Tit for Teat

Oh, can we please have more Senators who say things like Charles (Chuck) Grassley, R-Iowa? Pleeeeaaasssseeee?? I have never heard this man's name before yesterday. I have no idea what he does, what he has done, what he wants to do, none of it. But I know that if he's going to keep talking, I'm going to keep listening because I find the man to be bluntly amusing.

Apparently, when discussing the AIG debacle during an interview on Monday, Senator Grassley voiced his opinion on what he felt that some of the AIG executives should be doing now that they've run AIG into the ground and gladly accepted their bazillion dollar bonus, essentially for doing so. He is apparently a fan of Japanese culture and would like to see some of their practices implemented. Here's what he had to say:

"The first thing that would make me feel a little better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow, and say I‘m sorry. And then either do one or two things, resign or go commit suicide."

So, Senator, tell us how you really feel about it! And that is not a sarcastic statement in the least! I'm serious. That's awesome. I mean, granted, I'd really prefer that they be strung up in the town square somewhere and have the townsfolk get some sort of 'human pinata' thing going on, but whatever. As long as there is punishment that involves bodily pain and/or harm, I'd like to hear more about it.

In response to Sen. Grassley's comments, CNN Political Ticker reports that "A spokesman for AIG called Grassley's initial comments "very disappointing." "

Disappointing? You know what I find "disappointing"? The pissing away of bazillions of dollars given to you by myself and every other taxpayer in this country! Personally, I think they got off easy with a "go kill yourself" comment. Most people, given the opportunity to voice their opinion on what the AIG executives should do, would tell them to go and eff themselves. And if the AIG spokesman was "disappointed" by that suggestion, I'm sure he wouldn't be thrilled with the follow-up suggestion, involving a two word directive phrase that rhymes with "Duck foo".

But as you can guess, people freaked out over the suggestion that "the best and the brightest" go off themselves. Grassley was asked by MSNBC's David Shuster, "Senator, it‘s a pretty harsh statement. Do you stand by it?" To which Grassley replied, "I hope you recognize rhetoric. And I shouldn‘t even have to answer that question." Nice response. I was hoping for a little 'duck foo', but that's good.

Well, he spoke again the day after that comment and the folks over there at The Washington Post summarized his apology as: "Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) walks back his call for AIG executives either resign or commit suicide by using the word "tit" to describe the situation. Good times." Wait. (Pause for laughter.) He said what?

The man is apparently a big fan of that rhetoric he spoke of. Now mind you, he was still trying to apologize. And he started off just fine with, "Of course, I don't want people to commit suicide but I do want an attitude within corporate America that's similar to what they have in corporate Japan in which people that run a corporation into the ground have violated their trust with the stock holders and maybe even with the taxpayer, they take a very deep bow, they apologize, they're remorseful, they're contrite."

But his apology kind of came off the rails a bit when he said, "“From my standpoint, it’s irresponsible for corporations to give bonuses, at this time, when they are so sucking the tit of the taxpayer.” Oh, boy. I'm sure you can guess how that went over. To once again quote The Washington Post, Good times.

I'm sure that doesn't sound all that great to some folks, but I do recognize it as a farm/farm-ish saying. It wasn't meant to be obscene or disgusting or anything like that. Though I do believe that the pronunciation is more of that like "teat" than it is of "tit". You know, you say tom-ay-tit, I say tom-ay-teat. It's very common. But not from Senators. And not when they're apologizing. That's uncommon, for sure.

I'll give him this, he's efficient. In a span of technically less than 24 hours, he managed to tell a bunch of AIG teat suckers to kill themselves. That's a lot of ground to cover in that amount of time. Well done, Senator!

There must be an astounding folks with ADHD in this country because it's the only thing that can explain how we can go from discussing a massive financial crisis that has the country's economy on the edge to suddenly worrying if someone's comment was "harsh". Do folks really lose their focus that quickly over something so mundane? Hey, the world's economy is about to crumble, but for God's sake people, let's be polite about it?! I don't think so! These AIG folks ran the company into the ground and are now getting millions of dollars in bonuses! I don't care if Senator Grassley had used a moniker which suggested that those folks regularly engage in maternal fornication, we need to focus! Focus!! Because if people continue to get sidetracked on crap that doesn't matter, then the crap that does matter won't get taken care of and then the only thing that all of us will be able to focus on are empty bank accounts. So just forget about what he said and go out there and get my money back from those tit suckers!

Sphere: Related Content

So Much For Those Retention Bonuses

In what was quite possibly one of the worst justifications for giving the very folks who have run AIG into the ground a "bonus", Edward M. Liddy said that the "bonuses" were necessary if AIG was to retain "the best and the brightest" employees. I pointed out the other day that clearly AIG does not have "the best and the brightest"! If the current state of AIG is any indication of what "the best and the brightest" can do, I'd really like to give the "not bad and half witted" or "the worst and the dumbest" a shot at running the show over there. You know, just so we can really see the difference between the two because really, at the point, I don't think there is a difference.

But that aside, the taxpayers are getting dry shaved on this one for sure. My vision of our future razor burn stems from an article in the New York Times that ran on Tuesday. The article began: "73 employees were paid more than $1 million in the newly minted bonuses at the insurance giant American International Group, according to Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general of New York." Um, holy crap, what was that? 73 people? Who? Who are they? I want names! Actually, I want heads, but you have to start with a name before you get the head. The name IS the head!

"Mr. Cuomo did not name the bonus recipients..." Um, holy crap, what was that? He's not naming them? But I need heads! I mean names! I need names!! WHY is he not naming them? Maybe (but not likely) it's because he's busy rambling off stunning figures such as:

• The highest bonus was $6.4 million
  
• 6 other employees received more than $4 million
  
• Another 15 people received more than $2 million
  
• Another 51 people received $1 million to $2 million

Holy crap. What?

• The top ten bonus recipients received a combined total of $42 million
  
• 22 individuals received $2 million or more.
  
• Those 22 combined received more than $72 million
• 73 received more than $1 million

How's that dry shaving feel? Burn yet? Ass chafed enough? No? Not quite? Perhaps this shall do it:

• 11 of those who received $1 million or more are no longer working at A.I.G.
  
• That includes one who received $4.6 million.

Wait a minute! 11 are no longer working at the company?! But....according to AIG, they were "the best and the brightest"! According to AIG, they had to get that kind of money in order to stay at the company.

Hey, how is this even possible? They received that money on Sunday! SUNDAY! It's Wednesday! That article in The New York Times was wrote on Tuesday! They quit before Tuesday?! I don't think they did.

You folks are clearly not one of "the best and the brightest" liars out there. That was a poor attempt at lying at best, really. :::: sigh :::: What to do? What to do? Oh, well! Here's a million dollars anyway! Nice try! Can't win 'em all! See ya Monday! Or not! Whatever! Here's your money! (Hey, that's how it goes at AIG. Are they hiring?)

And the reason the Mr. Cuomo is not naming the folks who received their undeserved bonus is because AIG won't tell him. Shocking, I know. Another thing that you may or may not find shocking is that when AIG said that they had to pay the bonuses because they were contractually obligated to do so and that they had consulted with lawyers who told them that, they only consulted with their own lawyers. Not outside counsel, not the Treasury, their own lawyers. Then they told Tim Geithner that and he basically said, "Bummer."

Until we get the names of the other heads, I'm perfectly OK with Tim's for now. Tim, you just took what they said about the legality of it all at face value? You didn't have someone else, someone who, perhaps, didn't work for AIG look at things? Where are you and your outrage? Why is Andrew Cuomo suddenly the guy leading the charge? Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that Andrew Cuomo is on top of this one. That's the most sensible thing I've heard that's being done about this whole mess probably in the past year. But Tim, you're Secretary of the Treasury!! Well, for now. Who knows? Anyway....

So now what? You're not going to believe me when I tell you, so I don't know if it matters. But please, try to think of the irony in the next step. Please try to see the humor (as if it were not actually happening in real life). Because if you can do those two things, it might prevent you from hanging yourself. Might. I make no promises. Here's what the article says: "....the White House said on Monday that the Treasury would write new requirements about the bonus money in the next $30 billion that it provides to the insurance giant."

Oh. My. God.

The NEXT $30 BILLION?!?!?! Are you effing kidding me?!!? That we GIVE them?!?! AGAIN?!?! MORE??!?!?! And what's with the writing of "new requirements?!" From what I can tell, there weren't any old requirements! From what I can tell there weren't any requirements at all! Shouldn't that read "would write requirements about the bonus money"??

I can't believe that is their solution! To give them more money! What in the hell do these brainstorming sessions with the White House folks sound like?? I'm picturing Tim Geithner at the head of a large table, glistening from a sound buffing with a gallon of Pledge, surrounded by people who are trying to look like they're paying attention, but they're really checking their Blackberries, updating their Facebook page, watching a water skiing squirrel on YouTube and sending obscene Twitter tweets. They don't care what Tim is saying, but I think it has to be something along the lines of:

"Boy, they sure got us this time, didn't they? Well, let's just see them try that with the next round of money we give them. What's the score? AIG: 3; White House: 0 ? We'll get 'em. Somehow. What are we doing different this time? Is there a strongly worded memo? I think we should try a strongly worded memo. Oh! And have Barack give that speech about how he'll be disappointed if they do this again! Yeah, we'll shame them into not screwing us. And "or else"! There has to be an "or else!" in there somewhere. What's that? Oh. No, I don't really know "or else" what? But it doesn't matter. That'll scare them so bad that they wouldn't dare do that again! We won't even have to think about "or else" because it'll be fine. OK, so we have the strongly worded memo, the "or else!" and the disappointment speech made with a stern look with just a touch of finger pointing. That should do 'er. Whew! I'm beat. Who's up for beer pong?"

Andrew Cuomo sent a letter to Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Committee of Financial Services which detailed what his office has uncovered in the workings of AIG and encouraged them to address the issue. My question is: What in the hell does the House Committee of Financial Services do? Because from what I can tell, none of these House Committees do anything until after something has fallen apart and even then all they do is bark irrelevant questions at them during some faux hearing for the purposes of appearing outraged. If they were truly outraged, they would start implementing some preventative procedures instead of always showing up for loss assessment.

You know, at the beginning of all of this, before AIG received any money at all, we were told by Henry Paulson, et al, that we had to bail them out and we had to do it soon otherwise it would be an utter disaster. He stressed repeatedly that it had to be done immediately lest we face our imminent doom. About 6 weeks later, they got their money. To my knowledge and recollection, there was not "imminent doom" in the interim. My point is, what's the hurry? Slow down there, cowboy. There needs to be a little bit of time invested into figuring out what could generate the least amount of waste. There also needs to be not a little, but a lot of effort invested as well. Sometimes things take way too long, but it's only because people are effing around. Effort. The folks who are doling out this cash need to act like they give a flying F about it, because they don't. And the Obama administration needs to get over themselves and start walking their walk because I'm tired of hearing them talk their talk. Pipe down and whip out some of that 'change' that we distinctly remember being promised. Because all of this seems like the same incompetence that we've grown sadly accustomed to.

Sphere: Related Content

The Unavoidable Financial Doom

Over there at CNN.com the top 'Most Viewed' story is "Bedlam breaks out at "Top Model" audition." The second 'Most Viewed' story is "AIG responds to Treasury pressure." That the AIG story is not the most viewed story definitely says something. That folks who are reading news at CNN.com are more interested in some model melee than they are about the incompetent cheats over there at AIG who are largely responsible and also largely to blame for the economic situation of the country AND they are also the recipients of hundreds of billions of dollars which really can't be accounted for at this point. But hey, let's see what got the dander of a bunch of models all riled up, shall we? NO. We shall not.

Call me crazy, but even though I am as big of a fan of hot models as the next person, I'm kind of more interested in AIG "responding to Treasury pressure." They already wanted billions and billions of taxpayer dollars more than they've already received. And I know that the latest funds that are being given to them do come with stipulations, so I guess that must be the "pressure" that CNN is talking about. So what was their response? To paraphrase, I believe the bottom line was something like, "Screw you. We're paying out bonuses. You can't stop us. We still want more money. You're still going to give it to us. Did we say 'screw you' already? We did? Well, screw you again." Something like that. Again, I was paraphrasing.

So, if you're taking a break from all of the model brawling, you should be enraged to know that not only is AIG getting another $30 billion dollars (give or take a couple billion), they are also going to pay out bonuses for 2008. A bonus?? Those guys get bonuses?? For WHAT?? They have run that company into the ground, they have put the entire United States economy on the brink of collapse, they couldn't do a damn thing with the previous $150 billion dollars that they were given. Hell, they can't even account for all of it! And for that they get a bonus? Um, I don't know about you, but if that were my job performance at my job, I wouldn't be getting a bonus. No, I'd be getting my ass kicked out the door. What the hell is going on here?

Well, according to Edward Liddy, the CEO of AIG, "...he personally does not receive a bonus, but that some bonus payments are unavoidable, because they are binding legal obligations of the company, and...there are serious legal, as well as business consequences for not paying." Unavoidable? Some bonus payments are unavoidable? Is that what he said? I can tell you how those bonus payments can be avoided. Ready? Here it is: If your company hadn't been given the money it has in order to stay in business, it would have been out of business for at least six months at this point. There wouldn't be any company to have any employees to pay any bonuses to! That's how they're "avoided". We just let your sorry ass go under and "avoid" all of those binding bonus dilemmas. Are you kidding me?!

Here's my other way to "avoid" paying out those bonuses. Ready? Here it is: You're fired. Do you get a bonus if you've been fired? I would hope the hell that you don't (but since this is AIG, I wouldn't be surprised if they did). So tell you what, O Incompetent Ones....you're all fired. Don't let the solid gold door hit you in the ass on the way out. There you go. Problem solved. Bonuses avoided. What crisis can I solve next? World peace, perhaps? Lemme think about that one.

What's the business consequence for not paying a bonus to someone who does a crappy job? What in the hell do these contracts say? Because I've long been under the impression that a "bonus" was something that you received for doing a good job. Clearly, the majority of folks running AIG are not bonus-worthy. I mean, for cryin' out loud, if those guys are getting bonuses for the job that they're doing, what in the world do they do for folks who actually are doing a good job? A jet? A penthouse? What is going on?!

I'm serious, I want to know what those contracts say as far as the "bonus" obligations that they're SO confined by. There has to be a reason why things are done that way and I'd like to know what those are as well. . If you're guaranteed a "bonus" at the end of the year no matter what, then it's not a "bonus" is it? It's a lump sum payment is what it is. It would seem that you could fornicate with your boss's daughter on his desk and have it broadcast live via webcam to all of the employees and still get your "bonus"!! Why is the lump sum payment more beneficial to the company or to the recipients of it than just to have it spread out and included in their salaries? (I'm really asking. I have no idea.)

My other question is: Why are these folks who were too incompetent to keep this from happening to AIG in the first place STILL in charge?! WHY?!?! They obviously have no idea what they're doing and they also don't seem to want to know what to do. I can't really say that I'd be any different in that position. If I knew I was going to make a gazillion dollars whether I drove the company nose first into the ground or whether I worked my ass off, I don't know that I'd be all for working my ass off if the payout wouldn't be any different than if I just did nothing.

I keep hearing that AIG is "too big to fail". And I've heard it explained why that is and I do understand it. But what I need to have explained to me is how "too big to fail" is not exactly the same as "too big to succeed". Why should they try to "succeed" when they can't "fail"? I can not try to succeed and have the same result, that of all of the failing, and if I know that the result of that failure is that there are no consequences and it's business as usual, I'm taking the day off! I'm not going to work my ass off, just to end up "failing" when I can lounge around and do nothing and get the same result. Why is AIG any different? I don't think that they are.

Liddy also had this to say about one of the consequences of not paying employees bonuses that they were "promised" and were "expecting": "....the company will have trouble attracting and retaining the best and the brightest ... if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the US Treasury." Um, Mr. Liddy, sir? Yeah, I understand all of that. But see, you don't have the best and the brightest! No, you seem to have the worst and the dumbest! Your company already has trouble attracting talented employees. That's why you're getting bailed out again!! The "best and the brightest" are no where to be found at AIG! (And don't go looking in the US Treasury for them either. They're certainly not over there.) And if you think that's even a valid argument, you're clearly not one of the "best and the brightest" either. Sir.

Worst. Reason. Ever.

Sphere: Related Content