They should have addressed this problem in the bailout legislation, I don't like using taxation in this way
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29771499/
Quote
House passes bill taxing AIG, other bonuses
Measure places a 90 percent tax on some bailout related bonuses
I would imagine that the execs will toss the Reps insurance policies and stock portfolios into the harbour. No taxation without representation.
They did address it in the bailout bill, and Obama's administration insisted on adding language protecting these kinds of bonuses.
Besides being illegal and unconstitutional, this bill could have some more serious unintended consequences.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29786420/
In new dilemma, banks cite 2 paths to disaster
Whether they OK payout restrictions or return aid, execs warn of problems
Smokescreen by Congress, but some of them have genuine anger. But some of that anger needs to be directed at themselves. They knew of these bonuses for weeks or longer, some of them did, even wrote the protections into the Stimulus bill. But that bill was so large, contained so much spending of all kinds over and above economic assistance, that few Congress members knew what was in it as it was rushed to passage. Now Congress is trying to save face, riding the wave of public indignation by having these dog and pony hearings of AIG. Trying to assuage public anger, but that anger is probably more directed at Congress than the convenient foil of AIG. Yes, I was and still am annoyed at bonuses so poorly structured by corps that failure is rewarded. But I'm trying to look beyond that and keep my mind on the economic issues, and what the heck is going on around it all.
Under suspension rules this required 2/3rds support to pass, thus the Democrats could not have successfully passed it on their own. Half of the conservative rump of the Republican party voted YEA. I doubt it's unconstitutional, unless the GOP has thrown those principles under the bus as well.
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2009, 07:28:29 AM
They did address it in the bailout bill, and Obama's administration insisted on adding language protecting these kinds of bonuses.
That would have been a neat trick to pull, given that the AIG bailout and the bonus payout decisions both occurred during the prior administration.
The fact is that Paulson knew about this and gave the go ahead anyway. That is not a bash on Paulson BTW b/c he was facing some real Hobson's choices and made the best call he could at the time.
I love Congress at work. They screw the pooch on the Bonus Issue, so they try to look good by finally doing what the people wanted in the first place. Unfortunately, they'll probably end up spending more on lawsuits than they'll get back from AIG.
Go Dodd!
If I signed a contract to work for a year which after completion Congress then decided they wanted back the money paid to me for that year, my thoughts are that is an unreasonable seizure of my property. It amounts to Congress stiffing me for my labor. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that fits into the Constitutional framework, but I hope it is unconstitutional.
Can the US Congrass change tax rules during the year that is subject to taxation? That would be considered unconstitutional in Poland - the rule is you can only change taxation for future years (and have to allow a proper notice, which in case of taxes is something like 3-6 months before the year begins).
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:53:57 AM
Can the US Congrass change tax rules during the year that is subject to taxation? That would be considered unconstitutional in Poland - the rule is you can only change taxation for future years (and have to allow a proper notice, which in case of taxes is something like 3-6 months before the year begins).
Yes.
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:53:57 AM
Can the US Congrass change tax rules during the year that is subject to taxation? That would be considered unconstitutional in Poland - the rule is you can only change taxation for future years (and have to allow a proper notice, which in case of taxes is something like 3-6 months before the year begins).
I'm not sure, but I don't think that there's been any actual case law on it. So I guess that they can, unless/until a court rules against it. IIRC, they have changed tax
rates during a tax year, but the times that that was done, it was to lower the tax rates, so nobody was going to challange that.
EDIT: Alfred Russell answered "yes" while I was typing. He's more knowledgable in this area than I am, so he's likely right. AR, is there actual case law on this?
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
I think the legal theory is that it's not retroactive because the taxes aren't actually due until the next year.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2009, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:53:57 AM
Can the US Congrass change tax rules during the year that is subject to taxation? That would be considered unconstitutional in Poland - the rule is you can only change taxation for future years (and have to allow a proper notice, which in case of taxes is something like 3-6 months before the year begins).
I'm not sure, but I don't think that there's been any actual case law on it. So I guess that they can, unless/until a court rules against it. IIRC, they have changed tax rates during a tax year, but the times that that was done, it was to lower the tax rates, so nobody was going to challange that.
EDIT: Alfred Russell answered "yes" while I was typing. He's more knowledgable in this area than I am, so he's likely right. AR, is there actual case law on this?
I have no idea--I just know they adjust the current year tax code all the time.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2009, 09:04:37 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
I think the legal theory is that it's not retroactive because the taxes aren't actually due until the next year.
America = epic fail
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
IIRC, there was a USSC case on this early in Clinton's term, whereby they allowed a tax increase in the current year because Clinton campaigned on it and they deemed that "fair notice." It was a very narrow decision, though, and explicitly announced as setting no precedent. Dunno how they will rule on this, but my guess is that legal costs will exceed tax revenues.
Like the russian bear growls, though, this is being done not because it is right or wise, but because it plays well with an ill-informed electorate. The House doesn't care if it ever takes effect; even if struck down, they "get dredit for trying."
Quote from: Berkut on March 20, 2009, 07:28:29 AMThey did address it in the bailout bill, and Obama's administration insisted on adding language protecting these kinds of bonuses.
Dodd says the administration pressured him. Obama said blame me personally. Dodd also said the day before that he didn't know how the language got in there, and thinks we don't keep records or anything and automatically buy the "my comments were misconstrued" b.s. Obama's also been known to redirect heat from Geithner.
Basically, it smells to me as though, for whatever reason, Obama's covering Dodd's ass. Dodd has to know that with all his contributions from AIG, it doesn't look good for him.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:13:24 AM
IIRC, there was a USSC case on this early in Clinton's term, whereby they allowed a tax increase in the current year because Clinton campaigned on it and they deemed that "fair notice." It was a very narrow decision, though
I don't recall that, but if that's correct, making a ruling on the basis of someone's campaign promise stikes me as really bad law.
"Tax loopholes" are closed all the time in ways that apply to the current tax year. Those don't always even have a campaign pledge behind them--the rules are just changed when someone notices the loophole.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: we should tax all foreigners living abroad.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
IIRC, there was a USSC case on this early in Clinton's term, whereby they allowed a tax increase in the current year because Clinton campaigned on it and they deemed that "fair notice." It was a very narrow decision, though, and explicitly announced as setting no precedent.
That is close -- there was a Supreme Court case on this issue in 1994 -- United States v. Carlton - and it did attract a lot of attention b/c of the Clinton tax which had just been passed. But the case actually dealt with different retroactive legislation from 1987 which disallowed an estate tax deduction.
US constitutional law is pretty clear that the Ex Post Facto clause only relates to criminal legislation. So tax changes with retroactive application are analyzed under the rule of constitutional due process. The test is that the legislation must employ rational means to achieve a legitimate legislative purpose. The Carlton case does suggest that a "wholly new tax" may be analyzed more stringently then clarifying amendments to existing taxes, although that appears to be dictum. Interestingly, Scalia and Thomas wrote a dissent where they stated that they thought that the retroactive application was unreasonable, but concurred in the judgment b/c they did not accept the doctrine of substantive due process.
Focusing on the 90% tax proposal, I think it could be a very interesting and close case on due process grounds. Not sure exactly how it would come out.
Quote from: PDH on March 21, 2009, 11:05:01 AM
I've said it before, I'll say it again: we should tax all foreigners living abroad.
And then nuke the moon. or Portugal.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
Well the United States has a written constitution. If the constitution grants the government authority to pass certain legislation, a court can't deny it because it finds the principle upsetting to its scruples. That also is a mainstay of the rule of law, is it not?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2009, 11:46:22 AM
[US constitutional law is pretty clear that the Ex Post Facto clause only relates to criminal legislation.
I will confess that I have always found the reasoningbehind
Calder v. Bull suspect. When the Constitution bans something ("No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder [or] ex post facto Law") and the USSC wraps itself in knots to show that the Constitution does not mean what it says, I find this disturbing.
It is also interesting that the logic the court used to find that the other phrases of Article I section 10 negated the prohibition on ex post facto laws for civil cases (as I understand the ruling, anyway: the logic the court used is somewhat opaque) was also later used to apply to the section 9 prohibition which contains none of the phrases.
I would argue that it is pretty clear that the Constitution flat prohibits ex post facto laws, but that the courts don't want to enforce this prohibition for fear of sparking a controversial showdown with a Congress and state legislatures that desire such a power.
Seems like AIG paid out more bonuses than initially reported. <_<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29812224/
God I think this is a horrible idea. I hope it's vetoed, if it passes the Senate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2009, 01:02:48 PM
God I think this is a horrible idea. I hope it's vetoed, if it passes the Senate.
Unlikely in the extreme.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2009, 11:47:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:58:22 AM
That's curious. In European legal systems, the rule that law cannot impose obligations or burdens on individuals or companies retroactively is considered one of the mainstays of the rule of law.
Well the United States has a written constitution. If the constitution grants the government authority to pass certain legislation, a court can't deny it because it finds the principle upsetting to its scruples. That also is a mainstay of the rule of law, is it not?
In Poland, for example, it is interpreted from article 1 of the constitution which states that "the Republic of Poland is a democratic state operating under the rule of law.", so as you can see there is a room for interpretation there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2009, 01:02:48 PM
God I think this is a horrible idea. I hope it's vetoed, if it passes the Senate.
Take a look at this http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx) Gallup poll from the 17th to understand why even Republicans (who nominally say that the government should be limited) want this irresponsible legislation to pass. Even 2/3 of Republican voters say that the bonuses should be blocked or recovered.
Bumper-sticker thinking has always led to bd law. First with the "stimulus" and "rescue" plans, and now with the bonus taxation.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 01:58:23 PM
In Poland, for example, it is interpreted from article 1 of the constitution which states that "the Republic of Poland is a democratic state operating under the rule of law.", so as you can see there is a room for interpretation there.
The US constitution doesn't need to say that, because we invented the idea of a democratic state under the rule of law.
:)
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 12:19:28 PM
I will confess that I have always found the reasoningbehind Calder v. Bull suspect.
you wouldn't be the first, but the Supreme Court is unlikely to overturn a 200+ year old precedent that has never been seriously questioned.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2009, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 01:58:23 PM
In Poland, for example, it is interpreted from article 1 of the constitution which states that "the Republic of Poland is a democratic state operating under the rule of law.", so as you can see there is a room for interpretation there.
The US constitution doesn't need to say that, because we invented the idea of a democratic state under the rule of law.
:)
I think the British did it before you. :)
I'm so disgusted with Congress and their grandstanding on the bail out issue. What a bunch of bastards, and they may be unwittingly feeding the crazed mob that's starting to stake out AIG employees of any type, regardless if involved with bailouts. This crap has gone too far. Congress's irresponsibility in the lead up to all of this, from financial failures to the problematic bail outs, changing stories on who knew what about bail outs... all of it, now add the mob mentality. All to deflect attention from Congress's errors.
These damn bail outs are annoying but small stuff compared to what's really going on with the economy and efforts to fix things.
Hmm... maybe Congress fears getting run out of town on a rail, so it looks to me like they're getting out in front of the crowd and calling it a parade. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 21, 2009, 02:14:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 01:58:23 PM
In Poland, for example, it is interpreted from article 1 of the constitution which states that "the Republic of Poland is a democratic state operating under the rule of law.", so as you can see there is a room for interpretation there.
The US constitution doesn't need to say that, because we invented the idea of a democratic state under the rule of law.
:)
I rather doubt it (as American Rebellion thinking owed much to Enlightenment philosophes), but you could certainly make a case that the United States was the first to put it into practice.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
Take a look at this http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx) Gallup poll from the 17th to understand why even Republicans (who nominally say that the government should be limited) want this irresponsible legislation to pass. Even 2/3 of Republican voters say that the bonuses should be blocked or recovered.
Bumper-sticker thinking has always led to bd law.
I agree. I think this is to the Democrats what earmarks are to the Republicans. In both cases it's a distraction, they represent tiny sums of money compared to everything else to do with AIG and that earlier big bill. But because the entire thing is hugely difficult to explain and understand it's easier to just get OUTRAGED about this. And I hate the political trend for ever more OUTRAGE about things.
I read a brilliant analogy. The day after I read the AIG bonus story the Fed basically threw in the kitchen sink with its quantitative easing strategy. It basically released trillians of dollars and this was barely noticed so far as I can tell. But if you imagine the AIG figure is $1000 and think how important that is, then by comparison what the Fed did was worth $7 000 000 and it didn't make a ripple.
It's pathetic.
Although I have to say this crisis has made me think the BBC's worth every penny, their explanations on shows like Newsnight have been very good. Because they're looking at the US from without they're not as interested in the political stuff so they tend to talk more about the policy's merits than I seem to think American news outlets do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2009, 04:11:14 PMI agree. I think this is to the Democrats what earmarks are to the Republicans. In both cases it's a distraction, they represent tiny sums of money compared to everything else to do with AIG and that earlier big bill. But because the entire thing is hugely difficult to explain and understand it's easier to just get OUTRAGED about this. And I hate the political trend for ever more OUTRAGE about things.
I read a brilliant analogy. The day after I read the AIG bonus story the Fed basically threw in the kitchen sink with its quantitative easing strategy. It basically released trillians of dollars and this was barely noticed so far as I can tell. But if you imagine the AIG figure is $1000 and think how important that is, then by comparison what the Fed did was worth $7 000 000 and it didn't make a ripple.
It's pathetic.
Although I have to say this crisis has made me think the BBC's worth every penny, their explanations on shows like Newsnight have been very good. Because they're looking at the US from without they're not as interested in the political stuff so they tend to talk more about the policy's merits than I seem to think American news outlets do.
Yeah. The only thing meaningful I've taken from this whole thing is that Barney Frank has finally been
proven to be an idiot, thinking that his vague "ownership rights" supercede the explicit legal written contracts that led to this. No other ownership in the country has the right to penalize its employees so heavily for managements' fault in missing important contractual problems.
The bill will pass, and this will all get worked out in litigation. In five years or so, we'll find out if Congress has the ability to punish class enemies with taxation. If so, it's going to get ugly in politics.
Interestingly enough, I saw a tiny, tiny blurb on CNN's ticker "White House will not endorse tax on AIG bonuses." I'm surprised it hasn't made more ripples; sounds like somebody has set a press embargo.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2009, 07:37:40 PM
Interestingly enough, I saw a tiny, tiny blurb on CNN's ticker "White House will not endorse tax on AIG bonuses." I'm surprised it hasn't made more ripples; sounds like somebody has set a press embargo.
Endorsing or not endorsing is a purely political act. What matters is whether he signs it or vetoes it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 23, 2009, 07:39:19 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2009, 07:37:40 PM
Interestingly enough, I saw a tiny, tiny blurb on CNN's ticker "White House will not endorse tax on AIG bonuses." I'm surprised it hasn't made more ripples; sounds like somebody has set a press embargo.
Endorsing or not endorsing is a purely political act. What matters is whether he signs it or vetoes it.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to start looking for legal foundations for excise taxes, but as I was looking over Title 26 (§ 5891. Structured settlement factoring transactions), which looks to most closely resemble the tax they're proposing, I note that it's only a 40 percent tax. It had been mentioned that the tax code is supposed to be amended for legislative purposes, and not for punitive ones, but does anyone know if that's codified, or if it's just political talking points?
Hopefully this bill gets delayed long enough that the furor would subside, and it will die a much-deserved death. As much as I am sickened by the riches lavished on those who broke the financial system, what Congress tried to do was just a badly thought out lunacy.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2009, 01:40:21 AM
Hopefully this bill gets delayed long enough that the furor would subside, and it will die a much-deserved death. As much as I am sickened by the riches lavished on those who broke the financial system, what Congress tried to do was just a badly thought out lunacy.
Very much agreed. Made Congress look like a bunch of third world thugs. What a seedy and sinister way to do the nation's business.
Instead of, or in addition to, grilling CEO Liddy, they should have been grilling some of their own members and Treasury officials of both the Bush and Obama admins about this. Or better yet, about how the bail outs have been handled over all. But even so, as much as the bonuses anger us, going after them in hearings is more like a deflection from the mistakes and more serious issues around it.
And now I want our Congress members to speak out against the mob mentality and witch hunts targeting AIG workers and families. Might go some to redeem Congress's image, at least over this dog and pony mob farce.
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2009, 07:48:38 AM
Very much agreed. Made Congress look like a bunch of third world thugs. What a seedy and sinister way to do the nation's business.
Instead of, or in addition to, grilling CEO Liddy, they should have been grilling some of their own members and Treasury officials of both the Bush and Obama admins about this. Or better yet, about how the bail outs have been handled over all. But even so, as much as the bonuses anger us, going after them in hearings is more like a deflection from the mistakes and more serious issues around it.
And now I want our Congress members to speak out against the mob mentality and witch hunts targeting AIG workers and families. Might go some to redeem Congress's image, at least over this dog and pony mob farce.
Yeah. I'm pretty repulsed about how Chris Dodd got away with covering a bald-faced lie to the press with an even flimsier one ("my comments were miscontrued"), and nobody made a peep about the possible conflict of interests inherent in him having been the one to draft the language.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 24, 2009, 08:10:34 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2009, 07:48:38 AM
Very much agreed. Made Congress look like a bunch of third world thugs. What a seedy and sinister way to do the nation's business.
Instead of, or in addition to, grilling CEO Liddy, they should have been grilling some of their own members and Treasury officials of both the Bush and Obama admins about this. Or better yet, about how the bail outs have been handled over all. But even so, as much as the bonuses anger us, going after them in hearings is more like a deflection from the mistakes and more serious issues around it.
And now I want our Congress members to speak out against the mob mentality and witch hunts targeting AIG workers and families. Might go some to redeem Congress's image, at least over this dog and pony mob farce.
Yeah. I'm pretty repulsed about how Chris Dodd got away with covering a bald-faced lie to the press with an even flimsier one ("my comments were miscontrued"), and nobody made a peep about the possible conflict of interests inherent in him having been the one to draft the language.
Apparently Dodd's wife works for one of the AIG firms; not necessarily a big deal I guess. But it would be hilariously bad if she was supposed to get a bonus! :face:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/03/23/senator-dodds-wife-and-aig/
God I hate politics and legislation by outrage.
I don't see how the administration can sign something like this, while making public-private partnerships a centerpiece of its asset clean-up plan. The latter is going to require that private financiers have confidence in the contractual commitments being made by the government.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 23, 2009, 07:46:12 PM
It had been mentioned that the tax code is supposed to be amended for legislative purposes, and not for punitive ones, but does anyone know if that's codified, or if it's just political talking points?
The only restriction I know of is the 5th amendment - whether this would run afoul of the 5th I think is a pretty close question.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 02:02:28 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2009, 01:02:48 PM
God I think this is a horrible idea. I hope it's vetoed, if it passes the Senate.
Take a look at this http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116941/Outraged-Americans-AIG-Bonus-Money-Recovered.aspx) Gallup poll from the 17th to understand why even Republicans (who nominally say that the government should be limited) want this irresponsible legislation to pass. Even 2/3 of Republican voters say that the bonuses should be blocked or recovered.
Bumper-sticker thinking has always led to bd law. First with the "stimulus" and "rescue" plans, and now with the bonus taxation.
Indeed. I don't find it that surprising, except when otherwise smart people jump on the stupid bandwagon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 09:03:12 AM
I don't see how the administration can sign something like this, while making public-private partnerships a centerpiece of its asset clean-up plan. The latter is going to require that private financiers have confidence in the contractual commitments being made by the government.
Yeah, from what I've read, doing this punitive type legislation can put a real damper on anyone thinking of investing in these recovery plans, or taking actions such as buying into the assets that troubled corps try to sell off.
Quote from: DGuller on March 24, 2009, 01:40:21 AM
Hopefully this bill gets delayed long enough that the furor would subside, and it will die a much-deserved death. As much as I am sickened by the riches lavished on those who broke the financial system, what Congress tried to do was just a badly thought out lunacy.
I disagree - what Congress is trying to do is much worse.
Quote from: Valmy on March 24, 2009, 08:46:34 AM
God I hate politics and legislation by outrage.
Mob rule is hilarious.
Quote from: KRonn on March 24, 2009, 09:57:03 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 09:03:12 AM
I don't see how the administration can sign something like this, while making public-private partnerships a centerpiece of its asset clean-up plan. The latter is going to require that private financiers have confidence in the contractual commitments being made by the government.
Yeah, from what I've read, doing this punitive type legislation can put a real damper on anyone thinking of investing in these recovery plans, or taking actions such as buying into the assets that troubled corps try to sell off.
The investors stand to realize a 700% profit based on Joan's scenario with a limited downside risk. I think Wall Street will swallow just about anything to see those kinds of numbers.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 24, 2009, 09:03:12 AM
I don't see how the administration can sign something like this, while making public-private partnerships a centerpiece of its asset clean-up plan. The latter is going to require that private financiers have confidence in the contractual commitments being made by the government.
Is the government actually breaking any contracts that they signed? I thought these payout deals were arranged in 2007 or well before Bush bailed them out.
Opinion from todays New York Times:
[http]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?ref=opinion[/http]
QuoteDEAR Mr. Liddy,
It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:
I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.
After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.
You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I'd like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute's generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.
I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.'s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.'s effort to repay the American taxpayer.
The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.
I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country's call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.
But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn't defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.
My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That's probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would "live up to its commitment" to honor the contract guarantees.
That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts "distasteful."
That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.
At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.
I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It's now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.
You've now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.
As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.
Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.'s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.'s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.
The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to "name and shame," and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.
So what am I to do? There's no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn't disagree.
That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.'s or the federal government's budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.
On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.
This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.
Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company's diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I'll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what's happened this past week I can't remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I'm not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I'll leave under my own power and will not need to be "shoved out the door."
Sincerely,
Jake DeSantis
I'm disappointed to learn that AIG executives aren't Nazi Space Monsters who spend their time spitting their venemous acid-blood on taxpayers. Barney Frank lied to us. :(
Quote from: Savonarola on March 25, 2009, 02:06:11 PM
I'm disappointed to learn that AIG executives aren't Nazi Space Monsters who spend their time spitting their venemous acid-blood on taxpayers. Barney Frank lied to us. :(
Barney lied, corporations died.... ;)
I too was annoyed at the bonuses at first, and still find some of it out of place if rewarding people when a corp goes insolvent, due in part to their activities. But I soon felt that my anger was directed too much at the bonus issue, for AIG in particular. So now, our government has helped turn this all into a lynch mob. Politicians and law enforcement are feeding the frenzy by issuing threats to people who are receiving a legal (if unseemly) wage/bonus/payment. ACORN is sponsoring (at taxpayer's expense I assume?) bus tours and demonstrations of AIG worker's homes. Dogs and cats are NOT living together....
As part of a letter I wrote to my Congressman, I asked him to call off the dogs, to speak out against the witch hunts going on, as it's getting ugly and perhaps misdirected. A deflection away from the real and more serious issues.
CEO Liddy, who came out of retirement to try and help resolve AIG's problems, sell off divisions, etc, was made to suffer the slurs and insults of Congress members. Those same members who also have their own measure of infamy, large or small, in the fiscal crisis.
Jake heaps a lot of righteous scorn on the AGs and Congress but the letter and the resignation are directed at the CEO of AIG, who's sin is "not being supportive enough." That's pretty girly-mannish.
Yeah, I don't understand why more people aren't mad at Congress. When in doubt, always blame Congress for anything and everything. Government's not the solution, it's the problem. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 25, 2009, 02:38:45 PM
Yeah, I don't understand why more people aren't mad at Congress. When in doubt, always blame Congress for anything and everything. Government's not the solution, it's the problem. :)
JOHN GALT! RON PAUL! BUY RV'S!
I think Liddy - and other AIG executives - deserve as much of a blame as the politicians, so no problem with me, with stringing them up.
I think AIG deserves to fall either way. Whenever they try to call me these days to offer some sort of private investment scheme, I just laugh in their face.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 02:57:28 PM
I think Liddy - and other AIG executives - deserve as much of a blame as the politicians, so no problem with me, with stringing them up.
I think AIG deserves to fall either way. Whenever they try to call me these days to offer some sort of private investment scheme, I just laugh in their face.
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
A division is being dismantled.
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 02:57:28 PM
I think Liddy - and other AIG executives - deserve as much of a blame as the politicians, so no problem with me, with stringing them up.
I think AIG deserves to fall either way. Whenever they try to call me these days to offer some sort of private investment scheme, I just laugh in their face.
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
Well, I was responding to the posts saying how we really shouldn't pile up on the poor Liddy. I sympathise with ordinary employees, like the guy who wrote the letter, and indeed agree that many of them are getting the shaft, but I don't agree that the politicians are solely to blame for that - people like Liddy and the rest of the AIG CEOs should be shipped to the middle of Atlantic, and drowned.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 02:57:28 PM
I think Liddy - and other AIG executives - deserve as much of a blame as the politicians, so no problem with me, with stringing them up.
I think AIG deserves to fall either way. Whenever they try to call me these days to offer some sort of private investment scheme, I just laugh in their face.
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
Well, I was responding to the posts saying how we really shouldn't pile up on the poor Liddy. I sympathise with ordinary employees, like the guy who wrote the letter, and indeed agree that many of them are getting the shaft, but I don't agree that the politicians are solely to blame for that - people like Liddy and the rest of the AIG CEOs should be shipped to the middle of Atlantic, and drowned.
You do realize that Liddy took over AFTER AIG shit the bed, right?
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:15:25 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 02:57:28 PM
I think Liddy - and other AIG executives - deserve as much of a blame as the politicians, so no problem with me, with stringing them up.
I think AIG deserves to fall either way. Whenever they try to call me these days to offer some sort of private investment scheme, I just laugh in their face.
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
Well, I was responding to the posts saying how we really shouldn't pile up on the poor Liddy. I sympathise with ordinary employees, like the guy who wrote the letter, and indeed agree that many of them are getting the shaft, but I don't agree that the politicians are solely to blame for that - people like Liddy and the rest of the AIG CEOs should be shipped to the middle of Atlantic, and drowned.
You do realize that Liddy took over AFTER AIG shit the bed, right?
Of course I do.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:18:38 PM
Of course I do.
What exactly has Liddy done that you find objectionable?
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
The letter offers some examples.
By my reading it offers one. Liddy promised the bonuses, then after the public shitstorm hit he asked his employees to return them. Keep in mind that AIG is at the moment dependent on public money for its existence. Do you think that's a hanging offence?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 02:36:42 PM
Jake heaps a lot of righteous scorn on the AGs and Congress but the letter and the resignation are directed at the CEO of AIG, who's sin is "not being supportive enough." That's pretty girly-mannish.
It's a literary conceit.
It's a letter to the editor and the main targets are lawmakers and the AGs. Having it be in the form of a letter to Liddy is just a framing mechanism.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 03:05:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 25, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
There is no question of them "falling" - read the damn letter. They are being dismantled even as we speak.
A division is being dismantled.
The whole company is being taken apart. They are busy shopping and selling off pieces (e.g. the entire Asia based insurance operations), and the the government has taken separate stakes in the principal US-based insurance subs.
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:18:38 PM
Of course I do.
:huh:
What next- blame Adenauer for WW2?
Quote from: Martinus on March 25, 2009, 03:22:37 PM
The letter offers some examples.
Quote me some examples, Mr. Lawtalker.
Hehe... not sure if it really matters, but it seems our esteemed Congress members, you know, some of those railing against AIG in that Kangaroo court like hearing, continue to get campaign donations from corps that received TARP money. Lol. So um, if it's, like, real bad to give bonuses, using taxpayer money, isn't it at least kind of bad to receive donations given with taxpayer money? Just wondering; not trying to open a can of worms or get too controversial here. :unsure:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/27/1868569.aspx
The Magic Circle
Posted: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:17 PM by Petra Cahill
From NBC's Chuck Todd
In the midst of the congressional outrage over bonuses and bailouts, many of the very firms who benefitted from TARP funds are still making political donations. And the politicians are still taking them.
According to the latest F.E.C. data for February, several members of Congress who have been critical of the federal government's bailout of U.S. companies have received campaign contributions just in the last six weeks – from the firms they bailed out.
Campaign-finance-reform advocate Fred Wertheimer says the government's been bailing out banks and other major "too-big-to-fail" firms -- as these same companies continue to use their PACs to make contributions. "It all adds up to kind of a magic circle involving the government, TARP recipients, members of Congress, and campaign contributions." The reality, of course, is that these contributions, individually, aren't a lot of money. But many members of Congress (including Speaker Pelosi and Financial Services Chair Barney Frank) have decided against taking any of the money. The optics of this for both the banks and for the members of Congress is bad, and only feeds the credibility problems both entities have with the American public.
Video: NBC's Chuck Todd reports on the political contributions some politicians are getting from businesses and other organizations receiving bailout money.
So who is getting money and giving it right back to the politicians? Here's a list of companies who received at least $1 billion in TARP funds and in February alone also gave money to members of Congress or national parties:
(Note: more TARP-recipients may have given money in February but not every company PAC reports their contributions monthly, some do it quarterly, meaning we won't know until mid-April if these figures are actually higher)
Citigroup
Bank of America
Goldman Sachs
U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Chrysler
American Express
KeyCorp
BB&T
Huntington Shares
Now here's a list of House leadership and banking committee members who got money from these bailed-out companies:
(Note: Some members of Congress received contributions directly to their campaign accounts and some received money to their leadership PACs.)
Steve Austria, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Melissa Bean, D-Ill., $5,000 from Bank of America
Roy Blunt, R-Mo., $1,500 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
John Boehner, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from American Express; $1,500 from U.S.
Bancorp employee PAC
Kevin Brady, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from American Express
Eric Cantor, R-Va., $2,500 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from Chrysler; $2,500
from American Express
Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Joe Crowley, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of American
Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Vern Ehlers, R-Mich., $1,200 from Huntington Shares
Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Steny Hoyer, D-Md., $1,500 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., $1,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp
Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Leonard Lance, R-N.J., $1,000 from Citigroup; $2,000 from Goldman Sachs
Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., $1,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
Greg Meeks, D-N.Y., $5,000 from Bank of America
Gary Miller, R-Calif., $1,000 from Bank of America
Gwen Moore, D-Wis., $2,500 from Bank of America
Richard Neal, D-Mass., $4,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from American
Express
Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Devin Nunes, R-Calif., $5,000 from Bank of America
Glenn Nye, D-Va., $250 from BB&T
Mike Pence, R-Ind., $1,000 from Chrysler
Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., $1,000 from Chrysler
Mike Rogers, R-Mich., $1,000 from Chrysler
Pete Sessions, R-Texas, $5,000 from Bank of America
Lamar Smith, R-Texas, $1,000 from American Express
Pat Tiberi, R-Ohio, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
Mel Watt, D-N.C., $1,000 from Bank of America; $1,000 from BB&T; $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp
employee PAC
But Senators also benefitted:
(Note: Both Reid and Shelby say they returned their checks.)
Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Robert Bennett, R-Utah, $1,000 from Chrysler
Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $1,000 from Chrysler
Richard Burr, R-N.C., $5,000 from Bank of America
Tom Carper, D-Del., $620 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $5,000 from Bank of America
Jim DeMint, R-S.C., $2,000 from Citigroup; $1,000 from Bank of America; $2,000 from BB&T; $1,000
from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., $1,000 from Citigroup
Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., $1,000 from Bank of America
Bob Menendez, D-N.J., $5,000 from Bank of America
Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., $2,500 from Citigroup; $4,000 from Bank of America
Harry Reid, D-Nev., $1,000 from U.S. Bancorp employee PAC
Richard Shelby, R-Ala., $5,000 from Bank of America
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., $2,000 from Chrysler
George Voinovich, R-Ohio, $5,000 from Bank of America
And so did the Parties.
The Democrats:
(Note: Both the DSCC and the DCCC say they never received the checks Bank of America reported in their March FEC report)
NDCPAC, $5,000 from Citigroup, $5,000 from Bank of America
Blue Dog PAC, $5,000 from Citigroup; $5,000 from Bank of America
DSCC , $15,000 from Bank of America
DCCC, $15,000 from Bank of America
FourOhDems, $1,000 from Huntington Shares
And the Republicans:
HouseConFund, $5,000 from Bank of America
GOP Main Street, $5,000 from Bank of America
NRSC, $15,000 from Bank of America
NRCC $15,000 from Bank of America
Interestingly, Goldman Sachs actually reported members of Congress who refused to cash their checks, including Rep. Stephanie Herseth, D-S.D., Rep. Pete DeFazio, D-Ore., and then-Congressman and now chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Want to know if your Congressman is getting these contributions?
Check out the FEC's reports. http://www.fec.gov/disclosure.shtml (main FEC "Campaign Reports and Data" page)
and http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/disclosure_data_search.shtml (FEC "Disclosure Data Search" - search by donor or politician).
(Note: some companies have multiple PACs, like Bank of America.)
What about whether or not your Congressman's contributors have taken bailout money?
Try here: http://www.ustreas.gov/initiatives/eesa/docs/transaction_report_03-16-09.pdf (Treasury TARP Transactions List)
This is kind of a non-issue, the Senate isn't going to be on board for this and neither is the President. It was little more than a populist uproar that quickly subsided.
I'm a little more surprised people haven't been waving pitchforks over how many billions are going overseas right now (and for good reason--but the kneejerk reaction these days would be to bitch and moan.)
Obama was already questioning (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123777236733010369.html) the constitutionality of the law last week.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 25, 2009, 02:36:42 PM
Jake heaps a lot of righteous scorn on the AGs and Congress but the letter and the resignation are directed at the CEO of AIG, who's sin is "not being supportive enough." That's pretty girly-mannish.
I disagree--it is a public vote of no-confidence in the CEO of a company that calls into question his integrity. Coming from a senior person at the company, it is unusual.
If you think about the internal situation at AIG, the one technique that management has to keep some sort of morale is to offer an "us vs. them" mentality among the employees. That won't be possible if Jake can convince the rank and file that Liddy is dishonest and willing to sell employees out to avoid the anger of congress.
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
I disagree--it is a public vote of no-confidence in the CEO of a company that calls into question his integrity. Coming from a senior person at the company, it is unusual.
If you think about the internal situation at AIG, the one technique that management has to keep some sort of morale is to offer an "us vs. them" mentality among the employees. That won't be possible if Jake can convince the rank and file that Liddy is dishonest and willing to sell employees out to avoid the anger of congress.
Well yeah, if Liddy were asking for the money back just because harsh words make him sweaty and twitchy. I see it more as an attempt to keep the feds from pulling the plug.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 03:52:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on March 27, 2009, 03:44:10 PM
I disagree--it is a public vote of no-confidence in the CEO of a company that calls into question his integrity. Coming from a senior person at the company, it is unusual.
If you think about the internal situation at AIG, the one technique that management has to keep some sort of morale is to offer an "us vs. them" mentality among the employees. That won't be possible if Jake can convince the rank and file that Liddy is dishonest and willing to sell employees out to avoid the anger of congress.
Well yeah, if Liddy were asking for the money back just because harsh words make him sweaty and twitchy. I see it more as an attempt to keep the feds from pulling the plug.
My take when viewing the snippets of testimony Liddy gave was extremely negative toward him for some of the reasons given in the letter.
Just read a little AP snippet in the local paper about a House Financial Services Subcommittee bill that would leave it up to the administration to decide if bonuses at bailed companies were "excessive or unjustified." I.e. dump the PR problem in Obama/Geithner's laps. The headline suggested this was a replacement for the 90% tax proposal, whereas the text made it seem more like a counterproposal.
First of all, let me concede my own bias: I voluntarily "went down with the ship" at my workplace tonight, so I'm starting to get some perspective on what management might have been trying to achieve with the retention bonuses.
Those of us staying at CSD had management shift a few perks our way because there was no specific severance package. The author of the letter suggests that management promised to make good on the bonuses as a sort of pseudo-severance and an incentive to stick around long enough to break up the FPD in an orderly manner. Has anyone established that these FPD people also received a severance above and beyond the retention bonus, or is it possible that management did actually feel they needed to add incentive to keep FPD's breakup from hitting AIG even harder?
I'm also a little disappointed in everyone's willingness to string Liddy up as a scapegoat, even after admitting they know he had extremely little to do with either the initial FPD fiasco, or the newer one that saw these bonuses built into the contracts.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 05:52:02 PM
Just read a little AP snippet in the local paper about a House Financial Services Subcommittee bill that would leave it up to the administration to decide if bonuses at bailed companies were "excessive or unjustified." I.e. dump the PR problem in Obama/Geithner's laps. The headline suggested this was a replacement for the 90% tax proposal, whereas the text made it seem more like a counterproposal.
Either way, it's a lot more palatable. TARP is a Treasury issue, so Treasury should have at least the initial say. Geithner and the typewriter-monkeys can make a cooler decision, and thus far, we've seen
much better media management by Obama and his folks in the White House than by Congress.
What's a CSD?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 28, 2009, 01:44:04 AM
What's a CSD?
Communication Service for the Deaf. Up until 4:15 today, I worked in the telephone relay division. The whole thing didn't go down, but we closed our NJ center. I was offered a transfer to the Moorehead, ND center, but considering the flooding issue they've got right now, I'm kind of glad I didn't take it.
ND as in North Dakota? There's jobs there not related to farming or the maintenance of missile silos?
Quote from: Syt on March 28, 2009, 01:55:18 AM
ND as in North Dakota? There's jobs there not related to farming or the maintenance of missile silos?
Oil.