Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Is Obama Tossing Dodd Under the Bus?

The Administration's story is that Sen Chris Dodd (D-CountryWide) inserted language allowing big bonuses for bailout-recipient firms.

Maybe not. Greenwald asserts that it was Obama and Geithner who wanted to retain the existing bonus arrangements.

Greenwald quotes the Wall Street Journal of 2/14:

The most stringent pay restriction bars any company receiving funds from paying top earners bonuses equal to more than one-third of their total annual compensation. That could severely crimp pay packages at big banks, where top officials commonly get relatively modest salaries but often huge bonuses.

As word spread Friday about the new and retroactive limit -- inserted by Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- so did consternation on Wall Street and in the Obama administration, which opposed it.

And Greenwald re-states it: was Dodd, not Obama officials, who wanted the prohibition applied to all compensation agreements, past and future. The provision which shielded already-promised bonus payments from the executive compensation limits ended up being inserted at the insistence of Geithner


At the same time, The Hill reported that "President Obama and the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee [Dodd] are at odds on how to rein in the salaries of top executives whose companies are being propped up by the federal government" and that "most of the administration's concern stems from the Dodd's move to trump Obama's compensation provisions by seeking more aggressive restrictions." Let's repeat that: the Obama administration was complaining because the compensation restrictions Dodd wanted were too "aggressive."

It's been reported that Dodd is in trouble (at this time) in Connecticut approaching his re-election run of 2010. The Pubbies think they have a chance with a RINO.

While we know that Dodd is a slimeball, it's becoming more and more clear that Obama's bus is climbing over lots of bodies.

Get the popcorn--this will be a helluva show.

1 comment:

Pro said...

We didn't hire AIG to watch over our tax money. We hired the government. The government owns AIG to the tune of 80%

The real people we should blame: