Political Hotsheet
March 23, 2009 11:24 AM

Is That 90% Tax On AIG Bonuses Dead?

(AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)
Last week, as populist rage over the AIG bonuses threatened to boil over, the House passed a bill mandating that bonuses paid to executives with family incomes of more than $250,000 whose firms have received more than $5 billion in bailout money be taxed at the eye-popping rate of 90 percent.

With Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today unveiling the administration’s trillion-dollar bank rescue plan, however, President Obama and his administration are hinting they oppose such a significant tax – and arguing that it is a mistake to “govern out of anger.”

Asked about the tax on an interview that aired on CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday, the president, who was a Constitutional law professor, said that “as a general proposition, you don’t want to be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals.”

"Well, that's why we're gonna have to take a look at this legislation carefully,” the president added. “Clearly, the AIG folks gettin' those bonuses didn't make sense. And one of the things that I have to do is to communicate to Wall Street that, given the current crisis that we're in, they can't expect help from taxpayers but they enjoy all the benefits that they enjoyed before the crisis happened…Now the flip side is that Main Street has to understand, unless we get these banks moving again, then we can't get this economy to recover. And we don't wanna cut off our nose to spite our face."

The core issue is this: As part of the bank rescue plan, the administration needs private investors to invest in so-called “toxic assets,” the bad mortgages of uncertain value that are weighing down banks and slowing lending. The government is offering incentives to those investors to convince them to sign on to the plan, but in the wake of the AIG-propelled bonus tax legislation, private investors are worried that any profits they make from the deal could be highly taxed down the road.

“The deal is good, but it’s not worth it if I’m buying myself into a retroactive tax or a Congressional hearing,” one chief executive of a major investment firm told the New York Times.

Such fears appear to have a lot to do with efforts by the president and members of his administration to signal that the White House does not support the tax on bonuses. Doing so means walking a difficult line in which they seek to maintain their tone of populist outrage over the bonuses while also reassuring potential investors that they do not back government action to tax away too much of their profits.

On the most recent installments of CBSNews.com’s “Washington Unplugged” and CBS’ “Face The Nation,” White House economic adviser Austen Goolsbee signaled that the administration is cool to the legislation.

Goolsbee argued on FTN that the president is "going to look at what comes out of the House, what comes out of the Senate, see what ideas we have.” On “Washington Unplugged,” he agreed with the notion that the tax could have a “chilling effect.”

Meanwhile, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden's economic adviser, said the AIG tax bill "may be a dangerous way to go." And White House economic adviser Christina Romer pressed that there is a difference between “bad” agents like AIG and good ones like the potential private investors, who are “really doing us a favor."

The bill is now going before the Senate, where there is speculation the tax could be reduced to 30 percent. President Obama likely doesn’t want the public relations nightmare of having to decide whether or not to sign the House version of the bill, which is why you can bet White House representatives are applying pressure on the Senate to come up with a version that the administration feels it can accept.

The Senate, where members serve longer terms and do not face as much pressure to respond quickly to the outrage of their constituents, is likely to accommodate the White House; after all, the chamber is populated largely by Democratic allies, and Republicans such as Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire have also signaled their concerns about the bill.

“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,” Gregg said.
Tags:
aig ,
bonus ,
tax
Topics:
In The News
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 30 Comments
by eroosevelt08 March 24, 2009 6:55 AM EDT
If it is not constitutional to tax the bonus payments at an extremely high rate of tax, then it should not be done. President Obama was a teacher in the exact area of Constitutional Law. If President Bush had understood the Constitution, our civil rights would not have been trashed like they were under his watch. The Patriot Act provided that the government could arrest any one of us United States citizens and never tell us or our families why, never let the matter go to court. This is a democracy and we have to what is right. I do not like that those AIG fatcats got those bonuses, either, but right is right even if it does not suit me.
Reply to this comment
by clancy49 March 24, 2009 5:49 AM EDT
The great financiers own and operate Presidents some of the time. The other Presidents are owned and operated by big business, financed by the financiers. There is no change, there never will be any change as long as there is Absolute Federal control. The Federal control is the Federal Reserve. You can call Federal control, marxism, communism, socialism, capitalism, or even trickle down economics, it is still Federal Control. We the people have to take back democracy and it isn't by electing media darlings and media picks. It is about knowing your community, innovating in your community, and electing from your community. It is about putting the right man in the right job based on needs and qualifications, not propaganda and glam. Until that happens, nothing changes. If something other than that changes, you are not going to like it at all.
Reply to this comment
by McHineguy March 23, 2009 6:12 PM EDT
You gotta remember, these guys contribute huge amounts to political campaigns. Especially those of the Democratic party. Obama aint gonne bite the hand that feeds him.
Reply to this comment
by McHineguy March 23, 2009 6:10 PM EDT
I voted for Obama and am still thanking God we don't have McCain in office. We are getting out of Iraq, we did get money for our schools, Head Statt programs etc. instead of tax giveaways for the millionaires but I gotta admit I don't much like this part of the new administration.
Posted by rsoxfan1123 at 2:34 PM : Mar 23, 2009

Yeah, we got money for our schools. But they are spending more on a train from LA to Las Vegas. Much more on bailouts. And they are planning a deficit twice or even three times what Bush did. How will he pay for that? He plans to tax any fuel that produces carbon dioxide. That means your gas bill will go up, your electric bill will go up, your car gas bill will go up, and your subway fares will go up. Oh yeah, hes gonna charge the rich guys antoehr few hundred a year.
Reply to this comment
by swami545 March 23, 2009 5:52 PM EDT
"I voted for Obama and am still thanking God we don't have McCain in office. We are getting out of Iraq, we did get money for our schools, Head Statt programs etc. instead of tax giveaways for the millionaires but I gotta admit I don't much like this part of the new administration.
Posted by rsoxfan1123 :

A lot of people are gonna realize over the next few years that Obama isn't as big of a liberal his voters thought he was.
Reply to this comment
by rsoxfan1123 March 23, 2009 5:34 PM EDT
I voted for Obama and am still thanking God we don't have McCain in office. We are getting out of Iraq, we did get money for our schools, Head Statt programs etc. instead of tax giveaways for the millionaires but I gotta admit I don't much like this part of the new administration.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey March 23, 2009 5:23 PM EDT
["I have instructed the Secretary of the Treasure to use any means necessary to recover the bonus money." Now it's a different story.... More BS from BO ]
[Posted by vistavermin1 at 2:18 PM : Mar 23, 2009 ]

and there are no legal means to get the money back ... less some ridiculous legislation that seizes the money provided as compensation via taxes.

be careful of what you ask for ... cause they might just apply it to you ... using a new set of criteria.
Reply to this comment
by ceb969 March 23, 2009 4:34 PM EDT
We need to get MAD REAL DAM MAD if that what it takes to get something done and done right!!! We the people took control of AIG when they took the tax payers money so why can't we GET MAD and take back the bonus money it are money. If the IRS wanted that money from you they garnish your wages put a lean on your property
they would not stop till they got their money why can't we do this with AIG?
I need a job were poeple do not work hard, get a bonus when the company is in the red and through BIG PARTIES that a dam dream job how soft can it get ?
Reply to this comment
by hawksprings March 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
Still haven't seen a Mainstream Media piece on the fact that AIG gave Obama over $101,000 in "bonus" money.

We won't see a story on it either.
Gotta protect the Messiah, don't we.
Reply to this comment
by hawksprings March 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT
Still haven't seen a Mainstream Media piece on the fact that AIG gave Obama over $101,000 in "bonus" money.

We won't see a story on it either.
Gotta protect the Messiah, don't we.
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady March 23, 2009 4:19 PM EDT
that retroactive tax had as much likelihood of happening as the "tar and feather" or "pitchfork and torches" ideas.

Gut reactions that are great fantasies but illegal to carry out.

Now, HOLDING BACK future payments and "trust busting" these dangerously mismanaged corporations although more work may be much more likely.

Prying transparency out of these "publicly held" hydras seems to be the hardest part .

Of course it may mean fewer funneled "contributions" since the reason (corporate self-interest) now has to be hid or temporarily dropped so the INCENTIVE to find a workable solution may not be there.
Reply to this comment
by hunterdon6 March 23, 2009 4:02 PM EDT
Since the Democrats got 70% of the millions of dollars that AIG donated to last years election. The bill is dead. Not to mention that Dodd and O'Bama got the biggest share of AIG money. It doesn't matter which party the politicians come from, they don't represent the people any more, just the big corporations. Time to vote them all out.
Reply to this comment
by omded March 23, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
It used to be "you bought it, you own it". Now, it's you bought it, the American Taxpayer will buy it from you. Folks, it's time to stand up and draw the line. Did you buy into these "toxic assets"? Of course not. The bankers did. Let the bankers live with their bad decisions. Don't assume their problems! You didn't make it, so don't take responsibility for fixing it either! Until this Bush/Obama (let's call it "BushObama") Administration came along, you used to have to live with what you did. You kept the profits, and you suffered the losses. Now, BushObama want to let the corporate thieves keep the profits, and pan the losses off on the American Taxpayer.
Reply to this comment
by omded March 23, 2009 3:12 PM EDT
These people performed miserably. No performance, no bonus. American Taxpayers, you're getting ripped off, and the thieves are just doing a "tap dance". Take the money back however you have to. These people had the audacity to make unwise business decisions, knowing it could come back to haunt them. What did they do? They gauranteed themselves big bonuses. They're robbing you blind, and, if you let them, they will continue the same behavior, and actually push it a little farther next time. Put a stop to it now.
Reply to this comment
by harpoot March 23, 2009 2:55 PM EDT
Dead??? O'course momma. Congress be bought an paid fo.
Reply to this comment
by eeldriweber March 23, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
I am outraged by this bill. it goes against the ideals of our country.... to punish a group of people, most of whom have worked incredibly hard, made sacrifices to earn their positions, pay for school, work 80 hour weeks, etc, and now they are the bad guys? it doesn't make sense and will end up backfiring in one way or another.
Reply to this comment
by bobnjersey March 23, 2009 2:24 PM EDT
[Nobama preaches one thing to the public, even on the Leno show he demonstrated outrage,surprise. When it comes down to actually getting the bonuses back, the Nobama administration stabs us in the back. I stated here last week it was all an act and too bad the Oscars were already given out. BOY!! I love being right!! ]
[Posted by thgdriver at 9:16 AM : Mar 23, 2009 ]

oh ... how do you do it!

although he didn't say explicitly that he'd veto such legislation if it made it to his desk ... he did infer that he wasn't for this idea of taxing at 90% ... which is the correct position to take.

you're not getting the bonuses back ... congress gave them the money without conditions ... and they used it as they saw fit ... which were current contractual agreements ... regardless if anyone agrees with it.

if you want the money back ... get the congressman who voted for the 'no conditions' legislation to give it to you.
Reply to this comment
by LABLVR March 23, 2009 2:10 PM EDT
I find it so very interesting that when quoting our former Prez, no words were EVER typed as slang - regardless if they were used by Mr. Bush. Words such as "want to" (wanna) and "going to" (gonna) were always typed in the correct version. My, how things change. President Obama is quoted verbadim, including any slang words. Isn't that telling?
Reply to this comment
by berniew4 March 23, 2009 2:02 PM EDT
Every corp.bank,ins co etc. WHO WANTS A BAILOUT should first agree to freeze ALL salaries and retentuions bonuses etc. Or shut down. The bailouts are to save the cos not to enhace the employees earnings . Is rhis too simple ?? I hear a banker say I cannot freeze the salary of a Junior teller can I . the answer IS YES OR fire him,shut down ,go out of business or until you are solvert all in your co must suffer,. If employees quit so be it. STOP CODDLING LOOSERS !!
Reply to this comment
by berniew4 March 23, 2009 1:55 PM EDT
Of course Obama is not in favor of taking the AIG executive bonuses away. After all Financially Aig execs gave more to Obam and DODD than anyoone else. can't take from them !! HMMMMM let's start with the next bank and cap salaries. after my frends at AIG are taken care of then let's get the others. This is the honest man many admire ??
Reply to this comment
See all 30 Comments

60 Minutes

How gold pays for Congo's deadly war; Bob Ballard, the great explorer; and more.
Read More

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Poll: Rush Most Influential Conservative

    (223 recent comments)

HOTSHEET ON TWITTER