Who's in Charge and What's the Game?

Larry Kudlow, NRO Economics Editor, said yesterday, "Incidentally, has anybody asked Team Obama why it is more than willing to break mortgage contracts with a bankruptcy-judge cram-down, but won't cram-down compensation agreements for AIG, despite the fact that the U.S. government owns the company? Kind of odd, don't you think? "The Wall Street Journal editors get it right when they ask: Who's in charge and what's the game plan? The whole AIG story is an outrage." I think the Wall Street Journal editors should have asked, "Who's in charge and what's the game?" For it is all indeed a game, a political game. But what kind? And what are the stakes? David Freddoso, again on NRO, indicates where the answer might be found. Today, when Democrats were in the Financial Services Committee room hearings, they angrily ripped Mr. Liddy, the government installed CEO of AIG, for paying the infamous bonuses to executives at the company. But curiously, some of these Democrats, wiping the righteous sweat off their brows, left the Committee hearing before it was over TO BLOCK (on a party-line vote) a bill that would have required AIG to refund the bonus money to the government, and to get specific approval from the Treasury Secretary for any future bonuses. This follows on the heels of the fact that this past February, again in a party-line vote, Democrats voted explicitly TO INCLUDE in the Stimulus Bill a provision allowing these very bonuses that they so vehemently oppose whenever they have a convenient microphone, TV camera, or reporter in front of them. What gives? As the old saying goes, follow the money. Fox Business News tells us that Senator Chris Dodd, who introduced the amendment to the Stimulus Bill allowing the AIG bonuses (it's even called the "Dodd Amendment"), was the largest single recipient of AIG campaign contributions last year. And guess who was second? Our President, Barack Obama. In fact, between them, President Obama and Senator Dodd received more than $200,000.00 of the total $420,000.00 AIG gave to all political parties in 2008. Obviously when Stimulus Bill time came they were concerned about their good friends at AIG, and made sure their bonuses were protected by an amendment that really had nothing at all to do with stimulus, unless the intent was to stimulate future campaign contributions. And also obviously, they were surprised by the political blow back that occurred when the bonuses were actually paid. This has put Mr. Obama and Dodd (and the rest of the Democrats who received contributions from AIG) in a severe ethical bind. How long should a bought and paid for politician stay bought and paid for? Or, to put it another way, what are the circumstances under which a politician may consider himself released from his political debts? Whatever the ultimate answer to these important questions, we will have to endure this ridiculous political theater for a while, as the Democrats apparently believe that the age-old political tactic of distracting the voters with irrelevancies will work once again. So expect another week or more of Democrat spotlighting what they insist is the greed, avarice, unconscionable conduct and/or malfeasance of AIG. Thereafter, (hopefully) another target will appear for the Democrats to demagogue (hey, we haven't talked about Rush Limbaugh in a while!), and this particular fiasco, and the Democrat involvement, will then be swept quietly off the political stage. via email