http://www.counterpunch.org/abourezk03172009.htmlThe story came to mind this week when various members of Congress were seen railing on television about the AIG bonuses. After receiving $150 billion from taxpayers, AIG executives decided to pay tens of millions in bonuses to their executives. The result was not surprisingly, a firestorm of criticism, with Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Harry Reid leading the pack. What is surprising is that both Frank and Reid, and others, had fashioned the legislation that gave the series of bailouts to AIG.
Somehow, the issue of non-control of the corporations that are effectively now owned by the government because of bailout money, escapes me. First of all, what was to prevent the Congress from inserting conditions on their bailout of no bonuses? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, because the Congress could have placed any condition it wanted in the bailout bill.
AIG explains that it is bound by contract, contracts made last year, to pay the bonuses. Not that I don’t believe what AIG tells us, but what is to prevent the Congress or the Secretary of the Treasury from examining those contracts?
Secondly, what company would sign a contract paying a bonus to a failed executive? Aren’t bonuses usually paid for successful operation of companies?
Getting back to the vociferous complaints by the same members of Congress who fashioned the bailout legislation, the situation is very much similar to the Mel Brooks movie, “Blazing Saddles.” The pertinent segment of the movie involved a black sheriff having been appointed to enforce the law in a small, racist, western town.
When it appeared that the good townsfolk were about to do injury to the new black sheriff, he pulled his six gun and held it to his own head, saying, “Back away, or the black guy gets it.”