Wash. Times forwarded false GOP suggestion that Bush administration played no role in AIG bonus controversy
SUMMARY: A Washington Times article reported GOP criticism of Democrats over the AIG bonus issue and quoted a Republican strategist asserting: "This is not something [Democrats] can point to George Bush. ... They own the issue of giving bonuses to the AIG executives." But the article did not note that $53 million in AIG bonuses that the article mentioned were reportedly paid out under the Bush administration, or that a Bush-appointed special inspector general for TARP has stated that the Bush Treasury Department knew about the AIG bonus contracts and did not insist on their abrogation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money.
In a March 23 article about the GOP's strategy to use "furor" over AIG bonuses to boost its congressional election chances in 2010, The Washington Times' Sean Lengell reported that "the Connecticut attorney general said AIG papers showed that the company paid out $218 million in bonuses -- $53 million more than had been disclosed previously." Lengell went on to report that "[t]he blame, Republicans say, rests squarely with the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress for including a provision in the $787 billion economic-stimulus package last month that allowed AIG executives to receive their bonus checks" and quoted Republican strategist Dave Winston asserting of Democrats: "This is their action. This is not something they can point to George Bush. ... They own the issue of giving bonuses to the AIG executives." At no point did Lengell note that the $53 million in bonuses to AIG that the article mentioned were reportedly paid out in December under the Bush administration, or that Neil Barofsky, a Bush-appointed special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stated in March 19 congressional testimony that the Bush administration Treasury Department knew about the AIG bonus contracts and did not insist on their abrogation as a condition of AIG's receiving bailout money.
According to a Media Matters for America search*, the Times has yet to report Barofsky's statement that the issue of whether to disallow AIG executive bonuses was specifically considered by the Bush Treasury Department, which ultimately gave $40 billion to AIG pursuant to a November 2008 stock purchase agreement without requiring that AIG withhold those bonuses as a condition of receiving the federal aid. Many other media outlets have also ignored Barofsky's testimony.
In prepared testimony for a March 19 House Ways and Means Committee hearing, Barofsky stated, "Preliminary information we have seen indicates that the TARP contract between AIG and Treasury that was entered into back in November specifically contemplated the payment of bonuses and retention payments to AIG employees, including AIG's Senior Partners." He also stated that his office "will be reviewing the process at Treasury with respect to Treasury's decision to authorize and approve such payments, both at the time it entered into the contract with AIG and since that time." During an exchange with Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) in the hearing, Barofsky explained that in AIG's November 2008 agreement with the Bush Treasury Department, "retention payments were explicitly contemplated." From the testimony (transcript retrieved from the Nexis database):
REP. ROSKAM: You mentioned the online aspect of the disclosure of the TARP agreements. Would those online disclosures, as they're currently exercised by Treasury, would they have revealed the AIG problem?
MR. BAROFSKY: It would have revealed that in the AIG agreement with Treasury, retention payments were explicitly contemplated. It didn't list the contracts; it didn't list the amounts, but in the executive compensation provisions, there's an explicit reference to retention payments in calculating the total amount of payment a senior executive could receive. So that issue was, in fact, in those agreements.
REP. ROSKAM: So is it fair to say that if they had been online, that issue would have been red flagged and certainly drawn attention in advance to the problem?
MR. BAROFSKY: Potentially. I'm not sure of the exact date that the AIG agreement did go up on the Internet. Our recommendation was sort of adopted in waves after it was made in late December and is now being fully complied with. But I'm not sure the exact date the AIG agreement went up.
REP. ROSKAM: I understand.
Thank you. I yield back.
The executive compensation section of the Bush Treasury Department's November 2008 TARP agreement with AIG addresses the "annual bonus for 2009" for "Senior Partners," including "all retention payments paid or payable to such Senior Partner under any retention arrangement between the Senior Partner and the Company for any period ending on or prior to March 31, 2010." The section states that such bonuses "shall not exceed 3.5 times the sum of such Senior Partner's base salary and target annual bonus for 2008" and does not mention retention payments for other AIG employees.
From The Washington Times' March 23 article, "GOP banks on AIG outcry" by Sean Lengell:
Republicans have stoked the public outcry in recent days at American International Group Inc. (AIG) for doling out at least $165 million in executive bonus pay after being awarded $170 billion in taxpayer loans and incentives.
On Saturday, the Connecticut attorney general said AIG papers showed that the company paid out $218 million in bonuses -- $53 million more than had been disclosed previously.
The blame, Republicans say, rests squarely with the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress for including a provision in the $787 billion economic-stimulus package last month that allowed AIG executives to receive their bonus checks.
"If [the financial] crisis drags out, which it most certainly will, AIG will come back time and again in the news over the next couple of years ... and it will most likely be a campaign issue" in 2010, said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. "It is a defining moment of the Obama administration. ... This can really hurt."
Republicans have reserved particularly harsh criticism for Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who, as chairman of the powerful Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, was chiefly responsible for drafting the stimulus package.
The Republican Party public relations machine has worked overtime in a bid to portray the Connecticut Democrat -- who is expected to face a tough re-election battle next year -- as pandering to Wall Street at the expense of average taxpayers.
"This is their action. This is not something they can point to George Bush," Republican strategist Dave Winston said. "They own the issue of giving bonuses to the AIG executives."
*Nexis search was "pub(Washington Times) and (Barofsky or inspector general or November) and (AIG or bonus! or retention or ((contract or agree!))) and date aft 3/18/2009" across the Nexis "U.S. Newspapers and Wires" source.
Of course Wash Times is nonsense and this assertion is nonsense.
But in either case, it is NOT the gov't that "handed out" bonuses anyway. It was AIG and the other firms. No one FORCED them to do that!
tell that to the contracts that are aparently unbreakable.
thejbomb - yet somehow the CEO of AIG was able to ask for the bonus $$ back. Gee, I wonder how that happened in the face of these "contracts"?
Perhaps he should have said NO to them before they were handed out
(mk i like to play the devil's advocate at times just for the possible insight in the warped mind of a neo con)
well im betting that once the money changed hands the contract didn't say anything about giving it back. so once these guys had their bonuses they could do whatever they want with it. even give it back.
your right they shouldn't have been given out.....but there is nothing stopping them, especially if they have a soul to begin with, from giving the money back.
if i were in this situation i would sure as hell give it back.
No prob, good point!
same crap new day......the neo con talking points are making their way out into the world.
Bush-didn't know diddly
Obama-blame everything on
funny thing is that even if it was the case that Bush didn't know anything about the bonuses........that speaks gross incompentence because...well they should have known about it and if they did not, then once again W. was asleep at the wheel. or asleep in the passenger side with paulson asleep at the wheel.
Well we know the right wing base has no memory, short or long term. They probably can't remember what they had for breakfast. Unfortunately for them, most of remember what happened before January 20th, 2009. And it ain't pretty, let me tell ya.
The Washington Times is a gop-slop propaganda organ who prints whatever shrub-shillin' talking points they get handed to them.
As long as they're identified as such, who gives a damn what they think?
It's kind of surprising, isn't it? I figured they were making Shrub fall on the sword so that the rest could be "a new kind of Republican".
neo con IS a new kind of republican compared to say TR and Goldwater.
Fail. Better luck next time Wash Times.
From the WSJ:
-- Fannie Mae is due to pay retention bonuses of between $470,000 and $611,000 this year to some executives, despite enormous losses at the government-backed mortgage company. Fannie's main rival, Freddie Mac, also plans to pay such bonuses but hasn't yet provided details.
A recent Fannie securities filing, providing details on a bonus plan announced last year, says that Michael Williams, the company's chief operating officer, is due to receive cash retention awards of $611,000 this year, atop a similar award of $260,000 in 2008. His base salary is $676,000 a year.
The company also disclosed plans to pay retention awards this year of $517,000 to David Hisey and $470,000 each to Thomas Lund and Kenneth Bacon. All three are executive vice presidents.
Hundreds of other Fannie employees also are eligible for retention awards, but the company disclosed only the largest of the bonuses. --
And just how does that refute MMFA's contention that the Wash Times perpetuated the same gop-slop nonsense revisionist history nonsense that the rest of the sclm continues to push or substantiate the claim that shrub had no connection to the bonuses paid by AIG or anyone else currently being propped up by the US Taxpayer, little factually-challenged fella?
Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it.
-- Outrage over bonuses spread to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac yesterday, as Rep. Barney Frank demanded that the mortgage giants nix planned retention payouts for top employees.
After four days of intense political wrangling over AIG’s fat bonuses to its employees, Frank, a Newton Democrat, said yesterday that the two nationalized mortgage entities should also shun bonuses for its employees. -- Boston Herald
...and they should.
Do you have a point? Or do you simply like to see your name in posts?