanted Congress to loosen the executive pay provision. -- Think Progress Feb 15
-- But it was Tim Geithner and Larry Summers who openly criticized Dodd's proposal at the time and insisted that those limitations should apply only to future compensation contracts, not ones that already existed...
Can that be any clearer? It was Obama officials, not Dodd, who demanded that already-vested bonus payments be exempted...
the Obama administration was complaining because the compensation restrictions Dodd wanted were too "aggressive." -- Salon Mar 17
-- in the end, all compensation limits only applied to contracts written after February 11, at the specific request of Timothy Geithner...For the "administration official" to blame Dodd in the pages of the New York Times for the payout of these bonuses, after the White House publicly fought him tooth and nail to weaken compensation limits, is completely disingenuous. -- firedoglake Mar 17
Thanks again, bruce for the great info.
Do you think Geithner is a republican (he acts like one)?
>>Can that be any clearer? It was Obama officials, not Dodd, who demanded that already-vested bonus payments be exempted...
Yes, but as CNN points out in its lead article (at least around 6:00 PM), Obama insisted they stay in place because of the law; by not allowing the bonuses, lawsuits would result.
Thanks, I thought the Greenwald article was well done and the firedoglake stuff.
She married John King. What should one expect!
CNN has become a TV RAG, tooting their own horn about the "best team" on TV. Pathetic really.
Dodd has made a fool out of MMFA and everyone else who tried to defend him:
"Dodd: Administration pushed for language protecting bonuses"
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/aig.bonuses.congress/index.html
This settles it: The Treasury Department, along with Dodd are responsible for these AIG bonuses being handed out. No doubt about it.
Actually Dodd and the Treasury Department did nothing wrong in this instance. AIG's position is that the gov't cannot legally block contract obligated bonuses. The company may be right legally but they're morally bankrupted.
Look, you can spin this all you want, but the fact is that Dodd acquiesced under pressure from the Treasury and others (probably Larry Summers) to weaken these compensation restrictions in the stimulus package for fear of losing the amendment altogether - that's happened to Snowe/Wyden's amendment during conference. The only hope now, for Dodd's sake is for Geithner to ignore the cutoff date of these restrictions that the (still unnamed) Treasury officials under Geithner forced Dodd and his staff to put in (Februrary 11) and pay more attention to the part of Dodd's amendment that says he (Geithner) can relook at these bonus contracts and possibly reneg them if they go against the "public interest."
So what we have here is an ambiguous Dodd amendment that lawyers on both sides of this debate (whether these bonuses can be taken away) may be looking at for some time. The only other option is what the Dems (and some Republican senators) are considering - taxing the hell out of those bonuses, up to 90-something percent of them.
UPDATE: Just heard on MSNBC this morning that the Treasury claims they never actually told Dodd to make changes to his amendment in the stimulus bill, just that they relayed concerns about lawsuits if his contract compsensation restrictions became law. Sounds like a little CYA to me. They don't want to take the heat for the backlash that these AIG bonuses have caused. It's time someone there owned up to their opposition to Dodd's amendment and take some of the blame here. God knows there's enough to go around.
Why can't we keep this people on their P's and Q's?! They should'nt be allowed to make such false accusations. I mean, CNN is having a splendid time twisting the truth, just do they could bring Obama's name up in the conversation. After 8 years of lying dormant while Bush ran amuck, now they want to supposedly "call it like they see it". Whatever.