Posted by caleb on Mar 19, 2009 in
Fighting Big Government Most Americans are flabbergasted over the thought of AIG employees receiving 1.6 million dollars in bonuses after the company received billions in taxpayer-funded aid from the federal government. Disregarding the (in my opinion, correct) argument that the speculative arm of AIG should never have received bailout money in the first place (the insurance divisions are still profitable), any government action that moves to force the return of any of the bonus dollars is entering into dangerous territory.
Perhaps the slightly smarter thing to do would have been to ask to renegotiate the bonus contracts, given that the company is on the edge, but that’s up to Edward M. Liddy, not Congress, and it appears he’s trying to do the right thing.
I think it’s important we step back from this issue for a moment and consider the bigger picture. More government intervention is only going to create more dangerous precedents. As we expected with President Obama’s Big Government liberal agenda, the size of our government is about to increase yet again.
There are a few things we must consider here. First of all, private companies should always be able to set their own compensation plans. This is not the responsibility of the government, nor should it be. The idea here is that, if said compensation is unreasonable, the company will suffer, and changes will be made. This, of course, hasn’t happened, since our beloved federal government keeps doling out the dough. Second, Government should never have the ability to interfere with private contracts, at least in this sense. When did it become reasonable for Senators to legislate the compensation of workers of a private (read: non-governmental) corporation, regardless of whether said company (AIG) has received federal assistance? If we allow Congress to determine executive pay and limit the amount employees may be paid in bonuses, we have become that which we most feared, perhaps moving even farther left than the “socialist” moniker. Thirdly, this idea of “punitive taxing” must die. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has publicly stated that Congress will work to tax 100% of these AIG bonuses if the employees refuse to return the money. Why is it all the sudden right or fair for Congress to single out one group of Americans to tax? If we continue down this path of selective taxing, who knows where we’ll end up. How about a tax on 67-year-old grandmothers of three who drive Ford Grand Victorias just because we can? That, in my opinion, equates to a Bill of Attainder, something prohibited under the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.
This power grab by the federal government is scary, folks. Perhaps the idea of “sticking it to ‘em” in regard to the returning of the bonus dollars sounds good on paper, but this is a matter that needs to be handled without the reckless hand of the federal government. It does seem tasteless to dole out huge bonuses when everyone is suffering, I agree, but isn’t that just like saying, “I’m mad at the world, so the world should be mad, too!” It’s the same as that friend everyone has who gets upset but feels vindicated by shooting daggers at anyone who even appears to be happy. “Misery loves company.” As a society, we seem to feel at the moment, that if things aren’t going our way, they shouldn’t be going anyone else’s way, either.
As a warning, I must stress that we do not know the whole story. It is true that at least a great percentage of all bonus-receiving employees worked in the hard-hit “speculative” division at AIG, how do we know those same employees aren’t the ones keeping it limping along as it is?
Now, of course I’m all for protecting taxpayer dollars being protected, that’s why I’m a Conservative Republican, but this is not the way to protect those dollars. We gave AIG money to stay in business, since it was “too big to fail.” It was not the original intent of the first AIG bailout to take control of the insurance giant, but to get it back on its feet. These bonus contracts were signed between AIG and its employees in 2007, and the company was legally and contractually obligated to honor them. In other words, had AIG not awarded said bonuses, their actions would have constituted a breach of contract. Being a good bailout recipient, AIG disclosed this information to the Federal Government before the money was awarded. (Obama + Geithner = hypocrites much!) It’s AIG’s job to pay their employees the previously agreed wage and we shouldn’t be trying to interfere. The short term results seem a bit smelly, but the long term effects reek of a week-old fish market. Hold your nose, and let the bonuses pass; they’re not the real problem. Most of these people are not the ones that caused the problem; they earned this money. The Federal Government’s usurpation of power is our real fight.
Update March 25, 2009 at 12:27 p.m.
The resignations of many AIG employees has begun in response to the Congressional madness occurring in Washington. This article, a resignation letter written by Jake DeSantis, a soon-to-be-former AIG-FP employee, to AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy, provides a good perspective on the whole mess.
Tags: AIG, bailouts, bonuses, Bush, Edward M. Liddy, geithner, New York, obama, Senator Chuck Schumer
[This is an essay I wrote earlier this week. I've republished it here.]
Stereotypes are cop-outs. Each of them is just a way for us to pre-judge someone before we actually become acquainted with them on a personal level. They are tools we use to lock each other into specific, predetermined groups and behavior patterns. We use these mind tricks to exert control over other people, to gain traction in a difficult situation. Instead of facing the challenge of exposing ourselves to another individual, we take the easy way out and brush them aside with the passing thought, I’ve seen their kind before. What if, however, we took the time to give the benefit of the doubt, even to only one person? A few more minutes out of our busy schedules would not be missed. We spend that much time daily dialing the telephone or ordering coffee in the Drive-thru. Why not put those minutes to better use? If we did, we would discover that a person is more than the sum total of his or her parts, labels, and appearance. Appearances are deceiving, for we are each more than our stereotypes or labels alone allow for us to be.
As an eighteen-year-old sophomore at a small state university, my life is full of interesting topics and paradoxes, puzzles and quirks. My life is based on suggestion, on stereotype, on societal expectations, but my habits are geared against the grain. I do what is thought impossible and am seen for whom I am not. People expect me to be a certain way, but I surprise them by being even better. I believe in forging my own path and setting my own agenda, but rebellion is not what I seek: I fight apathy, and work to make my positive mark on the world. It is what this time of my life is supposed to be about. As a college student I have some of the biggest and hardest-to-shake stereotypes placed upon me, that I believe in an “anything goes” world, or that I fought to see Barack Obama elected. But after busting through these grandiose façades, I drop the biggest bombshell of all: I am a young conservative. I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, and the rule of law. I work for lower taxes and less government intervention and involvement. I want to live my life the way I see fit, by taking responsibility for the consequences, and not by following a ten-step plan developed by a bureaucrat. I believe in making money, in capitalism, in success for the individual, and in freedom for us all. Of course, being politically conservative and educationally an undergraduate leads to some interesting encounters. Many of my peers do not understand why I believe what I do, and many older adults approach me in disbelief as well. It seems most think youth should be a time of frivolity and a more carefree lifestyle; I do not necessarily disagree, but I look to my future as well. I am not a boring old codger while still a teenager, but I dream of one day being a successful, financially secure professional, and that dream cannot be fulfilled by following the plans and ideas of the other side of the political spectrum.
If liberalism on campus is such an accepted belief and lifestyle, why I am so different? Why does my belief system differ from the supposed norm? To fully investigate this issue, it is necessary to investigate my past, my experiences, and my goals for the future. Understanding one’s lifestyle choices is not an easy task. My political affinities come from several different places. To begin, since both of my parents are Republicans and very conservative, it would be easy to discount my ideals as something handed down and accepted without challenge. It is true that as far back as I can remember knowing what a political party was, I have identified myself with the GOP. However, neither of my parents has ever forced their political belief system on me. They’ve presented their views, but always left my choices in the matter up to me. Saying that my party affiliation and governmental philosophy stem solely from my mother and father is a vast misstatement. Perhaps my parents led me in the right direction, but it was by my own free will I came to believe we should as strictly as possible follow the plans laid out for us by the Founding Fathers in our nation’s seminal documents. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Even as young as I am, I have had enough life experiences to realize how important it is to keep and follow those democratic ideals. Right now, as a young adult, I am watching as the grand era of prosperity of my early teenage years dries up and our nation sinks into a deep recession. The most treacherous example is of the recent government bailouts. Instead of allowing companies who made bad business decisions and granted sub-prime mortgages to go bankrupt and restructure themselves, our government is using billions upon billions of our money and money borrowed from unfriendly foreign lands to artificially prolong the lives of those failed ventures. To me, that idea is unfair and, at the least, not in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Why are we who made good decisions being forced to help those who did not? I believe in helping others in need, but it must be my choice, not the government’s. Life experiences such as these catalyze my beliefs. They make me look toward the future and realize that as this spending continues, my dreams become a little farther off, a little less attainable. If success is punished and failure is rewarded, why will any company try to succeed? Where is the motivation to hire the best and brightest talent and sell the best products if the federal government is only going to tax their profits into losses and save them if they fail? How will I, or my children, for that matter, ever ascend to the peak of our abilities?
That hope for the future and worry that my dreams will not come to pass is what most strongly motivates me. America is a great nation, and I cannot bear to see her flounder. I want America to achieve her epitome of greatness with the restoration of our Constitutional values. As for myself, I want to someday work for a multinational computer electronics company. I want to be able to provide for my family, and I want my future children to have even better opportunities than I had. Neither one of these dreams is easily possible with the current onward march of liberal policies and socialism, at least not according to some of the greatest political minds. Many have equated our recent lapse to that of Western Europe after World War II. It is a commonly held belief in the United States that Europe is very similar to our country, but in truth, it has many problems we have never had to deal with, including strangled access to healthcare. Here, generally speaking, if one is insured he or she can schedule an appointment with a doctor and have met with him or her within a week or so. In other nations where socialized medicine exists, everyone has access to healthcare, but many people’s health suffers because of long lead times for life-saving surgeries and routine checkups. Also, the citizenry is taxed beyond belief, to the point where the tax rate reaches atrocious and unbelievable amounts. At what point do we say enough is enough? The idea of healthcare for all is valiant, but the execution is wrong. Providing healthcare is not government’s job. Many argue that private companies cannot and should not be in charge of providing medical assistance, that they wield too much power of people’s lives. However, the evidence points to the contrary. Even with their problems, private companies tend to provide a much better service, due to competition in the market. All the government needs to do is encourage that competition by lowering taxes, and thereby fostering growth, and repealing senseless regulations. Look how much government has regulated education in America. Does it sound exciting to be required to take a standardized test to verify your lifestyle choices before doing a urine analysis? Do you want to have to write your Senator just to have an emergency appendectomy? I have experienced such a surgery, and I can assure you that sitting up is murder, let alone handling a keyboard.
My conservative beliefs do detach me from my peer group of young college students, at least from the majority. This aspect of my being cannot be separated from me as a whole; it makes up an integral part of my being, of who I am as a person. They do not fit the expected mold, but I accept that and embrace it. I will not change who I am simply to force myself into such an idea. We can never fully escape stereotypes, because generalization is part of who we are as human beings. However, we can rewrite them to include more facets of other individuals. Once we have broadened those horizons, we must do all we can to transform stereotypes from the crystalline stones they are today to the malleable clay they must be tomorrow, changing and updating them with each new person we meet, as we learn to connect more deeply.
Tags: bailouts, barack obama, college, college students, Conservatism, conservative, government, liberalism, Senator, sub-prime mortgages, universal healthcare
