The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

I believe they estimate tax revenues based off of growth figures, and if there are any changes in rates, those would be factored in. Its also worth mentioning that a raise in taxes could very well result in a fall of incremental revenues over what is projected.

 

Here is the full story...

 

http://www.politonomist.com/the-deeper-ocean-of-debt-002108/

 

The ambitious plans of the new President to cut taxes for the middle and lower classes, while dramatically expanding social services: particularly health care and education, could leave the United States in an ocean of debt unparalleled in history.

 

The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan public office which analyzes and calculates the effects of government budgets, released a report Friday projecting an increase in the national deficit which deviates from the President’s estimates by up to 5 per cent over the next ten years.

 

The CBO’s full report, available online, says that the budget deficit this year will reach roughly $1.7 trillion (12 per cent of GDP), while next years will balloon an additional $1.1 trillion. By 2012, the report says, the deficit would shrink to roughly 2 per cent of GDP until about 2019; assuming current laws and policies remain in place that long.

 

These calculations pin the deficit at about $9.3 trillion over the next decade; over $2 trillion more than the President’s announcement identified when he announced the budget. It is important to note, these calculations do account for an easing recession and increased stability to a currently weak financial system — citing an expected marginal improvement for the end of 2009, and an expected growth in 2010 and 2011.

 

The report focuses on an increase in government revenue expected of about 5 per cent of GDP over the next 3 years. This increase, to roughly 20 per cent of GDP by 2012, is explained by a projected increase in revenues from the alternative minimum tax, and the expiration of one year economic stimulus-related tax legislation in December 2010.

 

The CBO also suggested that U.S. GDP will perform at about 7 per cent below potential GDP for the next two years, a result of unemployed labour and capital due to the acute economic shock; but this output gap should ensure that inflation remains low over the years to follow.

 

The CBO’s analysis results in a much less optimistic prediction than that of the White House, but better than that of many other economists. This is a direct result of the predictions the Budget Office made regarding the outcome of the recession currently being felt; forecasts of 2.5 per cent growth per annum over the next decade are 0.3 per cent lower than those of the White House.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Obama opposes punitive bonus tax

 

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama wagered significant political capital Sunday, signaling opposition to a highly popular congressional drive to slap a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

 

Obama defended his stance by saying the tax would be unconstitutional and that he would not "govern out of anger." He declared his determination, nevertheless, to make Wall Street understand it must shed "the old way of doing business."

 

In a wide-ranging interview broadcast Sunday night, Obama also acknowledged surprise at how quickly the U.S. economy crumbled between his November election and January inauguration.

 

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

 

"I don't think that we anticipated how steep the decline would be," he said in the interview on CBS' "60 Minutes." "That slope is a lot steeper than anything that we've said — we've seen before."

 

Considerable political risk

There was considerable political risk attached to Obama's implied rejection of the 90 percent tax measure. It raced through the House last week as lawmakers responded to a wave of anger over bonus payments to American International Group Inc. employees.

 

A week ago, the company paid out at least $165 million in bonuses even though taxpayers were keeping the insurance giant afloat with a $170 billion government bailout.

 

While questioning the legality and constitutionality of the House measure, Obama said he expected the Senate would produce a much different and more acceptable version of the bill — one he could sign.

 

In a portion of the interview taped in the Oval Office, Obama issued his standard, optimistic long-term prognosis for the economy, but responded, "Yes," when asked if "the financial system could still implode if you had a big failure at AIG or at Citicorp?"

 

And the president explained that he felt caught in a balancing act, trying to assuage taxpayer anger at Wall Street with the need for support from the financial sector for his attempts to stop the country from plunging into fiscal turmoil.

 

"I think that you've got a pretty egregious situation here (bonus payments) that people are understandably upset about," he said in the interview taped Friday. "And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional — that uphold our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track."

 

Earlier Sunday, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden's economic adviser, previewed Obama's opposition to the AIG tax plan, saying it "may be a dangerous way to go."

 

Defends Geithner

And White House economic adviser Austen Goolsbee said his boss understood the nation's anger and that the easiest thing would be for AIG executives to return the bonuses. "He's going to look at what comes out of the House, what comes out of the Senate, see what ideas we have," Goolsbee said.

 

Obama used the CBS interview to yet again defend Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his plans to resuscitate the ailing financial system.

 

Geithner was set on Monday to detail plans to use $100 billion in federal bailout funds to leverage as much as $1 trillion in so-called toxic assets off the books of endangered banks.

 

Meanwhile, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., predicted Obama's ambitious $3.6 trillion budget, including massive spending to save the economy, would put the country into bankruptcy and would never pass Congress.

 

 

CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT

Obama the candidate vs. Obama the president

Obama says budget helps 'solve' problems

Obama wants exit strategy on Afghanistan

"The practical implications of this is bankruptcy for the United States. There's no other way around it," Gregg said.

 

Gregg, however, joined Obama in defending Geithner and agreed with the president's apparent rejection of the House measure to tax bonuses.

 

"Let's not overreact in a way that basically has the Congress grabbing its pitchforks, and charging up the hill, and abusing what is a core authority of a government, which is the authority to tax its people," he said.

 

Bernstein spoke on ABC's "This Week." Goolsbee appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Romer spoke on "Fox News Sunday" and CNN's "State of the Union." Gregg appeared on CNN as well.

 

I'm glad he is voicing opposition to this. As absurd as these bonuses are, they were in their contracts so AIG was obliged to pay them out. I'm glad Obama realizes that to tax them arbitrarily at 90% is unconstitutional. I'll give him credit here.

[lostfan]

Obama opposes punitive bonus tax

 

 

 

I'm glad he is voicing opposition to this. As absurd as these bonuses are, they were in their contracts so AIG was obliged to pay them out. I'm glad Obama realizes that to tax them arbitrarily at 90% is unconstitutional. I'll give him credit here.

Hoo boy, is he gonna piss the left off with this one. This is a pretty big risk.

 

As much as I hate these bonuses, one of the things that has always made the United States business-friendly is the sanctity of contract law. Taking the bonuses back, even through legal means, sets a precedent that makes me uncomfortable.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hoo boy, is he gonna piss the left off with this one. This is a pretty big risk.

 

As much as I hate these bonuses, one of the things that has always made the United States business-friendly is the sanctity of contract law. Taking the bonuses back, even through legal means, sets a precedent that makes me uncomfortable.

Except, as has been discussed, contract law is not solely the matter of protecting all contracts under all circumstances. this contract straddled legal changes that effected it.

 

Ideally, TARP should have addressed it, but it didn't.

 

I actually am in favor of the heavy tax, for those who didn't return it (some have, apparently, of their own volition). I understand what Obama is saying here, but, I think he's wrong. Just my view.

 

[lostfan]

Except, as has been discussed, contract law is not solely the matter of protecting all contracts under all circumstances. this contract straddled legal changes that effected it.

 

Ideally, TARP should have addressed it, but it didn't.

 

I actually am in favor of the heavy tax, for those who didn't return it (some have, apparently, of their own volition). I understand what Obama is saying here, but, I think he's wrong. Just my view.

I actually don't have an opinion one way or another on this. But I do see Obama's logic even if it's going to piss a lot of people off.

[NorthSideSox72]

I actually don't have an opinion one way or another on this. But I do see Obama's logic even if it's going to piss a lot of people off.

Contrary to what many here want to portray, one thing Obama has done fairly well so far is do what he and his analysts think is right, even if it pisses off his own party. And I do see his line of logic.

 

[mr_genius]

Contrary to what many here want to portray, one thing Obama has done fairly well so far is do what he and his analysts think is right, even if it pisses off his own party. And I do see his line of logic.

 

He also received the second most amount of bribe money from AIG (behind Dodd of course).

[southsider2k5]

Here's a thought... If we are talking about taxing the bonuses that go out to these employees, here is the corresponding law that I would like to see passed as well. Any company that is getting governmental aid is banned from giving money to any politicians connected with these votes. No lobby money until they are off of the governmental dole. It is a conflict of interest at best, and a bribe at worst.

[lostfan]

Here's a thought... If we are talking about taxing the bonuses that go out to these employees, here is the corresponding law that I would like to see passed as well. Any company that is getting governmental aid is banned from giving money to any politicians connected with these votes. No lobby money until they are off of the governmental dole. It is a conflict of interest at best, and a bribe at worst.

I'd support that. I mean, federal contractors already have similar ethics rules (if you come from a contractor to the government, you can't be in a position to decide on bids involving that contractor for 2 years, vice versa for the contractor when preparing bids, also federal contractors are prohibited from donating to political campaigns). It wouldn't be that much of a stretch.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29818063/

 

Obama the candidate vs Obama the president

 

President Barack Obama's optimistic campaign rhetoric has crashed headlong into the stark reality of governing.

 

In office two months, he has backpedaled on an array of issues, gingerly shifting positions as circumstances dictate while ducking for political cover to avoid undercutting his credibility and authority. That's happened on the Iraq troop withdrawal timeline, on lobbyists in his administration and on money for lawmakers' pet projects.

 

"Change doesn't happen overnight," Obama said at a town-hall style event in California on Thursday, seeming to acknowledge the difficulty in translating campaign pledges into actual policy. Asked by a campaign volunteer how his supporters can be most effective in helping him bring the sweeping change he promised, Obama said: "Patience."

 

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

 

The event was part of a weeklong media blitz that Obama had hoped would help sell his budget — the foundation of the health care, education and energy changes he promised in the campaign. But his budget message was overshadowed for much of the week by the public furor over millions of dollars in executive bonuses paid by American International Group Inc. after the insurance giant had received billions in federal bailout funds.

 

"There was a lot of excitement during the campaign and we were talking about the importance of bringing about change," Obama told the volunteer. "We are moving systematically to bring about change. But change is hard."

 

It's the same delicate dance each of his predecessors faced in moving from candidate to president, only to find he couldn't stick exactly by his word. Each was hamstrung by his responsibility to the entire nation and to individual constituencies, changes in the foreign and domestic landscapes, and the trappings of the federal government and Washington itself.

 

Once in the White House, presidents quickly learn they are only one part of the political system, not in charge of it. They discover the trade-offs they must make and the parties they must please to get things done. Inevitably, they find out that it's impossible to follow through completely on their campaign proposals.

 

Popularity on Obama’s side

For now at least, Obama's deviations have served only to invite occasional cries of hypocrisy from some Republicans and infrequent grumbles of disappointment from some Democrats. He has popularity on his side, and it seems people mostly are chalking up his moves to much-needed flexibility at a difficult time.

 

But the shifts could take a toll over time if they become a persistent pattern and the public grows weary. His overall job-performance marks could suffer and jeopardize his likely re-election campaign in 2012. People could perceive him as a say-one-thing-do-another politician and the Democratic-controlled Congress could see him as a weak chief executive.

 

 

Lucy Nicholson / Reuters

President Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting Wednesday in Costa Mesa, Calif. When asked this week by a campaign volunteer how his supporters can be most effective in helping him bring the sweeping change he promised, Obama said: "Patience."

Obama's moves and maneuvering for political cover run the gamut.

 

He spent most of the campaign promising to bring combat troops home from Iraq 16 months after taking office, though he left himself wiggle room.

 

After directing his commanders to map out a responsible pullout, President Obama adjusted that timeline to 19 months and said 50,000 troops, about one-third of the current force, would remain.

 

While campaigning, Obama frequently swiped at lobbyists, saying, "When I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

 

Then he took office and had to fill thousands of positions. He did allow former lobbyists to join his administration. But he imposed ethics rules barring them from dealing with matters related to their lobbying work or joining agencies that they had lobbied in the previous two years. In several cases, he has made outright exceptions.

 

Obama the candidate pledged to curb spending directed at lawmakers' pet projects; they're known in Washington as "earmarks." Obama the president signed an "imperfect" $410 billion budget measure that included 8,500 earmarks.

 

He had little choice. The measure, a holdover from last year, was needed to keep government from shutting down. But to blunt the fallout, Obama outlined guidelines to ensure tighter restraints on the spending and made a new promise: Future earmarks won't become law so easily.

 

Emulating FDR

As for politics, Obama campaigned as a new-style leader who chastised partisanship and renounced divisiveness in Washington. But as president, Obama's White House aides wasted little time pouncing on Republicans and mocking conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh as the Republicans' leader.

 

On fiscal matters, Obama the candidate urged Americans to tighten their belts. Once in office and saddled with recession, though, he signed a $787 billion stimulus measure and outlined a $3.6 trillion budget plan that will plunge the nation deeper into deficits. But again he paired the proposal with a new promise, to cut the deficit by more than half by the end of his first term.

 

At the height of the Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for office promising to balance the budget. But he reversed course and doled out a spending prescription to revive the economy. He made other shifts as well.

 

The ailing public didn't view him as wishy-washy or politically calculating, but rather as a president who was experimenting in hopes of finding policy to fix the problems. His charm and communication savvy allowed him to get away with it.

 

Historians agree that seems to be the model Obama is trying to emulate. "I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next president or the next generation — I came here to solve them," he said Saturday in his radio and Internet address. A charismatic orator, he's trying to govern with a pragmatic posture while projecting a willingness to compromise.

 

His mantra these days: "We will not let the pursuit of the perfect stand in the way of achievable goals."

Edited March 23, 2009 by ChiSox_Sonix

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a thought... If we are talking about taxing the bonuses that go out to these employees, here is the corresponding law that I would like to see passed as well. Any company that is getting governmental aid is banned from giving money to any politicians connected with these votes. No lobby money until they are off of the governmental dole. It is a conflict of interest at best, and a bribe at worst.

I approve.

 

[mr_genius]

Here's a thought... If we are talking about taxing the bonuses that go out to these employees, here is the corresponding law that I would like to see passed as well. Any company that is getting governmental aid is banned from giving money to any politicians connected with these votes. No lobby money until they are off of the governmental dole. It is a conflict of interest at best, and a bribe at worst.

 

Employees at said company would also need to be banned from contributing, otherwise you'll just have a massive list of executives, management, and even lower level employees paying off politicians.

 

Then we get onto that 'slippery slope'.

Edited March 23, 2009 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Employees at said company would also need to be banned from contributing, otherwise you'll just have a massive list of executives, management, and even lower level employees paying off politicians.

 

Then we get onto that 'slippery slope'.

That's a good point - is it even constitutionally safe to prevent people from donating to politicians for these kinds of reasons?

 

[Cknolls]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/m...ail-copies-gop/

 

Interesting. Just a miscommunication, that's all.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide

 

Congress ‘Hypocrisy’ on Trips Angers Hotel Executives (Update1)

Share | Email | Print | A A A

 

By Lorraine Woellert

 

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate last month passed a measure limiting “luxury” spending for corporate travel by recipients of federal bailout funds. Two weeks later, about two dozen senators of both parties left town for political meetings on the Florida coast.

 

Hotel-industry leaders are seizing on those trips as ammunition in a campaign to get lawmakers and Obama administration to tone down the rhetoric against business travel, which they say is adding to their economic difficulties.

 

“It’s just the hypocrisy,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is president of the Washington-based American Gaming Association, one of the groups urging politicians to moderate the criticism. “We’ve got to have Washington stop beating up on us.”

 

On March 11, hotel executives including Jonathan M. Tisch, chairman of New York-based Loews Corp., which operates a chain of 18 hotels in North America, Bill Marriott, chairman of Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International Inc., the biggest U.S. lodging chain, and Jay Rasulo, chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, a unit of Burbank, California-based Walt Disney Co. that operates its theme parks, met with President Barack Obama and three Democratic senators to express their concern.

 

Cancellations

 

The executives said the political attacks are having a broad effect on their business, even though the restrictions are intended to apply only to recipients of federal bailout money, and cancellations have been increasing as the rhetoric heats up.

 

“We’ve seen companies cancel meetings last minute, leaving 100 percent on the table just to avoid criticism and ridicule,” said Frits van Paasschen, president and chief executive of White Plains, New York-based Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., the third-largest U.S. lodging company, who attended the White House meeting.

 

“We’ve also seen meeting planners move meetings from resort locations to city locations, at a greater cost to their companies, again, for optics’ sake,” he said.

 

A preliminary survey by the U.S. Travel Association, a Washington trade group, suggests the hotel industry suffered about $1 billion in cancellations in January and February. Las Vegas has been hit especially hard, losing more than $131 million in non-gambling revenue in recent months.

 

On March 18, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that spending on travel and tourism fell 0.4 percent in 2008, the first yearly decline since 2001. Spending on accommodations fell 10.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.

 

‘Sense of McCarthyism’

 

The political rhetoric “has a terrible sense of McCarthyism about it,” said Laurence Geller, president and chief executive of Chicago-based Strategic Hotels & Resorts Inc., which owns 19 properties, including the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego. Geller didn’t attend the Washington meetings.

 

Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, sponsored the amendment to the $787 billion stimulus package that requires companies receiving funds from the Troubled Assets Recovery Plan to curb “excessive or luxury expenditures,” including spending on events and private jets.

 

Over the weekend of Feb. 27, two weeks after the Senate passed the measure, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party fundraising arms for Senate candidates, each held their annual winter meetings in Florida.

 

Naples Fundraiser

 

About a dozen Democrats, including Dodd, 64, gathered at the Marriott-operated Ritz-Carlton resort in Naples, Florida. Donors who gave at least $15,000 were invited and offered a “coastal view” room at the group rate of $469, according to the Democrats’ invitation.

 

At least 11 Republican senators held a similar retreat at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach. Rooms could be had for $475 a night. For another $292, participants could play in a golf tournament. The invitation urged guests to make reservations for the resort’s spa “indulgences.”

 

Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak didn’t return phone calls and emails seeking comment. Afshin Mohamadi, a spokesman for Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, didn’t return a call seeking comment.

 

Democratic committee spokesman Eric Schultz said the group doesn’t comment on its fundraising.

 

Republican Response

 

Brian Walsh, spokesman for the Republican Senate Committee, which is led by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, said the spending for the congressional meetings in no way resembles the actions of financial institutions that accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts and then spent money on sales meetings and conventions.

 

“This was not paid for by taxpayers or the government,” Walsh said. “It’s private donations from contributors,”

 

Hotel executives said their business began to suffer after Obama, 47, warned Feb. 9 during a town-hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana, that companies receiving bailout money “can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.”

 

Soon after, Northern Trust Corp. was criticized for organizing a conference and golf tournament in Beverly Hills, California. The Chicago-based bank received $1.6 billion in federal bailout money.

 

‘Frittered Away’

 

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, and 17 other lawmakers on Feb. 24 demanded that the company return what it “frittered away on these lavish events.”

 

The day the senators boarded the planes for Florida, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. -- which received $25 billion in bailout funds -- canceled a four-day event in Las Vegas, saying the trip may send mixed signals to the public.

 

“We can only shake our heads at the cynical behavior of our politicians,” Geller said. “It is political rhetoric to fan the fuel of fear.”

 

Van Paasschen of Starwood said the senators’ Florida trip sends another message. It “speaks to the point that getting out and traveling is important,” he said. “I would encourage the members of our government to get out and travel.”

 

David Burke, vice president of sales and marketing at the Breakers, welcomed the debate -- and the business.

 

“Regardless of the nature of a meeting, conference or event -- including this Republican senators group -- all business is important to us at The Breakers,” Burke said in an e-mail. “The rhetoric from Washington has clearly impacted the hotel and travel sector as a whole.”

 

To contact the reporter on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at [email protected].

[Cknolls]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...director_o.html

 

 

If this guy gets re-elected Ct voters may be dumber than Illinois voters.

[Cknolls]

According the Americans for Tax Reform:

 

Senator Specter has confirmed to ATR that he will vote against both cloture and passage on the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check” or the employee NO choice act). His vote is critical and this a major victory for freedom, as well as a stunning defeat for the other side.

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/...antis.html?_r=1

 

The following is a letter sent on Tuesday by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G.

 

 

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

 

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

 

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

 

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

 

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

 

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

 

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

 

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

 

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

 

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

 

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

 

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

 

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

 

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

 

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

 

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

 

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

 

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

 

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

 

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

 

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

 

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

 

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

 

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

 

Sincerely,

 

Jake DeSanti

[Rex Kickass]

According the Americans for Tax Reform:

 

Senator Specter has confirmed to ATR that he will vote against both cloture and passage on the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check” or the employee NO choice act). His vote is critical and this a major victory for freedom, as well as a stunning defeat for the other side.

 

Just killed his chances for reelection.

[ThunderBolt]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...director_o.html

 

 

If this guy gets re-elected Ct voters may be dumber than Illinois voters.

Trust me, they are.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29891754/

 

Lawmakers in some states want welfare recipients to submit to random testing

 

Lawmakers in at least eight states want recipients of food stamps, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing.

 

The effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse.

 

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

 

Story continues below ↓

advertisement | your ad here

 

'Nobody's being forced'

"Nobody's being forced into these assistance programs," said Craig Blair, a Republican in the West Viginia Legislature who has created a Web site — notwithmytaxdollars.com — that bears a bobble-headed likeness of himself advocating this position. "If so many jobs require random drug tests these days, why not these benefits?"

 

Blair is proposing the most comprehensive measure in the country, as it would apply to anyone applying for food stamps, unemployment compensation or the federal programs usually known as "welfare": Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Women, Infants and Children.

 

Lawmakers in other states are offering similar, but more modest proposals.

 

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives approved a measure mandating drug testing for the 14,000 or so people getting cash assistance from the state, which now goes before the state senate. In February, the Oklahoma Senate unanimously passed a measure that would require drug testing as a condition of receiving TANF benefits, and similar bills have been introduced in Missouri and Hawaii. A Florida senator has proposed a bill linking unemployment compensation to drug testing, and a member of Minnesota's House of Representatives has a bill requiring drug tests of people who get public assistance under a state program there.

 

A January attempt in the Arizona Senate to establish such a law failed.

 

Crisis adds pressure to budgets

In the past, such efforts have been stymied by legal and cost concerns, said Christine Nelson, a program manager with the National Conference of State Legislatures. But states' bigger fiscal crises, and the surging demand for public assistance, could change that.

 

"It's an example of where you could cut costs at the expense of a segment of society that's least able to defend themselves," said Frank Crabtree, executive director of the West Virginia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

 

Drug testing is not the only restriction envisioned for people receiving public assistance: a bill in the Tennessee Legislature would cap lottery winnings for recipients at $600.

 

There seems to be no coordinated move around the country to push these bills, and similar proposals have arisen periodically since federal welfare reform in the 1990s. But the appearance of a cluster of such proposals in the midst of the recession shows lawmakers are newly engaged about who is getting public assistance.

 

Particularly troubling to some policy analysts is the drive to drug test people collecting unemployment insurance, whose numbers nationwide now exceed 5.4 million, the highest total on records dating back to 1967.

 

 

CLICK FOR RELATED CONTENT

Vote: Should welfare recipients take drug tests?

Latinos, blacks losing jobs at a faster rate

Read more news from across the U.S.

"It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to bring up during a recession," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "People who are unemployed, who have lost their job, that's a sympathetic group. Americans are tuned into that, because they're worried they'll be next."

 

Indeed, these proposals are coming at a time when more Americans find themselves in need of public assistance.

 

Soaring unemployment claims

Although the number of TANF recipients has stayed relatively stable at 3.8 million in the last year, claims for unemployment benefits and food stamps have soared.

 

In December, more than 31.7 million Americans were receiving food stamp benefits, compared with 27.5 million the year before.

 

 

Video: Economy in turmoil

 

Singing a song of recession

March 25: Songs about love, partying and bling are making way for tunes about bailouts, unemployment and hard times. MSNBC's Tamron Hall and Josh Freedom Du Lac discuss.

Geithner: Pace of deterioration is slowing

U.S. recovery plan called 'a way to hell'

Candy sales soar in sour economy

Downturn means fewer drivers, older cars

The link between public assistance and drug testing stems from the Congressional overhaul of welfare in the 1990s, which allowed states to implement drug testing as a condition of receiving help.

 

But a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for "random, suspicionless" testing, saying it violated the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, said Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

 

At least six states — Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Virginia — tie eligibility for some public assistance to drug testing for convicted felons or parolees, according to the NCSL.

 

Nelson said programs that screen welfare applicants by assigning them to case workers for interviews have shown some success without the need for drug tests. These alternative measures offer treatment, but can also threaten future benefits if drug problems persist, she said.

 

They also cost less than the $400 or so needed for tests that can catch a sufficient range of illegal drugs, and rule out false positive results with a follow-up test, she said.

Edited March 26, 2009 by ChiSox_Sonix

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29891754/

 

Lawmakers in some states want welfare recipients to submit to random testing

I'm not sure what to think of that.

 

[southsider2k5]

Those in favor of the drug tests say they are motivated out of a concern for their constituents' health and ability to put themselves on more solid financial footing once the economy rebounds. But proponents concede they also want to send a message: you don't get something for nothing.

 

Staying clean is still "nothing" in my book. To me there is no reason why able bodied people on welfare can't do some sort of community service as a repayment for their entitlements.

[NorthSideSox72]

Staying clean is still "nothing" in my book. To me there is no reason why able bodied people on welfare can't do some sort of community service as a repayment for their entitlements.

See, that I'd be 100% on board with. You want public assistance, you better put in at least half time work for the community (full time isn't realistic, if you want them to look for work).

 

Drug tests, though, I'm not so sure.

 

[lostfan]

Staying clean is still "nothing" in my book. To me there is no reason why able bodied people on welfare can't do some sort of community service as a repayment for their entitlements.

Childcare would become an issue to manage though.