George's Bottom Line
Reporting and analysis from ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent and "This Week" Host George Stephanopoulos

George Stephanopoulos reports on events in politics, Congress and the White House for ABCNews, on the air and online. He interviews top newsmakers, discusses the events of the week and looks to the week ahead each Sunday on 'This Week.'

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30

« Previous | Main | Next »

White House: AIG Bonus Tax May Be 'Dangerous'

March 22, 2009 10:27 AM

Vice President Joe Biden's economic adviser said Sunday that lawmakers' plan to tax back insurance giant American International Group, AIG, bonuses may have "gone too far."

"I think the president would be concerned that this bill may go too far -- the House bill -- may go too far in terms of some legal issue: constitutional validity, using the tax code to surgically punish a small group of people. That may be a dangerous way to go," Bernstein told me in an exclusive debate on "This Week" Sunday.  "That said, let's see what comes out of the Senate. He has not said he won't sign this bill. Let's see what comes out of the Senate. Let's see what gets to his desk."

We learned last week that AIG received billions in taxpayer dollars to keep its doors open but still paid employees the bonuses their contracts required. Populist anger led the House to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid this year on companies that received bailout money.

When the excise tax initially passed the House this week, President Barack Obama appeared supportive, putting out a statement saying it rightly reflects the outrage that many people feel. Yet all weekend long, it appears the White House has been backing away from that position, with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assuring the finanical community that the bill is not going to reach the president's desk.

"You really have to differentiate between what you can legally do about bonuses moving forward and about clawing back old bonuses," Bernstein said Sunday. "Clawing back old bonuses really does invoke constitutional issues. But as the president said, we are going to pursue, and I know the Congress feels the same way, any means -- any legal means -- necessary to do so."

Bernstein suggested the House bill could scare off private investors the government needs now to come in to help buy up toxic assets as part of it's bank plan -- to be rolled out this week.

"This is a really important point. This kind of clawback legislation has to balance between the need to address the absolutely reasonable and well-justified anger of the Congress and the American people about how this money is being spent and these undeserved bonuses, and the need to pursue financial stability," Bernstein said. "What happened at AIG vis-à-vis these bonuses is a symptom of a much larger problem and we cannot lose sight of the much larger problem which is stabilizing financial markets."

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a key member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, agreed the House and Senate bills may not be appropriate.

Collins and Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, argued the Treasury Secretary should "put more heat on AIG."

"As angry as I am, I agree with my colleague that we need to be careful," she said. "And the problem with the Senate bill is it is so wide in its scope that it would apply to tens of thousands of employees all across this country who had nothing to do with getting us in this mess. I'm not against getting the money back.  In fact, I feel very strongly that we do need to recoup the money.  I'm just not certain that either the House-passed bill nor the Senate bill are the best approach. We need to look for an alternative means of recouping this money that doesn't cause further harm to our economy as we're trying to get banks lending."

"He never should have allowed this to occur in the first place," Collins said of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. "We can make sure that there is pressure for people to voluntarily get the money back or else they're going to lose their jobs or there's going to be no further funding for AIG."

Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said, "The answer here is to focus on AIG.  What House Republicans proposed was that we ought to say to AIG, 'No more bailout money until you go and collect back 100 percent of the bonuses that you've distributed."

"We own 80 percent of AIG.  I didn't support the Wall Street bailout, still don't.  But we essentially nationalized AIG.  And all these legal niceties notwithstanding, you know, it's -- quite frankly, it's anti- competitive and anti-free market for the Congress of the United States to be passing legislation that targets, or to use Charlie Rangel's statement earlier in the week, that uses the internal revenue code as a political weapon," he said.

Conrad argued Geithner should put pressure on AIG to force their employees to give the bonuses back, or be fired.

"Look, to me, unfortunately, the cat's out of the barn, the horse is out of the barn.  You've already put up $170 billion. So, you know, frankly, I would take a different tack. I would call the head of AIG to the Treasury and I would say to him, 'Look, you call in those employees and you tell them they give back the money or they're out of a job.'  And the head of AIG has absolutely got that authority.  He's the head of the company."

"They would not have jobs were it not for taxpayer money going into AIG,"  Collins agreed.

--George Stephanopoulos

March 22, 2009 in This Week with George Stephanopoulos | Permalink | Share | User Comments (108)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

when is someone going to report that a 90% tax on AIG bonuses means AIG (we the taxpayers pay 1/2 and the employees pay 1/2 which is their normal tax bracket---so what is new?

Posted by: brenda lauw | Mar 22, 2009 10:42:24 AM

"ANTI-FREE MARKET" COMMENT BY REP. MIKE PENSE!
Pense refered to the attempts to tax the bonus money paid out of taxpayer funds as "anti-free market" --- DUH!!

We--THE TAXPAYERS--have footed two bailouts of more than 700 BILLION to keep these businesses THAT WERE GOING TO FAIL IN A FREE MARKET.

Get OUR MONEY back from these GREEDY you-know-whats!

7,000 FAMILIES could have $24,000 to live on this year with the AIG bonus ripoff.

Posted by: Morisot | Mar 22, 2009 10:43:04 AM

The insanity of over reacting to the false bonus story is fueled by irresponsible media. We are in a desperate time in America - and our desperation is fueled by irresponsible reporting. At this time in our history we desperately need a free press that is responsible and accurate. ................


http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/03/21/rovian-media-applying-the-dark-arts-to-aig/

Posted by: Ohg Rea Tone | Mar 22, 2009 10:50:02 AM

We want money back from AIG. We want auto workers to give up their benefits. When is FSGU (Federal & State Government Union) going to give up something? How about their perks? Health benefits...why should we have to pay for their health benefits? President Obama needs to hit his own home with cuts. His wife made $300,000 last year. Why are we paying for their health care?I would like for someone to do the math of how much money do the american people pay for State and Federal Health Benefits for our Elected officials.

Posted by: J Furdock | Mar 22, 2009 11:02:54 AM

On CNN Newsroom, Fredricka Whitfield advanced the false Republican accusation that Democrats created the right for AIG to pay bonuses by passing the economic recovery act, asserting that Sen. Chris Dodd was "widely criticized for allowing the bonuses in the first place." In fact, 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 Dodd, actually restricted the ability of companies receiving money from TARP to award bonuses in the future.

==========================================================================

The Dodd provision restricted bonuses - the Treasury modification that Dodd agreed to put in limited those restrictions to future bonuses.

The Original Dem via Frank provision was nothing over $500,000 in total annual payment for employment - and was shot down by the GOP and conservative Dems that are now again joined at the hip trying to destroy a public policy option for health insurance..

The Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, Amendment - "that would have stopped the bonuses" - would have done no such thing. These two are liars.

The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000.

Got that? - AIG - WHICH THE GOV OWNS 80% - would pay the Gov a fine! The bonuses would still be paid!

Are we tired of Media lies - of GOP LIES - of GOP lies told by the media as if they are truth?

Posted by: papau | Mar 22, 2009 11:07:08 AM

Watch everything George writes he likes to twist the news a lot

Posted by: Joeray | Mar 22, 2009 11:20:54 AM

The House legislation is just a typical CYA move after Secret Keeping didn't work. We, the taxpayers, need to be outraged at the system that failed. In this case government failed, free enterprise failed (if they hadn't received the tax money, they wouldn't have jobs much less bonuses so they aren't reaping rewards of capitalism), and the people failed to pay attention earlier.

Posted by: Lafferty Johnson | Mar 22, 2009 11:34:12 AM

what a joke.

in all other industries (aside from finance apparently), if a company does poorly, it affects the entire company's merit increases and bonuses. these banks should be no different. we should absolutely be going after ALL the bonuses given to employees of firms that received TARP money.

the argument that only divisions that were responsible for the mess should be penalized is a farce. firms have multiple divisions and products to diversify risk for the ENTIRE company. if not, the "profitable" divisions should have been spun out or should have existed as separate companies.

furthermore, it would be a great thing if smaller banks do not take TARP money if they don't need it. think about that. what is anyone worried about that?

Posted by: James | Mar 22, 2009 11:38:06 AM

This whole phoney outrage over AIG by the Obama administration is a pathetic distraction, and political posturing.

The REAL outrage should be over the all the wasted pork/money Obama and clan are throwing out on useless garbage. And instead of Mr. Nero spending all jis time selling his fascist plan, maybe he should stay in DC and start acting like a leader. Oh sorry, I forgot he's only a puppet to the international bankers who really run this country.

It's obvious Obama and the rest of the slime in Washington aren't really serious about fixing this economy. If they were, the Federal Reserve would have been abollished by now. They are the ones manipulating the economy for their benefit. They are the ones who created this mess. Meanwhile our tax dollars are being used to line the pockets of foreign banks. The REAL outrage should be over the Federal Reserve's illegal Ponzi scheme. They have gotten away with their scam on the American people for too long.

Posted by: malfax | Mar 22, 2009 11:38:13 AM

I suppose we could just deposit our paychecks directly into AIG's account...

Posted by: jan | Mar 22, 2009 11:47:43 AM

Chris Dudd (DEMOCRAT) approved the bonus plan. Not the Bush administration.

You may want to stop drinking the Kool Aid and stop blaming everything on Bush.

But then again, you're all liberals and don't like to take responsibility for yourselves, so you have to blame someone else. Typical.

Remember, your lovely "most ethical congress" according to Princess Nancy took control in 2006. And ever since then, the country went south thanks to them.

Posted by: BlameAmericaLast | Mar 22, 2009 11:55:24 AM

Ex post facto. They can't pass a law then expect to punish people for breaking that law before it was even passed! Obama should know that.

Posted by: Turd_Ferg | Mar 22, 2009 11:56:16 AM

Maybe too far, but its time the govt took its hysterics out on someone besides the people.

Posted by: ken | Mar 22, 2009 11:57:16 AM

The AIG bonus tax may be dangerous? HELLO! This whole Administration is the clear and present danger!!!

Posted by: Voter2Be | Mar 22, 2009 12:00:27 PM

George S....a true biased journalist. We all know that Georgie boy speaks with "forked tongue"....As long as the beloved liberal media is focused on Obama's outrage over AIG bonuses, then no one is actually paying attention to the fact that his stimulus will leave America bankrupt for our children and their children. Propaganda is alive and well in this country.

Posted by: Jill | Mar 22, 2009 12:02:25 PM

IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR REAL JOURNALISM,YOU SHOULD LOG ONTO MEDIA MATTERS AND NEVER READ ANY OF THESE STUPID BLOGS AGAIN! THE REAL CULPRET IN THIS AIG MESS IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION; THEY WERE THE ONES WHO APPROVED THE FIRST BAILOUT OF AIG WHICH CONTAINED THESE EMPLOYEE BOUNUSES. BUT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA INCLUDING ABC IS NOT INTERESTED IN REPORTING THOSE FACTS!

Posted by: roxsteady | Mar 22, 2009 12:09:58 PM

we should be just as worried that this administration, the House, and the Senate are spending money we don't have on programs that right at this minute are NOT the number 1 priority. Social spending is fine when it is merited, there is a need, and we already HAVE the money! What in Heaven's name does Nancy Pelosi's rat have to do with Healthcare or Housing or Education? A rat is a rat and they generally hang together. Why was it funded? And the rest of the bill. Shame on Obama for crying "wolf" two times already. The third time is the charm - get ready. One way or the other, change is going to happen.

Posted by: Karen | Mar 22, 2009 12:10:57 PM

The bonuses are less than 1% of the bailout money. The big story should be where is the other 99%. Yes, I'm outraged about the bonuses, but I'm more outrage about the other 99%.

Posted by: Kristina | Mar 22, 2009 12:11:45 PM


Folks, since the corporate controlled media(George)won't tell you the truth about the economy, it's up to you to do some research.

The Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal, and is nothing more than a hand full of evil international bankers running an illegal banking cartel) manipulates the economy by purposely causing a bubble, then implodes it. They do this over and over again, meanwhile shearing the American people in the process. They've done this since the inception of the bogus Federal Reserve. Why do you think Obama has so many bankers in his administration? Think about it folks, things start to add up, and pieces start fitting together.

Listen to this audio for some insight: "The Creature from Jekyll Island - A Second Look at the Federal Reserve." http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8484911570371055528&ei=0WHGSezMK6LcqAP5qdTlAQ&q=the+creature+from+jeckyl+island&hl=en

Posted by: malfax | Mar 22, 2009 12:12:29 PM

Excuse me JILL, but I think that the Democrats had already gotten their majority when that passed. Everyone came to the dance on this thing and we just need to realize that we screwed it up. Get on with it --- we elected Obama because he said 1. he could do more than one thing at a time, 2. he could fix the mess, 3. he was bringing change. Now, JUST DO IT! Stop spending money you have to print because we are broke. Democrats rule now, so forget Bush - he's gone, you won, and it is your game. So play it right or Obama will wish W were back in DC to punch around some more.

Posted by: Karen | Mar 22, 2009 12:15:06 PM

So let me get this straight. Its ok to tax only a % of the people but when it comes 2 taking away bonuses it affect every who has received one in the U.S.

Our government is so full of bull I would hate to be the "little guy"with the shovel looking for that pony.

Posted by: alice | Mar 22, 2009 12:30:20 PM

What? Where was all the concern about singling out a segment of the population for higher taxation when it was tobacco and alcohol that were and are being taxed? It's nothing new. These bonuses are a kind of thievery called "unjustifiable compensation" under the law. It is illegal. TAKE IT BACK--IT IS OUR MONEY!
Regards, The Old Prospector

Posted by: Prospector44 | Mar 22, 2009 12:35:02 PM

Tying more knots into this colossal Gordion's Knot will not make the job of undoing it any easier. On one end, people are working to untie -- while on the other, some continue to tie more knots -- all parties claming they have the solution to the puzzle.... Meanwhile, paralyzed into unconstructive weak utterings and limp-handed actions, the ship continues to slip unequivocally into the black deep of David Jones' Locker....

Posted by: Spartan Phoenix777 | Mar 22, 2009 12:35:08 PM

I think Obama, Todd and Barney Frank are the 3 biggest political recepients of AIG bailout money.

Will that get taxed at 90% too.

Posted by: Tim | Mar 22, 2009 12:37:25 PM

I think I will apply for more credit cards and spend and spend. If the government thinks this correct way to get out of this mess, it must be correct for me to do the same.

Posted by: Justme1945 | Mar 22, 2009 12:43:14 PM

Post a comment