Treasury-picked AIG Chairman Edward Liddy did not just defend $100 million in bonuses to go to the London office that brought the insurance company to its knees at the very precipice of bankruptcy because they were contractual. He actually had the nerve to
defend them by saying that they need the big bonuses to retain that big talent they have over there in London. Only in laissez faire la-la land can you justify hanging on to the big talent that you got your company sacked by paying them extra for nearly getting your company sacked.
Interesting juxtaposition of posts here.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, outrage over pork is sensationalism since it accounts for less than 1% of the spending bill.
On the other hand, hystrionics over bonuses that account for less than half a percent of the Federal funds in the bailout is warranted.
Even more interesting Mr. Tennessee Free Spelling Whiz is the juxtaposition between an earmark that could repair a TN dam that would protect some average Nashville homeowners from a catastrophic flood and bonuses designed to line the personal pockets of inept AIG executives so that they can send their kids to the best prep schools. It's pretty clear to those who don't let ideology intrude on common sense that the former has a higher social benefit and a bigger bang for the buck for a larger number of people.
ReplyDeleteYou assume first that every AIG employee is responsible for the overall performance of the comany and overlook the possibility that some individuals may have done their jobs. Then you assume that every pork barrel project is equivalent to repairing a dam. Pretty broad brush you have there.
ReplyDeleteYou assume first that every AIG employee is responsible for the overall performance of the comany and overlook the possibility that some individuals may have done their jobs.
ReplyDeleteTo tear a page from your playbook:
"comany"?
To the point: the London office is responsible for the near-bankrupt conditions. Why should any bonuses be going to the London office?