BTP: Obama-Dodd pull a Bush-Specter Fast-One on the American People

[BuyingThyme]

Updated 7:00 p.m. ET, Wed., March. 19, 2009

Obama-Dodd pull a Bush-Specter Fast-One on the American People
AIG flap provides opportunity for reflection and transparency


Arlen Specter has a way of getting things done. The senior Pennsylvania senator’s talent for backroom antics can be traced back to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But we really didn’t get to know Arlen until George W. Bush came along.

It was during the Bush Administration that ol’ Arlen, a senator since 1980, really got his act together. His strategy, though well disguised, was very simple: He would identify Administration wrongdoing, voice his outrage, promise change, and then change things for the worse.

Among Arlen’s great triumphs came in the form of anti-FISA legislation (commonly known FISA legislation). Arlen, the then chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, publicly voiced outrage upon “learning” of the President’s tendency to wiretap U.S. citizens without warrant in violation of the Constitution. You know the story. Most of it. But in the end, Arlen went out of his way to slip language into the anti-FISA legislation which effectively made Bush’s illegal spying legal. So much for outrage.

Arlen similarly acted upon his outrage in regards to the Bush Administration’s efforts to politicize the U.S. Justice Department. When Arlen learned of W’s political corruption of U.S. Attorneys, he was ripe for a diaper change. But when the cameras turned to more pressing issues, Arlen used the shelter of a Congressional conference committee to slip language into the USA Patriot Improvement Reauthorization Act which effectively gave Bush the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys without the consent of Congress.

President Barack Obama and Senator Christopher Dodd have apparently picked up on Arlen Specter’s legacy where November’s elections left off. With Democrats solidly in charge, Obama and Dodd have voiced outrage over excessive bonuses being paid to failed AIG executives (among others) using dollars provided by struggling American tax payers. But when the cameras turned to more pressing issues, Obama and Dodd used the shelter of a Congressional conference committee to slip language into the bill which effectively provided excessive bonuses to failed AIG executives (among others).

The corporate media finds itself all in a huff over the latest wranglings, which appear to be small game when compared to the things they allowed ol’ Arlen to get away with. After all, why should the American people worry about a relatively pidly distribution of multi-million-dollar bonuses paid out of an unprecedented multi-trillion dollar stimulus arsenal?

Well, maybe we should worry about it now so we don’t have to worry about it later. Maybe it’s time for us to be better than them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5290842

[stillcool]

1. We should also nullify all contracts..

made by the Bush Administration, and demand all monies awarded to Defense Contractors be re-paid.

[BuyingThyme]

2. I don't think that's right.

But maybe we should demand that public policy be written in the view of the public and not in the back room of a conference committee or a shit-hole in Crawford, Texas.

[stillcool]

7. I don't understand..

AIG signed contracts with their employee's that included bonuses. The bail-out bill, back in November(?) was passed with these bonus contracts included. The government agreed to honor those contracts. The stimulus bill comes along. The Snowe/Wyden amendment wants to go back and cap all those bonuses, some made back in April, at $100,000. The Dodd amendment wants to cap all bonuses handed out from the date of the stimulus bill forward. The White House does not think, breaking these contracts, will stand up as a matter of law. Neither is added to the bill. And now..this is the most sensational outrage of all time. What am I missing?

[BuyingThyme]

8. The latest bill permits bonuses to be paid on contracts

signed before February 11, 2009.

[stillcool]

9. Of course it does..

that is what the government agreed to in the original bail-out bill.

[BuyingThyme]

12. The original bailout bill permitted them to keep writing bonus contracts until February 11?

I suspect not.

[stillcool]

13. The bail-out bill allowed ..

bonus contracts. What changed, on February 11th that would nullify that agreement between AIG and the U.S. government? Did AIG and the government re-negotiate?

[BuyingThyme]

15. Nothing changed on February 11. That's why everybody's pissed.

It was just a deadline set for execs to loot the treasury.

Who knows what was signed after that date. We've only recently learned about the secret retention contracts signed between the two bills.

[stillcool]

16. A deadline? Where does this stuff..

come from? How can anyone change what is a lawful contract without renegotiating?

[BuyingThyme]

17. Well, that's the thing. People like Geithner were apparently supposed to

be keeping a short leash on AIG's spending. The assurances from people like Geithner were supposedly key to Congress' "decision" not to limit bonuses. The contracts never should have been signed. But now that the contracts have been signed, Congress feels obligated to send up this bizarre 90% tax bill.

[stillcool]

18. Again..how can Congress alter..

these lawful bonuses without renegotiating with AIG? I don't think there is any question that the bill shouldn't have been signed in the first place, but you can't go back to pre-November and alter what is already signed into law..no matter who you are.

[BuyingThyme]

19. They just wrote another law to tax 'em 90%.

They should have written a law into the bail-out, but because of assurances from people like Geithner, they did not.

[stillcool]

20. you think it will pass?

and if it does, don't you think that it will end up before the Supreme Court? Does that make sense? To pass a Constitutionally questionable law, and then spend tax-payers money arguing for the case in court..for what.. a year? 2 years? Only to have to pay the bonuses..maybe plus interest?

[BuyingThyme]

23. I don't know.

[Jennicut]

22. Absolutely nothing. Some people who are holier then thou

want to turn this into the biggest scandal ever. Its not. The fact of the matter is the bonuses should never have been put into the contracts to begin with but greed drove AIG.

[rucky]

10. Paulsen needs to be brought back to Congress and explain himself. n/t

[donheld]

3. What's up with your link?

[BuyingThyme]

4. Seems to be working.

:hi:

[donheld]

5. It does work fine if

you just want to come right back to this silly thread.

[BuyingThyme]

6. Would you mind telling me what's silly about this thread?

[certainot]

11. you been believing limbaugh and hannity? and cnn?

"Obama and Dodd used the shelter of a Congressional conference committee to slip language into the bill which effectively provided excessive bonuses to failed AIG executives (among others)"

here's from dkos:

CNN's reporting vs. CNN's transcript
by Jed Lewison
Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:34:04 PM MDT

CNN reporting:

Geithner: Treasury pushed for bonus loophole

(CNN) — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses.

CNN transcript (note the highlighted section):

Velshi: Let's just talk a little moment again about those payments and the legal ramifications of doing anything about it. Sen. Dodd says that he had a clause that was put into the stimulus bill that basically allowed these payments to be made to people at AIG in this particular unit, and he says that somebody at Treasury asked him to put it in.

Geithner: Let me just start by saying that Chairman Dodd has played an enormously important leadership role in this, and he's doing the right thing in trying to make sure that the assistance we provide doesn't go to benefit people that shouldn't benefit from these things. And I am enormously impressed by the importance of what he's trying to do in this case.

Velshi: But somebody -- have we figured out who told him to put this clause in?

Geithner: This provision? We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge. But we also worked with him to strengthen the overall framework, and his bill has this very important provision we're relying on now to go back and see if we can recoup payments that were made that there was no legal ability to block.

Velshi: But inadvertently, might somebody at Treasury have told Sen. Dodd to do something that has now resulted in these payments not being able to ...

Geithner: No, again, what we did is just express concern about the vulnerability of a specific part of this provision, the legal challenge, as you would expect us to do, that's part of the legislative process, but again, his bill also has this very important provision that allows us to go back and see if we can recoup these payments, and we're going to explore that, but in any case, we're going to make sure that the American people are compensated for any payments we can recoup.

Velshi: Do we know who in Treasury had this conversation with whomever on the banking committee?

Geithner: Treasury staff were working Sen. Dodd's staff throughout this process. Again, that's part of the legislative process.

Velshi: But you weren't involved in that directly?

Geithner: I did have with other officials, some conversations with Chairman Dodd as he was going through this process, but other provisions.

Velshi: So not about this particular one. It wasn't you telling ...

Geithner: No, but I'm not sure that's relevant because Treasury staff did express concern about whether this provision was vulnerable to legal challenge.

The key point here is that while Geithner does confirm that Treasury spoke to Dodd's office and expressed concern about whether the clause would hold up to legal challenge, when Velshi asked him specifically whether Treasury instructed Dodd to do something that resulted in the AIG bonuses, Geithner said no.

Now perhaps there's more to the story than what Geithner is saying. But he didn't say what CNN reported he said.

And that means CNN's transcript is at odds with CNN's reporting.

[BuyingThyme]

14. I don't listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. What did they tell you?

The reason CNN and every body else are confused is because Dodd, Obama, and Treasury are still refusing to tell the truth.

[merh]

21. Is this your writing or do you have a link to who wrote/published this?

[BuyingThyme]

24. Mine.

[merh]

25. So it is just your opinion put out there

I see nothing that backs up your allegations and the way you presented the OP it is as if it is more than simply your opinion piec.

[BuyingThyme]

26. Which part do you see as opinion?

The fact that they controlled the legislation? Or the fact that they staged outrage over the implications of the legislation?

[merh]

29. The behind the scenes "games"

and your interpretation of the facts.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Whom or what are you quoting?

And what facts do you believe I'm misinterpreting?

[trudyco]

27. So you think Arlen and Bush were in on it together? I just assumed

Arlen was blackmailing Bush. Once he got whatever he wanted he then helped Shrub out by putting in the legislation. It seems like there was a time when they were trying to declaw Arlen. Didn't they want him off the judiciary committee or something? Didn't he have a serious contender WITHIN his party in the primaries? And Bush made a big show of helping him out.

Or am I muddled. Slow this morning.

[BuyingThyme]

28. The Puke senators wanted Arlen off Judiciary but the Bushes kept him on.

(And in his seat, as you said.)

Arlen is a very useful evil. He played the same game with Habeas Corpus.