Thursday
Sep 02nd

Center for Equal Opportunity

Lost Password?
Home arrow Our Focus Areas arrow Linda Chavez Weekly Columns arrow Defending AIG
Defending AIG PDF Print E-mail
Written by Linda Chavez   
Friday, 20 March 2009
LindaChavez.gifSpare me the populist outrage. Members of the House Financial Services Committee sounded more like an out-of-control mob than leaders who could help solve one of the worst financial crises in U.S. history when they confronted AIG CEO Edward Liddy this week. And the president wasn't much better. They are whipping the American people into a nasty and destructive frenzy that won't do anything to help fix the economy and will likely make it worse.

Mr. Liddy is not public enemy No. 1. Liddy had nothing to do with the credit-default-swap mess that threatened to unravel the financial system last year. He came out of retirement (from a different company) at the urging of government officials to take over AIG when it was on the verge of collapse. After Wednesday's disgraceful performance by Committee Chairman Barney Frank and others -- Republicans as well as Democrats -- who could blame him if he decided to return to the golf course and let somebody else take the abuse?

But if Liddy's not to blame, neither are the AIG employees who received bonus checks this month. These are not the same people who devised the credit default obligations that jeopardized AIG. Those individuals are long gone. The bonus recipients are the people whose job is now to try to mitigate the financial risk those complex instruments caused. They are highly skilled and could, like Mr. Liddy, walk away and let the company implode, with consequences that even critics of AIG agree could affect all of us. In order to ensure they not do that, the company last year promised them financial incentives to stay in their jobs.

When a company is collapsing -- as AIG certainly was at the time these contracts were negotiated -- everybody who has an alternative is looking to jump ship. Think about it. If you knew that your employer might not be around in a few months and you had very specialized skills that were much in demand elsewhere, would you be willing to go down with the ship? Not likely. But if your employer offered you a handsome financial incentive to stick around, you'd be far more likely to take the risk. Well, that's exactly what AIG did when it negotiated retention bonuses.

But what about the people, who received those bonuses, that had already left the company? It's legitimate to question whether those bonuses are deserved, but it's ridiculous to jump to the conclusion they aren't based solely on the information we currently have.

It depends on the circumstances surrounding their departures. If they just up and quit, leaving the company in the lurch, they aren't entitled to the bonus. But my guess is that most of them left because the company decided it was in its interest either to eliminate the job or replace the individual with someone else. In that case, barring demonstrable fault on the part of the individual, the company would be obligated to pay the amount that had been promised when the employee agreed to stay on.

So if it's not the principle of retention bonuses that infuriates people, what is it? It's anger that the people who received these bonuses are greedy. But greed isn't the only destructive vice out there. What's driving public outrage right now is another unattractive vice: envy. Neither vice is healthy.

Class envy won't put a single penny in anyone's pocket. It won't save jobs. It certainly won't solve the credit crisis. And the irresponsible rhetoric from politicians will make it less likely that we will solve the real problems confronting the nation.

We've already had Sen. Charles Grassley suggest failed company executives ought to commit hari-kari -- which he retracted later -- and Rep. Barney Frank seemed perfectly happy to have AIG executives who received bonuses identified publicly even if it jeopardized their security. If this keeps up, it could turn really ugly. Mobs are difficult to control once they've been unleashed. But don't expect any of the rabble-rousers on Capitol Hill or in the White House to take responsibility if things turn violent.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Support CEO

Purchase

Advertisement

Linda Chavez's Blog

The Blog of Commentary Magazine
  • Saving Obama from Himself
    The best thing that could happen to President Obama tonight would be for Scott Brown to win the Massachusetts Senate seat.  This may sound crazy, but hear me out. Americans had no idea when they elected Barack Obama that he would turn out to be not a leader but a...
  • Obama Color Blind When It Comes to the Recession
    Is the Barack Obama of ?There is not a black America and a white America . . . but the United States of America? back? On Wednesday, 10 members of the Black Caucus  boycotted a key House committee vote on financial regulations to pressure their fellow members and the White...
  • Casey?s Outrage
    Political correctness doesn?t begin to describe Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr.?s outrageous comments, as alluded to by Jennifer, on the Sunday-morning talk shows concerning the Fort Hood massacre. Asked by ABC?s George Stephanopolous whether the Army had ?dropped the ball? in not recognizing that Hasan had become increasingly...
  • Obama?s Pet-Goat Moment
    We still don?t know what was behind the killings at Fort Hood this afternoon, in which 11 soldiers and the killer died, but President Obama?s rushed press conference was surprising in its flippancy nonetheless. Before he got to the issue on everyone?s mind ? namely the deaths of Americans in...
  • Don?t Break Out the Champagne Just Yet
    Jonathan is right that we should pray for the continued health of Justice Kennedy, whose record on race cases is pretty good, but it is unfortunate that he and his fellow justices didn’t consider the Constitutional issues in the Ricci case, which would have made it far more difficult for...