AIG's earmarks

The latest outrage washing across the political landscape is over AIG's decision to honor a commitment to pay out $165 million in bonuses to certain employees. Obama has said that he will "pursue every single legal avenue to block" the payout.

At issue are retention bonuses for employees of AIG's financial-products division, whose credit default swaps brought AIG to the brink of collapse. The government controls AIG through an 80% equity stake and as a major lender and doesn't have legal authority to freeze payments on its own. The U.S. has committed $173.3 billion to AIG, including $70 billion from Treasury's rescue fund.

I see no difference between this and the earmark-laden bills that regularly get passed through Congress with nary a peep. Now that AIG is a de facto government owned entity, the bonus payments--just like earmarks--are a form of patronage. We already know how Obama feels about the AIG earmarks, and he has repeatedly said he is against all earmarks, though it seems that some earmarks are worse than others. Namely the ones that originate in Congress are OK, but the ones that originate in the private sector are not. Seems he's just blowing hot air of out his yapper.

Lest you think that the banks who have taken TARP money are going to sit still and let the government dictate a new, equal and just pay structure, think again. Reminds me of a beggar with a stick.

For the record, I am against all earmarks and all bailouts. Does anybody think that AIG would be paying bonuses if they'd been allowed to go bankrupt?