Michael Reagan falsely claimed Dems' law told AIG to "pay the bonuses"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Michael Reagan falsely claimed that in paying retention bonuses, AIG was following a law "that was written by the Democrats" that said "pay the bonuses." In fact, the stimulus bill did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses, much less require them to do so.
On the March 26 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, radio host Michael Reagan falsely claimed that in paying retention bonuses, AIG was following a law "that was written by the Democrats" that said "pay the bonuses." While Reagan did not specify what "law" he was discussing, Republicans and media figures have advanced the falsehood that the economic recovery bill created a right for AIG to pay bonuses. In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did not create the right for AIG -- or any company -- to pay bonuses, much less require them to do so. Rather, AIG reportedly disclosed that it had entered into agreements to pay these bonuses more than a year ago, and the Bush Treasury department approved of the AIG bailout with this agreement in place. Furthermore, the relevant provision in the recovery act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future.
During the segment, Reagan also asserted that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- which is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods -- was among "all the laws that were in place that helped cause this." By blaming the CRA, Reagan was echoing the conservative claim that efforts to expand homeownership among low-income and minority Americans caused the financial crisis. But actions taken by banks to expand lending to underserved communities, the focus of CRA, did not cause the financial crisis, according to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, who stated in a November 25, 2008, letter: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Further, Janet Yellen, president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, stated in a March 2008 speech that "studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." Moreover, according to housing experts, a large percentage of subprime loans were not made by lenders governed by the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. A study released in January 2008 by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.
On Your World, Cavuto previously asked Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), "[W]hen you and many of your colleagues were pushing for more minority lending and more expanded lending to folks who heretofore couldn't get mortgages, when you were pushing homeownership ... Are you totally without culpability here?" Cavuto later said, "I'm just saying, I don't remember a clarion call that said, 'Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster.' "
From the March 26 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
REAGAN: Yeah, I mean, what's going on back in Washington is like three-card monte, but they're trying to hide [Sen.] Christopher Dodd [D-CT] and [Rep.] Barney Frank [D-MA], who are the real culprits in all of this. And you look at what's going on with AIG -- most of the people who in fact might have been responsible for what happened at AIG are gone.
You have Jake DeSantis writing an op-ed piece yesterday in The New York Times, taking a buck a year. His organization within AIG makes $100 million profit. They give him an $800,000 bonus, and people go absolutely crazy. That's the money that's going to help repay the debt that AIG in fact has incurred by us loaning them money.
All this to hide the real culprits in Washington, D.C., because all the laws that were in place that helped cause this -- the Community Reinvestment Act -- Neil, are still in place today. They have not been rescinded. They haven't been moved. They are still in place today. My question is: Why are the laws that helped us get here still in place today? Because Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and the Democrats want to pay back their friends.
CAVUTO: Well, even besides those laws that were in place and are still in place, there was a way you could check, just by opening up a simple file or the front page of what they call a 10-Q, which is sort of a rundown of what's happening at a taken-over firm -- in this case, AIG -- and you would clearly see that bonuses were handed out.
And if a lot of these in Congress, who have been arguing that after the massage weekend some months back with AIG executives, they would be like stink on you-know-what to make sure it didn't happen again, shame on them for missing it again, right?
REAGAN: Well, they missed it again. And, remember, AIG was following the law. The law said -- that was written by the Democrats -- pay the bonuses. They paid the bonuses. Now Washington is acting like they knew nothing about it, which goes to a point I've made on numerous occasions. Washington never reads the bills they vote on. They give them great names, great sendoffs, and then vote for them, and then later on, they find out, whoops, what did we do?
But, you know, at the same time, their friends that were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they got millions of dollars in bonuses. This goes on and on and on. You have Washington, D.C., before Christmas not voting to stop themselves getting a pay raise.
Why are we upset at AIG, who was following the law? Why not be upset at the people making the laws and not doing their job in Washington, D.C.?
CAVUTO: Well, to be fair -- to be fair, a lot of guys at AIG weren't following the law.

















If Michael Reagan didn't have his stepfathers last name, he'd be the assistant hoseman, on a Porto-Potty truck!
I think you're wrong. Reagan is quite clearly an expert hoser.
and multitasks as a holding taqnk also
We conservatives are the ones truly outraged about these bonuses being paid. Liberals can't be outraged because Chris Dodd revised the bill in the dead of night to allow these contracts to go unchallenged.
By the same token, I can't believe liberals are trying to take away these bonuses, which were required by contract! I mean, who do they think they are, being outraged about these bonuses being paid!
Why do we have to continually refute old talking points. "... Chris Dodd revised the bill in the dead of night to allow these contracts to go unchallenged..." Here is some homework for you please try and keep up. Wall Street Journal article omitted Bush Treasury Department's role from AIG bonus timeline
Monday, March 23, 2009 , and CNN's Castellanos falsely claimed Dems "gave" bonuses to AIG execs
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 , It's funny how the last 8 yrs never happened to you conservatives. Selective amnesia....umm very convient.
I'm starting to think you are missing the humor in my post.
I wasn't the only one.
that is funny. I didn't notice any "outrage ' until reports started filtering in the electorate ( ie voters 0 were realising the true events and began publicly demanding their tax dollars being used to pay bonuses. if i remember correctly, AIG got caught sending their top dogs to spa's and hunting trips to England with tax dollars. And now you speak for all conservatives about " outrage '. ROFL
"demanding their tax dollars being used to pay bonuses" should read
"demanding their tax dollars being used to pay bonuses be returned".
no i will assume the mantle of speaking of conservative outrage.
that chucklehead mrhebert only speaks for neo con outrage.
outrage that they got caught wasting OUR MONEY!
chucklehead. That's not very nice. see my comment above.
ah.....my apologies then.....sorry i have a hard time sometimes telling when someone else is being snarky.
im very sorry
well your wrong on hat point.....and mind you this is a conservative telling you this.......EVERYONE has the right to be outraged about this crap.
and i disagree about with this statement of yours.
"By the same token, I can't believe liberals are trying to take away these bonuses, which were required by contract! I mean, who do they think they are, being outraged about these bonuses being paid!" mrhebert 74
and how do you feel about the contract that Ford Motor just came out with its workers. even though the previous contract was not barely a year old.
and while im schooling you about that here is another thing. what about the neo con senators like bob corker and richard shelby who said that the contracts should be broken for the UAW workers.
im sure your going to give somestupid talking point about how union contracts don;t count or something.
he guess what buddy......contracts are contracts. and if neo cons are calling for union contracts to be broken. then these AIG contracts should be treated with the same attitude.
Class Dismissed
I seem to have fooled you twice. Sorry.
I am so tired of the CRA argument that repubs use to explain our economic downfall.
The banks were not told to give loans without fiduciary responsibility. If a potential borrower does not have the paperwork to show he deserves the loan then the loan should not be made. The mortgage lenders have a responibility to check the data on applications and must not asume anything. Greed by lenders allowed bad loans, since they could quickly sell them off. If the mortgage securites were properly regulated we would not be in this economic mess. Rating agencies' personnel should be facing criminal charges for their part in this mess.
The CRA was designed to prevent discrimunation by lenders based on color and the area in which ine lives. All loans must be determined to be viable and lawful.
oops wrong thread
It boggles the mind that anyone would believe that a company was forced to pay exorbitant bonuses against their will. Maybe companies are forced to throw lavish parties with their bailout money too.
Absolutely nuts. What's next, bailed out companies had to buy new jets because Chris Dodd threatened to kidnap executives' children? Where do these people go from here?
not only buy executive jets, but buy them from France ? Must have taken a cue from Mccain, who blocked BOEING from supplying tankers to the Air Force, thereby forcing the AF to buy non-existing yet to be developed tankers from AIRBUS, a french consortiun. Yeah, i am still mad at him for that.
And ACORN got $3 billion!
WMDs were found in Iraq!
Pure hard links of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda working together were found!
American Health Care is affordable AND efficient for every single citizen!
Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter caused 9/11 and the current economic crisis!
Fox News is Fair and Balanced!
The New Deal did not provide Americans with any relief whatsoever. In fact, FDR caused the depression!
Obama's birth certificate from a Hawaiian hospital is proof that he was born in and is a citizen of Kenya!
Anything else I missed on GOP/Conservative talking points?
yes you did. all democrats are traitors and thieves. read my below post. i intend to use it every time a neo con starts their BS talking point crap
This is interesting. Just the other day, Josh Silver who takes care of the Research department at the National Community Reinvestment Coalition wrote a little blurb about the Community Reinvestment Act and how the CRA could have actually SAVED AIG. It's an interesting article that I think should be read if any of you all are interested...
Not to mention, Eddie Bernice Johnson is actually pushing the CRA Modernization Act right now, so knowing about the CRA is pretty important, I'd say!
I really can't believe all the crap that the CRA is getting, especially since the CRA makes sure that the banks aren't being scummy and that people have houses and jobs! It's absolute crazyness!
-- an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future. -- mmfa
mmfa staffers keep trotting out this strawman to blur the lines...a stategy that might work for the liberal political cause...but does little to correctly inform its readers.
The Bush administration approved the bonuses a year ago. Then along comes Dodd and some others who were going to insert language in the bill to prohibit any and all bonuses for those receiving Tarp money...including those who had employment contracts that specified bonuses that were to be paid.
Then Pres.Obama rides in as the new sheriff in town and organizes a posse led by Geithner to strike down the Dodd amendment...and return the status quo to the agreement made by the Bush administration...the one allowing AIG an exemption.
The Obama posse then shamelessly tried to place the blame on Dodd...who is only guilty of knuckling under to Pres.Obama...before recanting the claim and having to own up to the fact that they were the ones guilty of pushing and implementing the AIG exemption.
The original Dodd amendment would have placed this argument squarely where it belongs...in a court of law...rather than this childish political game being played today.
The reason that the AIG exemption is in the law today is the fault of Pres.Obama. He had the opportunity to strike down the agreement made by the Bush administration. Instead, he chose to have his posse bludgeon Dodd into remission and return to the policy set forth by Pres.Bush.
This policy, in fact, gave AIG the implied right to pay the bonuses because both administrations had made it very clear that cancelling those contractual bonuses would have weak legal standing in the courts.
Arguing the merits of AIG opting to pay the bonuses is one issue...the other issue is cut and dried. The AIG bonuses were paid because of the legislation promoted by the Obama administration....despite the barrels of ink spilled by mmfa trying to word-smith the issue and deflect the blame.
"This policy, in fact, gave AIG the implied right to pay the bonuses because both administrations had made it very clear that cancelling those contractual bonuses would have weak legal standing in the courts...Arguing the merits of AIG opting to pay the bonuses is one issue...the other issue is cut and dried. The AIG bonuses were paid because of the legislation promoted by the Obama administration....despite the barrels of ink spilled by mmfa trying to word-smith the issue and deflect the blame." (emphasis mine)
They already had that right, so there was nothing to give. And if cancelling the bonuses would have weak legal standing, then that's justification for changing the amendment, isn't it? Why would you want to pass something that's going to be shot down in the courts? I also find the line about the bonuses being paid because of the legislation to be inconsistent (as well as just plain dumb). Weren't you the one making an argument about how MMfA wouldn't know what would happen in the future? But supposedly if the amendment was left as it was, and ruled unconstitutional in the courts, then the bonuses wouldn't have been paid anyway.
But here's the real laugher:" -- an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future. -- mmfa" (emphasis yours)
Followed by:"mmfa staffers keep trotting out this strawman to blur the lines...a stategy that might work for the liberal political cause...but does little to correctly inform its readers."
Then:"Then along comes Dodd and some others who were going to insert language in the bill to prohibit any and all bonuses for those receiving Tarp money...including those who had employment contracts that specified bonuses that were to be paid."
Prohibiting any and all bonuses would apply to bonuses in the future.
Then:"The original Dodd amendment would have placed this argument squarely where it belongs...in a court of law...rather than this childish political game being played today."
So how does this make the quote that you pasted a "strawman", if you even know what that term means? How do your comments contradict or refute what you highlighted regarding Dodd? How are the readers not being correctly informed when what you said is consistent with that quote?