DID I HEAR RIGHT?
With respect to the AIG bonuses, I thought I heard President Obama say something like "we have to get to the place where we say, 'enough is enough.'"
Can somebody explain to me whatever happened to the idea that contracts were enforceable, and the idea that the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES that the right of contract shall not be abrogated without due process of law. In other words, the government can't just decide one day to erase your contractual rights -- which is exactly what it seems to be doing with the AIG bonuses.
Now, you may be jealous or even angry that AIG executives are getting the bonuses that they contracted (over a year ago) to receive in return for their services, but we all need to ask what our nation will look like if there is a widespread lack of confidence in the enforceability of contracts. Not a pretty picture, i can assure you.
Comments (13)
Sometimes bonuses are a big part of someone's pay too. So I don't want to miss part of my pay.
*sigh* This whole country seems to be infected with nearsightedness...
He has already undermined part of the financial market for foreign investment by potentially undermining the mortgage contract and now he is going after employment contracts.
When contracts are not enforcable, what does that say about the whole concept of the "rule of law" or "equity". In fact, do you not create the stage where people will reject that government is in their interest and will realize since their is not a "justice system" they have no reason to put faith in it?
As a lawyer I am sure you are familiar with the concept (the name which slips me now) where governance and the rule of law is actually a conceptual idea and government enforcement power is actually a illusion based on people believing there is a rule of law and a justice system. Once people no longer believe that, then they realize that the police forces and the national guards and the armies are purely outnumbered and it could quickly evolve into..how do I put it diplomatically.... something else.
i agree. you know i do. it's a bad precedent, just to make people FEEL better. eh. not worth it in the long term.
So much of our society is self-regulated by voluntary contractual relationships, that if the right of contract is undermined, the entire fabric of our nation will unravel.
@Laserlawyer - The ex post facto taxation of a bonus created by their bailout and saving institutions the government deemed too big to fail is another example of the cost of quick rushing to pass a bill so they could get back on the campaign trail was.
How we can create taxation provisions to be retraoctive? That potentially destabilizes the entire system. doesn't it? And is that the objective? Or are they just in above their heads? They are merely reaping the harvest they have sewn and are mostly upset we found out about it. Wait until the rest of the goodies in these massive packages rear their ugly head.
Good point.
Well, unless I am completely wrong in my memory, Obama did say during the election that he believes the Constitution is completely out of touch with the world and unworkable.
It is madness...
I think it should be based on a situational basis and common-sense. I think that's what he was trying to say. We are beyond an "enough is enough" situation in this country. Something has got to change. I think people are entitled to their bonuses; however, in THIS case, NO! They were bailed out with our tax dollars. Do you think it's fair for someone who is most likely already rich, to get a bonus from money that the middle class has given?! This country and its CEO's are not entitled to money like that. I believe I heard Obama say something about how some in this country seem to think they are "entitled". People need to get past that, and be more in "service-mode". I'm not sticking up for him - I have yet to have him prove to me that he means everything he says. However, I do agree with much of what he said on Leno.
@willingwench - I don't think its about what is fair. "Fair" is a very slippery word. It's a question of what is right and what is wrong. It is mind-boggling to me that anyone at anytime might receive a bonus of millions of dollars. Obviously, I made poor decisions in selecting my career path.
The fault for the payment of the bonuses does not lie with those who are receiving them. They entered into legitimate contracts. The fault lies with those politicians who wrote the TARP law and passed the law that allowed public funds to be used in this way.
Now, of course, the ones at fault are now trying to shift blame to the bonus recipients.
@Laserlawyer - your point is right on. As we all know and have pointed out over and over again, the TARP law was poorly written and ill-conceived. If anyone had been minding the store, they would have clearly outlined what the bailout funds could and could not be used for. So now, people who did enter into these contracts (and were promised ridiculous amounts in compensation/bonuses) will suffer for it. I'm sure there will be lawsuits a flyin here very soon. If the people out there that think all of this is ok had it happening to them and any bonus they were receiving, they'd be screaming bloody murder.
Thats not why I'm angry.
I'm angry because AIG gave money they knew they didn't have last year to all three major candidates in the presidential race, and CT senator Chris Dodd.
I'm angry because there was originally a provision in the bailout bill that prevented this sort of thing from happening, and it was removed.
And I'm absolutely furious because the Attorney General of CT has found evidence that AIG lied about how much they originally shelled out.