WHO stripped the SNOWE-WYDEN AMENDMENT out of the ARRA??

[polichick]

Senator Wyden spoke with Rachel Maddow tonight about this amendment that was included in the Economic Recovery Package and then dropped, he said, after protests from lobbyists. I'd like to know much more about who protested and who stripped it out.


From Senator Snowe's website:

Snowe-Wyden Amendment Will Recover Taxpayer Dollars Paid-Out as Wall Street Bonuses


February 4, 2009

Washington, D.C. -

Financial institutions that used "federal bailout" funds to pay employees bonuses in excess of $100,000 will be required to compensate taxpayers under a provision that will be introduced today by U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). The provision – which the Senators will offer as an amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – will require financial institutions that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to either repay the cash portion of any bonus paid in excess of $100,000 early – within 120 days of the amendment’s enactment – or face an excise tax of 35% on what is not immediately repaid to the treasury.

"It’s not enough to say these bonuses are wrong – they must be paid back," said Wyden. "To get our economy moving again, the American people must regain confidence in their financial institutions. Protecting taxpayers with this amendment is a strong start."


More at: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=42ed181e-802a-23ad-4cb3-925c5ae0ad66&Region_id=&Issue_id=



Snowe Expresses Outrage over AIG Bonuses and UBS Tax Crimes


March 17, 2009

Washington, D.C. -

At today’s Senate Finance Committee hearing examining Ponzi schemes and other egregious tax evasions, U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) today voiced outrage over the extreme violation of public trust committed by American International Group (AIG) for doling out $165 million in bonuses after receiving a $170 billion bailout from the federal government.

"These bonuses are a staggering insult to the American people," Senator Snowe said. "Clearly these executives need a strong and resounding reality check."

Referring to her amendment with Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that would have forced financial institutions receiving TARP money to repay bonuses over $100,000 or face a 35 percent excise tax on what is not immediately repaid to the treasury, Senator Snowe commented that if the provision had not been stripped out of the final stimulus package, the American people could reclaim these obscene bonuses.

"The stimulus debate presented an opportunity to enact firm restrictions on the ability of financial institutions receiving TARP funds to provide executive compensation," Snowe continued. "The Snowe-Wyden amendment would have forced AIG to either return the TARP money or pay out the bonuses and incur a 35 percent tax – equating to roughly $58 million. Yet my provision with Senator Wyden was inexplicably stripped out of the final package - leaving us with the unacceptable outcome we face today."


More at: http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=15a6230a-802a-23ad-4f17-637922150088



Snowe, Wyden Urge Geithner to Re-Examine Executive Compensation Proposal
Initiative Could Have Prevented AIG’s Abuse of Taxpayer Dollars


March 17, 2009


Outraged at American International Group’s (AIG) abuse of taxpayer dollars, U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) today, in a letter, urged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to re-examine the Wyden-Snowe proposal to force those financial institutions using Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds to pay excessive bonuses to either return the funds or face an excise tax. A version of the bipartisan proposal -- which was successfully offered as an amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- was regrettably stripped out during House-Senate conference negotiations. Had the initiative been enacted into law, the amendment could have prevented AIG from rewarding top executives in the firm’s financial products division, the same group responsible for engineering risky subprime mortgages, which, in part, led to the collapse of the financial markets.

More at:http://snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=16791883-802a-23ad-4727-62b4beedd66d

edited to add bold text.

[flyarm]

1. I watched Snow on CNN and she said it was done in the back door meetings!

and she was pissed...

don't worry that is the least of it..the billions are going to foreign banks and the Chief economist for Citi just quit his job to go to the US Treasury!

My mattress is going to be stuffed..

and then i just read how our vets are getting the royal treatment..


nothing surprises me anymore!! absolutely nothing!!


Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.


Lawmakers say they'd reject a proposal to make veterans pay for treatment of war wounds with private insurance.


But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

[polichick]

2. Taxpayers should demand to know who deep-sixed it - unfreakinbelievable!

[PM Martin]

34. The Democrats control the congress.

.

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Was it done in conference?

nt

[polichick]

4. Yes - "stripped out during House-Senate conference negotiations"

[PBS Poll-435]

5. I skimmed, but I missed it

Yuck, then we will never know.

The only option is to blame the members on the conference committee, Republicans and Democrats.

[polichick]

6. And I wonder who the lobbyists were that Sen. Wyden mentioned...

Jonathan Turley said tonight that Americans should be outraged at Congress, both parties.

[biopowertoday]

35. it was Treasury

http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/

Dodd's provision was weakened when the bill got to conference. According to those knowledgeable about what happened, it was due to pressure brought to bear by the Treasury out of concern that those with contracts that guaranteed them bonuses would litigate.

Language from the Senate bill, written by Dodd:

(4) a prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period that the obligation is outstanding to at least the 25 most highly-compensated employees, or such higher number as the Secretary may determine is in the public interest with respect to any TARP recipient;

[CreekDog]

15. we can call our reps and get them on the record confirming or denying any involvement

TPM has uncovered a lot of stuff doing just that.

somebody knows. that somebody is afraid to lie about it using their own staff, so they will dance, while those who had nothing to do with it will happily say so.

[polichick]

16. See post 8 - the Obama team didn't care about the amendment...

But I can't imagine why they wouldn't.

[closeupready]

22. Of course somebody knows.

n/t

[karynnj]

24. Actually - the Senate and House conferees were the only ones who could have taken it out

This is a FAR smaller group of people. From the detail on HR1 in the Senate Record-
"February 10
Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Inouye; Baucus; Reid; Cochran; Grassley"

"2/10/2009 4:47pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees: Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Lewis (CA), and Camp. "

So, if it was in the Stimulus bill those are the names.

(The Senate record is hard to link to - go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064 and click on HR1, then on that page all congressional action -

(edited because I found the info )

[polichick]

25. I just called Senator Casey's office to see what I can find out...

The guy said he'll look into it and get back to me.

[biopowertoday]

30. Treasury Attempts to “Blame Dodd” for AIG Bonuses

I think this is a very helpful article.


Treasury Attempts to “Blame Dodd” for AIG Bonuses
By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday March 17, 2009 1:15 pm


As Geithner tries to get out of the way of the AIG bonus train wreck, it looks like the designated sin eater is going to be Chris Dodd:

The administration official said the Treasury Department did its own legal analysis and concluded that those contracts could not be broken. The official noted that even a provision recently pushed through Congress by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, had an exemption for such bonus agreements already in place.

So Treasury says Chris Dodd did this? In a word. . . no.

What they're talking about is a clause in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on Feburuary 17, and places limits on executive compensation for TARP recipients. According to the white paper obtained by FDL written by AIG to explain its legal justification, the $1.2 billion in bonuses they say they are contractually obligated to pay in 2009 are exempt from these limits:

remainder here: http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/

[rwheeler31]

7. Who was in the conference committee?

[polichick]

9. I don't know - wonder if Wyden and Snowe know.

[karynnj]

26. They know who was on the conference - it's in the Senate record

From the detail on HR1 -
"February 10
Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Inouye; Baucus; Reid; Cochran; Grassley"

"2/10/2009 4:47pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees: Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Lewis (CA), and Camp. "

So, if it was in the Stimulus bill those are the names.

(The Senate record is hard to link to - go here http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064 and click on HR1, then on that page all congressional action -

[polichick]

27. Thank you for the post - after studying the link, I called Sen. Wyden's office...

...they are not able to determine who supported stripping the amendment ~ and they have no statement on reasons the Obama team was not convinced that the amendment was needed (after Wyden's attempts to explain it to them).

[TacticalPeek]

8. K & R - Huffington Post is seeking tips on the identity of the culprit.

Looking back, Wyden laments the missed opportunity, saying that it remains unclear who got the language stripped -- "it didn't die by osmosis." (Feel free to send along tips on who killed the provision.)

Moreover, Wyden says frankly, the Obama administration should have been better prepared to handle what was an inevitable political train wreck.

"I will say that I talked to most of the key members of the Obama team and I was not able to convince them of the value of the amendment that I authored with Senator Snowe," he recalled. "I think it is unfortunate. I think it was an opportunity to send a careful, well-targeted message, which would have communicated how strongly the administration felt about blocking these excessive bonuses. I wasn't able to convince them."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/wyden-my-bill-could-have_n_176084.html

[polichick]

10. Wow - that's really disappointing about the Obama team. Thanks for the info.

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. K & R

[cascadiance]

12. I like the spirit of this effort, but you really need to go after the individuals, not the company

... here. The whole point of the "bailout" was to keep the company viable since it was felt they needed to be kept alive to keep our economy healthy. If we take away the money from these companies we kind of defeat that whole purpose, and lose both the money and potentially the goal that was in place to give them the money in the first place.

We HAVE to go after and get rid of those that are abusing the systems in these companies. If that is taxing these INDIVIDUALS extra for these bonuses in some fashion, then that will work better. Penalizing the company won't help.

At this "Enron stage" of these companies, these M'fers don't care about what happens to the company, its investorrs, its customers, or society at large. They want to grab as much as they can before they know they will eventually have to leave. The key is to not give them much and get them to leave EARLIER, and even PROSECUTE them for their criminal actions where possible!

Until we get rid of these criminals that are still in charge of these companies, any money we give to these companies will be stolen by these jerks in their "free fraud zones"... The longer we wait, the more we lose our money and the economy suffers, and these f'ers get rewarded for their crimes!

[SLSmith]

13. Wynden Video on Maddow Show uploaded on UT

I uploaded on UT:
LOBBYIST got EXEC COMP LIMITS STRIPPED FROM STIMULUS IN "CLOSED DOOR SENATE MTGS"
http://burnurl.com/hALAE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzjT3Q1snbc

Also in hindsight, "48 hour review" for bills. Remember this stimulus got slammed down our thoughts! I was even agreeing with Boehner when he was slamming the 1400 bill on the floor saying "what happened to transparency"!

[polichick]

14. What happened to transparency is the question. Who would even WANT to strip this out??

[jeanpalmer]

19. Probably anyone who has received huge campaign

contributions from Wall Street. I assume that's why the contributions are given, to get these kinds of rewards. I think that is well understood in Congress. By both parties. That those who give the contributions get the booty. That's why any outrage from Congress, except from a few honest members, is feigned. They're actually just worried because they got caught providing this benefit..

[polichick]

20. I guess the President's outrage was feigned too, since his people...

...couldn't be convinced that the amendment was important (post 8) ~ this is really stinking stuff!

[flpoljunkie]

17. When banks, insurance companies and real estate brokers say 'jump,' Congress says 'how high?'

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F

It's way past time, we pay for their campaigns so they put the public interest before the special interests. It will never happen, if we don't. Senator Durbin is scheduled soon to reintroduce his bill to publicly financing federal campaigns. We need to support it.

[polichick]

18. Unfortunately, it looks like the Obama team also said "how high" - see post 8...

I agree with you on Durbin's bill.

[polichick]

21. I'll be contacting Sen. Casey's office today to ask what happened...

...to this amendment, and why the Obama team wasn't interested.

[polichick]

23. They say they'll look into it and get back to me - we'll see.

[polichick]

28. Mitchell and Matthews just asked about this on msnbc - WHO stripped it and WHY...

Neither Snowe's office nor Wyden's office would tell me why the Obama Team didn't support their amendment ~ and they say they don't know who stripped it.

[polichick]

29. Sen Snowe on msnbc right now - says the admin. was resistant to the amendment...

...but she doesn't know which Congresspeople stripped it.

[Undercurrent]

31. I posted this earlier in another thread.

Apparently it was done by one or more of these guys. At whose behest?

Conference Committee members. This is the list from "Writes Like She Talks":


-
Senate Democratic leadership has announced who will be serving on the conference committee to iron out differences in the House and Senate versions of the stimulus bill.

* Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
* Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.
* Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii
* Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Both Finance and Appropriations were heavily involved in the creation of the Senate version, with each committee holding markups on their portions.

And for the House:

* Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, D-Wis.
* Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
* Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
* Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Jerry Lewis, R-Calif.
* Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Dave Camp, R-Mich.
http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2009/02/11/no-female-senators-or-reps-on-stimulus-package-conference-committee/

[polichick]

32. So who caved to the "lobbyists" that Wyden talked about last night with Rachel Maddow??

[Undercurrent]

37. Well, my granny always said

that the dog who barks loudest is the guilty one.

Interesting that Grassley went loudly around the bend with his comment that one of his personal choices for those who accepted bonuses was to quit, or commit suicide.

Anyway, once the person(s) who removed this provision is outed, we are one step closer to finding out who pressured/bribed them to do it.

[polichick]

38. Since Dodd just said that some nameless person at Treasury pressured him...

...to change the wording of his amendment or lose it, my guess is someone from Treasury also pressured to get Snowe-Wyden removed.

[empyreanisles]

33. So what, this is issue #1 with you now?

You're such a stellar supporter of our President.

[polichick]

36. How many ID's do you have here anyway??

[polichick]

39. Andrea Mitchell will interview Sen. Wyden in a few minutes - maybe the mystery...

...will be solved.

[polichick]

40. No such luck - he says people are suggesting that the butler did it...

Everybody he spoke with said it must've been someone else who stripped the amendment.

He says there is no excuse for removing it ~ they even covered the legalities of it.