Dodd Admits Writing AIG Bonus Loophole

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision. .

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.

The AIG bonuses have caused a political firestorm, with Republicans and Democrats alike looking to lay blame for who’s responsible, and leading lawmakers looking to revoke the bonuses.

Dodd’s role in the legislation will likely come up as he faces the likelihood of a tough re-election. Former GOP congressman Rob Simmons announced he was running this week, and has already taken issue with Dodd’s stewardship as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said the Obama administration asked him to insert a provision in last month’s $787 billion economic- stimulus legislation that had the effect of authorizing American International Group Inc.’s bonuses.

Scooby01_98 wrote:just another example of the double talk.

meta4 wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:just another example of the double talk.

Then let's just chalk this up as a dem bashing thread. Nobody from the Obama Administration set the bonus amounts, yet here we go again trying to smear poo poo on a congressman for what AIG did.

Penalize the F*ck out of AIG and charge execs with criminal negligence handling bailout funds. Put additional restrictions for receivers of bailout money. Have a government cosigner requirement for any further discretionary spending. At the very least, injunction that shit so it won't get paid out until the federal funds get paid back. Not likely in AIG's case since "we" already own 80% of that company.

AIG is the one that f'd up... where's the outcry against their actions?

meta4 wrote:Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'd think these people would have learned that already.

90% tax on these bonuses is sufficient to get the point across.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

meta4 wrote:Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'd think these people would have learned that already.

90% tax on these bonuses is sufficient to get the point across.

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional though? Something about Ex Post Facto??? If it is, then 300+ House members voted yes for something that would be against the constitution.

Don't get me wrong, the fact that they got the bonuses is morally wrong in my book, but it may be illegal to try to tax them like this after the fact...

from Wikipedia - ex post facto law wrote:A large "exception" to the ex post facto prohibition can be found in administrative law, as federal agencies may apply their rules retroactively if Congress has authorized them to do so. Retroactive application is disfavored by the courts for a number of reasons,[4] but Congress may grant agencies this authority through express statutory provision. Furthermore, when an agency engages in adjudication, it may apply its own policy goals and interpretation of statutes retroactively, even if it has not formally promulgated a rule on a subject.

In the 1994 opinion United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation.

meta4 wrote:Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I'd think these people would have learned that already.

90% tax on these bonuses is sufficient to get the point across.

floridafun wrote:
it seems to me the whole thing happened with the original tarp funds agreement, which this last approval of release covered is part of the incrementally doled out total..