At least one article puts the "cause clause" that created the bonuses in question back to a law passed by Congress several years ago that imposed a tax penalty on corporations, for "salaries over $2 million." That law "forced" the companies to look for more "creative" methods of "compensating" executives.

While the "trigger" change was signed by President Clinton, it seems hardly fair to blame him alone for upsetting things, since the change had been proposed, amended, withdrawn, returned, obscured, and obfuscated through at least three prior administrations, any one of which might have made this "innocent" change.

No administration, including Clinton's and all since, has bothered to look for "unexpected consequences" from the change - until now.

Hardly anyone, with the exception of a few CEOs, will argue against the proposition that CEO "rewards" are obscene and abusive. Even some overpaid CEOs already have agreed to waivers of some "contractually obligated" rewards for incompetence.

Senator Dodd has reportedly been a principal beneficiary of funding from AIG for many years, and anything he says about them has to be at least somewhat suspect. One article claims that he introduced an amendment to the bailout bill that would have blocked the AIG bonuses. I haven't been able to verify the actual content of any such amendment, but it should be noted that under Senate rules the original author of an amendment pretty much has the unilateral right to withdraw it at any time, and early introduction is a common method of "sheltering" something. The original author can discourage similar amendments by others, but can then withdraw his/her own amendment at the last minute - thereby preventing the issue purported to be addressed from ever being considered. Of course Dodd can claim that anyone who offered an opinion has "pressured him" and there's unlikely to be any demand for proof. He can choose to blame "the scapegoat of the day" with impunity.

I haven't found clear evidence that Dodd acted in this issue with a purpose of this kind in mind; but it's consistent with what I've seen of his prior record for similar manipulations.

Since the total of all of the AIG bonuses, obscene as they are, is roughly the equivalent of the purchase price of one mid-sized corporate jet, in the overall picture this is not an issue that significantly impacts the intent and purpose of the funds being doled out. It is, and is being used as, a diversion that is preventing attention to the other uses that many corporations may be making of funds already dispensed.

Put three good lawyers on the case. Forget about it until they get something done. And get another thousand lawyers busy trying to get consistent and effective rules for the use for the other few trillion bucks that may be going down somebody's piss-hole while everybody is worrying about this little group of chiselers.

How about a look at whether AIG should pay off on "insurance" several hundred times to each of several dozens of "insurers" who each got coverage for the same risk. One estimate places the AIG "obligation" at close to $200 trillion for insurance on $2 trillion in actual money, since each person who traded the same 2 trillion insured it for the same amount. Once they sold it, they have no remaining "insurable interest," yet they're getting paid.(?)

John