Wednesday, March 25, 2009
To Impeach or not to Impeach?
To Impeach or not to Impeach? That is the question.
Many states are experiencing significant financial crisis with many citizens homeless, unemployed, and destitute. The Federal Government is offering stimulus funds to the states to assist in alleviating some of the financial burdens that are plaguing the states and to get the economy “flowing again. However, some decision making bodies are being selective in the funds that they will accept due to the fact that they “fear” there is too much Federal Government control being exhibited and they do not want their decision making capabilities to be affected by the potential for Federal Government mandates on State or City processes (of which many are probably antiquated and need to be revised). Well, American Citizens are subjected to government mandates daily both personally and professionally. Why should state government be any different?
The big question becomes … Why would a decision maker deny its constituents funding based on the perception of how the funding may or may not affect the future of the state, when the citizens are suffering financially? Because the decision maker is “out of touch” with their constituents. When you live in a state funded home and your livelihood is funded by the state, then you cannot understand the plight of your constituents. You do not understand that they need assistance now to survive rather than be concerned about 2, 3, or even 5 years from now. With the condition of the economy many are not even sure they will be alive over the next few years, if they are homeless or destitute.
Now the question for the ordinary citizen is whether the decision maker is committing an offense that could be considered “impeachable” so that they could be removed from office and a more amicable decision maker elected that would represent the people and make decision based on the “welfare” of the people. In researching impeachable offenses the only term that could be applicable is “Impeachment for High Crimes or Misdemeanors”. Is a decision maker that refuses stimulus funds that could improve the public welfare and in the public interest committing a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is the non-acceptance of stimulus funds that are focused on education, unemployment, medical records technology, and public safety violating the public welfare and the public interest? You decide.
For more on Impeachment visit http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#eleven
Many states are experiencing significant financial crisis with many citizens homeless, unemployed, and destitute. The Federal Government is offering stimulus funds to the states to assist in alleviating some of the financial burdens that are plaguing the states and to get the economy “flowing again. However, some decision making bodies are being selective in the funds that they will accept due to the fact that they “fear” there is too much Federal Government control being exhibited and they do not want their decision making capabilities to be affected by the potential for Federal Government mandates on State or City processes (of which many are probably antiquated and need to be revised). Well, American Citizens are subjected to government mandates daily both personally and professionally. Why should state government be any different?
The big question becomes … Why would a decision maker deny its constituents funding based on the perception of how the funding may or may not affect the future of the state, when the citizens are suffering financially? Because the decision maker is “out of touch” with their constituents. When you live in a state funded home and your livelihood is funded by the state, then you cannot understand the plight of your constituents. You do not understand that they need assistance now to survive rather than be concerned about 2, 3, or even 5 years from now. With the condition of the economy many are not even sure they will be alive over the next few years, if they are homeless or destitute.
Now the question for the ordinary citizen is whether the decision maker is committing an offense that could be considered “impeachable” so that they could be removed from office and a more amicable decision maker elected that would represent the people and make decision based on the “welfare” of the people. In researching impeachable offenses the only term that could be applicable is “Impeachment for High Crimes or Misdemeanors”. Is a decision maker that refuses stimulus funds that could improve the public welfare and in the public interest committing a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is the non-acceptance of stimulus funds that are focused on education, unemployment, medical records technology, and public safety violating the public welfare and the public interest? You decide.
For more on Impeachment visit http://essential-book.org/books/impeach/#eleven
Thursday, March 19, 2009
No more money for the Mortgage Industry lenders. Explore other options.
No more money for the Mortgage Industry lenders. Explore other options.
Thank you Federal Reserve for releasing another $1 Trillion into the American Economy to provide more money for banks to buy other banks, to pay off other banks, and to give retention bonuses on the pretense that it will reduce mortgages and enable banks to start lending again. The first monies released did not alleviate the credit problems. What makes you think that another Trillion dollars to the mortgage industry is going to do any better. The fallacy is that the Federal Reserve is under the false ideology that if they continue to give money to the mortgage industry that the economy will improve. The premise of the additional infusion of monies is that interest rates will be lowered and homeowners will be able to afford the lower mortgage payment. The issue with the premise is that there are millions of homeowners that are unemployed and no matter how low the interest rate is the homeowner “WILL NOT” be able to make mortgage payments based on their unemployment benefits. In addition, the mortgage industry gives the false impression that they are concerned about the homeowner, when they are the very entities that caused the foreclosure dilemma. Rather than infusing monies into these organizations, the Federal Government needs to switch these homeowners over to the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, for low income homeowners whereby the Federal Government subsidizes part of the mortgage payment and the portion that the homeowner pays is minimal. This would continue until the homeowner became employed again and then the payment would increase in proportion to their income. Utilization of the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, which is a Federal program, American Taxpayers would know that their tax dollars are truly assisting them. The mortgage industry would not be privileged to taxpayer dollars that they can use for any purpose without accountability. There should be more options explored rather than immediately assuming that the only avenue for improving the foreclosure crisis and the problems that homeowners are experiencing is to keep “shoveling” monies into the mortgage industry.
For more information on the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, visit http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/
Thank you Federal Reserve for releasing another $1 Trillion into the American Economy to provide more money for banks to buy other banks, to pay off other banks, and to give retention bonuses on the pretense that it will reduce mortgages and enable banks to start lending again. The first monies released did not alleviate the credit problems. What makes you think that another Trillion dollars to the mortgage industry is going to do any better. The fallacy is that the Federal Reserve is under the false ideology that if they continue to give money to the mortgage industry that the economy will improve. The premise of the additional infusion of monies is that interest rates will be lowered and homeowners will be able to afford the lower mortgage payment. The issue with the premise is that there are millions of homeowners that are unemployed and no matter how low the interest rate is the homeowner “WILL NOT” be able to make mortgage payments based on their unemployment benefits. In addition, the mortgage industry gives the false impression that they are concerned about the homeowner, when they are the very entities that caused the foreclosure dilemma. Rather than infusing monies into these organizations, the Federal Government needs to switch these homeowners over to the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, for low income homeowners whereby the Federal Government subsidizes part of the mortgage payment and the portion that the homeowner pays is minimal. This would continue until the homeowner became employed again and then the payment would increase in proportion to their income. Utilization of the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, which is a Federal program, American Taxpayers would know that their tax dollars are truly assisting them. The mortgage industry would not be privileged to taxpayer dollars that they can use for any purpose without accountability. There should be more options explored rather than immediately assuming that the only avenue for improving the foreclosure crisis and the problems that homeowners are experiencing is to keep “shoveling” monies into the mortgage industry.
For more information on the Housing and Urban Development Programs, such as the Section 8 program, visit http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/homeownership/
Take a Walk in an (Unemployed) Americans Shoes
Take a Walk in an (Unemployed) Americans Shoes
The Federal Government and President Obama continue to use the top down spending method rather than bottom up spending. There is not the realization that spending does not occur as much with the Middle Class as with the lower class. Many middle class families have purchased most of the “big ticket” items and are only spending on basic needs items. It is the lower class that has been the true spender purchasing big ticket items with disposable income. Most Middle Class families are saving disposable income rather than spending it. It would seem that the Federal Government and President Obama are not relating to the plight of the unemployed taxpayers. They cannot understand the “Plight of the Unemployed and Low Income Americans” because they have not walked in their shoes. When you have money and a job, you cannot understand how these Americans are not surviving. There are many Americans unemployed receiving unemployment benefits that do not cover even their basic needs. There are Americans homeless and living in tents. There are families living in cars and without food or water. Yet, the Federal Government and President Obama are concerned with how big corporations are “faring” during the financial crisis. As a country, we are concerned with Third World Countries and providing food and monies for improving their living conditions, yet we cannot even resolve our own conditions of American citizens. Charity begins at home. The Federal Government and President Obama have got to start to think about the American people and what they need to survive in these bad financial times. There is this perception that the Federal Government does not want to provide monies directly to the people. How else can spending be generated? If money can be “loaned” to big corporations with the “assumption” that it will be paid back over time, then why can’t the American Taxpayer get a loan so easily to assist them in overcoming their financial barriers that are really not a product of their own doing, but that of the very corporations that are receiving these taxpayer dollars.
The Federal Government and President Obama continue to use the top down spending method rather than bottom up spending. There is not the realization that spending does not occur as much with the Middle Class as with the lower class. Many middle class families have purchased most of the “big ticket” items and are only spending on basic needs items. It is the lower class that has been the true spender purchasing big ticket items with disposable income. Most Middle Class families are saving disposable income rather than spending it. It would seem that the Federal Government and President Obama are not relating to the plight of the unemployed taxpayers. They cannot understand the “Plight of the Unemployed and Low Income Americans” because they have not walked in their shoes. When you have money and a job, you cannot understand how these Americans are not surviving. There are many Americans unemployed receiving unemployment benefits that do not cover even their basic needs. There are Americans homeless and living in tents. There are families living in cars and without food or water. Yet, the Federal Government and President Obama are concerned with how big corporations are “faring” during the financial crisis. As a country, we are concerned with Third World Countries and providing food and monies for improving their living conditions, yet we cannot even resolve our own conditions of American citizens. Charity begins at home. The Federal Government and President Obama have got to start to think about the American people and what they need to survive in these bad financial times. There is this perception that the Federal Government does not want to provide monies directly to the people. How else can spending be generated? If money can be “loaned” to big corporations with the “assumption” that it will be paid back over time, then why can’t the American Taxpayer get a loan so easily to assist them in overcoming their financial barriers that are really not a product of their own doing, but that of the very corporations that are receiving these taxpayer dollars.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bad Performance, Bailout Money … How about a Retention Bonus?
Chrysler is the next organization that received bailout funds and yet they are still considering paying retention bonuses to its top executives (http://www.freep.com/article/20090318/BUSINESS01/90318099/1003/NEWS) despite the Free Press warning Chrysler to “think hard” before making the same blunder as AIG. Chrysler contends that the US Treasury knew about the bonuses when they provided the bailout monies. Do the American Taxpayer care what was said before March 15, 2009, concerning payment of retention bonuses? No. The American Taypayers are concerned that these big companies received such absorbent bailout monies on the pretense that it was needed to remain solvent and yet they are paying out bonuses that is really taxpayer monies. We want our monies back!!! The average taxpayer could survive for years based on our standard of living if we received the retention bonuses of these executives. There is no excuse that the CEO of Chrysler can provide for paying the retention bonuses based on how the organization is functioning. As we have stated about AIG, why would you reward incompetence? Get rid of all the executives, hire new ones and let the organization start with a new slate. The Federal Government needs to send in a “Sweeper” When organizations initiate a downsizing or re-engineering process, they may utilize a ”Sweeper”. “Sweeping” entails terminating non-productive employees and replacing them with new employees. These executives have shown that they are non-productive. The CEOs continue to indicate that the organization could not function appropriately and profitably without the executive. Let’s be realistic, the organization is in the current financial state due to the performance of these very CEOs. As “stockholders” in Chrysler, due to the utilization of taxpayer monies, the American Taxpayers request that the Federal Government excise its right as representative for the people and demand that these organizations not pay “ANY” retention bonuses until the organization is profitable and has paid back all of the loan monies. In addition, the salaries of the executives should be scrutinized and reduced for lack of performance. If a regular employee was not performing, they would be either terminated or demoted. Why are these executives still in their positions? Receiving the same salaries? And even being considered to receive retention bonuses? Call them all before the Senate and the House and let them occupy the “Seat of Shame” that was occupied by CEO Liddy.
Contact your US Senator and Representative and let them know “We are not going to take it anymore”. We want our monies back, now!!!
Contact your US Senator and Representative and let them know “We are not going to take it anymore”. We want our monies back, now!!!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Presidential Call to Action on Credit Card Companies that received TARP funds
Presidential Call to Action on Credit Card Companies that received TARP funds
Credit card companies are preying on the plight of Americans that are already in a financial crisis. Many credit card companies are raising annual interest rates on credit cards making minimum payment raise an average of 30-50% regardless of the consumer credit scores or payment history. These are banks that received taxpayer government assistance under the TARP program and now they are receiving double benefits through their hikes in minimum monthly payments. As the already financially strapped consumer tries to make the minimum monthly payment to at least maintain their good credit through the economic crisis they are finding themselves in a significant dilemma of whether to continue making the payment, seek debt relief, or simply default on the credit card payments and accept the credit hit. Credit Card companies hope that the consumer will chose the last option so that they can receive more bailout monies as the demonstrate to the Federal Government that they are unable to meet their own financial obligations.
As taxpayers that has already given a hefty bailout to these credit card companies through the banking system, it is up to the Federal Government to step in and regulate the interest rates that banks can charge during this economic crisis. If a bank has received bailout monies, they should not be able to increase interest rates over the next ten years to allow consumers and the economy to recuperate from this economic dilemma that they have created. Why should the American taxpayers receive a double hit, bailout monies and increased monthly payments, to supplement the high salaries of the executives at these banks (http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/23/executive-compensation-at-banks/)? The concern of many is that there was not due diligence by the Federal Government to investigate past practices of these organizations to determine what caused the financial instabilities prior to the bailouts. There was no financial analysis of the organization to determine where the organizations sustained the losses and why. When the banking industry indicated that they would fail without government assistance, there was no government officials saying “why, when, how, where, and what”.
When a taxpayer requests government assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services, they are subject to intense scrutiny. They have to provide their income, household information, bank data, and everyone within the household income. Many are subject to interrogations as to why they need the money, why they are not working and limitations are put on how long they can receive the money and what it can be used for. When the banking system requested assistance, the only question was “How much?” What is wrong with this comparison? Ordinary citizens are homeless, without utilities, families are living on the streets while what are rightfully taxpayer monies is being used by the Federal Government to increase the wealth of the CEOs.
This is a call to action for the Federal Government and President Obama to intercede with the credit card companies and banks and indicate that if they received bailout monies they cannot increase the annual rates and that they should actually be lowered to less than 10% to allow the American taxpayers to be able to “survive” in this economic crisis. While there are debt relief organization that can assist consumers, they are of little assistance when the consumer can barely make payments and while using the debt relief organization they are paying a fee for the organization to be an intermediary. There should be automatic debt relief programs offered directly from the credit card companies for consumers that are unemployed so that they are not subject to the continuing interest rates while unemployed. Federal Government and the President have an obligation to the consumers to enforce that reduction of interest based on the utilization of taxpayer monies to assistance these companies.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more blogs.
Credit card companies are preying on the plight of Americans that are already in a financial crisis. Many credit card companies are raising annual interest rates on credit cards making minimum payment raise an average of 30-50% regardless of the consumer credit scores or payment history. These are banks that received taxpayer government assistance under the TARP program and now they are receiving double benefits through their hikes in minimum monthly payments. As the already financially strapped consumer tries to make the minimum monthly payment to at least maintain their good credit through the economic crisis they are finding themselves in a significant dilemma of whether to continue making the payment, seek debt relief, or simply default on the credit card payments and accept the credit hit. Credit Card companies hope that the consumer will chose the last option so that they can receive more bailout monies as the demonstrate to the Federal Government that they are unable to meet their own financial obligations.
As taxpayers that has already given a hefty bailout to these credit card companies through the banking system, it is up to the Federal Government to step in and regulate the interest rates that banks can charge during this economic crisis. If a bank has received bailout monies, they should not be able to increase interest rates over the next ten years to allow consumers and the economy to recuperate from this economic dilemma that they have created. Why should the American taxpayers receive a double hit, bailout monies and increased monthly payments, to supplement the high salaries of the executives at these banks (http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/23/executive-compensation-at-banks/)? The concern of many is that there was not due diligence by the Federal Government to investigate past practices of these organizations to determine what caused the financial instabilities prior to the bailouts. There was no financial analysis of the organization to determine where the organizations sustained the losses and why. When the banking industry indicated that they would fail without government assistance, there was no government officials saying “why, when, how, where, and what”.
When a taxpayer requests government assistance through the Department of Health and Human Services, they are subject to intense scrutiny. They have to provide their income, household information, bank data, and everyone within the household income. Many are subject to interrogations as to why they need the money, why they are not working and limitations are put on how long they can receive the money and what it can be used for. When the banking system requested assistance, the only question was “How much?” What is wrong with this comparison? Ordinary citizens are homeless, without utilities, families are living on the streets while what are rightfully taxpayer monies is being used by the Federal Government to increase the wealth of the CEOs.
This is a call to action for the Federal Government and President Obama to intercede with the credit card companies and banks and indicate that if they received bailout monies they cannot increase the annual rates and that they should actually be lowered to less than 10% to allow the American taxpayers to be able to “survive” in this economic crisis. While there are debt relief organization that can assist consumers, they are of little assistance when the consumer can barely make payments and while using the debt relief organization they are paying a fee for the organization to be an intermediary. There should be automatic debt relief programs offered directly from the credit card companies for consumers that are unemployed so that they are not subject to the continuing interest rates while unemployed. Federal Government and the President have an obligation to the consumers to enforce that reduction of interest based on the utilization of taxpayer monies to assistance these companies.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more blogs.
Monday, March 16, 2009
President Obama and Education Reform
I applaud President Obama and his new agenda for education. Education Reform needs to be conducted of schools system nationwide as so many are substandard and need a complete overhaul. I do differ on Education Reform focused on increasing the number of hours that students are in school daily or yearly (shortening the summer break). Children are already in school for over 10 months. We want our children to have a healthy balance of education and life, which is something that they will not have when they become working adults based on the careers of today and the future. The key to Education Reform is the “Work Smarter, not Harder”. By extending school hours we are really working harder.
For true Education Reform to occur, we need to analyze the schools systems and do an overhaul of the educators from the Principals to the Janitors. Most of these individuals have a negative attitude toward school children and their ability to succeed. If you are not a 3.5 – 4.0 student, then you do not warrant the assistance of the Teachers, Guidance Counselors, and Principals in maintaining your educational endeavors in elementary and high school because you lack the potential to excel at a college or university. Therefore, you are relegated to the students that are not “college material” and thus should be concentrating on joining the working class rather than going to college. I gleamed this knowledge when working as a Admission Representative for a school. When approaching the Principals and Guidance Counselors, about visiting the schools, the typical response from many Michigan High Schools was, “Our students are not college material and it would not be beneficial for you or them to visit the school.” If I am receiving these message just image the verbal abuse that the students are receiving on a daily basis.
The strategy for Education Reform should be an analysis of all of the entities that directly or indirectly interact with the students and a determination of whether they are focused on student success or on providing barriers to success for the students that can become so imbedded that the student is destined to fail. Every school system need to develop a strategic plan for how they are going to improve the graduation rates and the federal and state funding that they receive should be determined by their strategic plan and the feasibility of its implementation in meeting Education Reform. Work Smarter, not Harder!!! It is not the length of the school day or the school year that will improve the graduation rates, but the improvement of the school environments that will be more conducive to providing educational services to the generations of today and the future.
For true Education Reform to occur, we need to analyze the schools systems and do an overhaul of the educators from the Principals to the Janitors. Most of these individuals have a negative attitude toward school children and their ability to succeed. If you are not a 3.5 – 4.0 student, then you do not warrant the assistance of the Teachers, Guidance Counselors, and Principals in maintaining your educational endeavors in elementary and high school because you lack the potential to excel at a college or university. Therefore, you are relegated to the students that are not “college material” and thus should be concentrating on joining the working class rather than going to college. I gleamed this knowledge when working as a Admission Representative for a school. When approaching the Principals and Guidance Counselors, about visiting the schools, the typical response from many Michigan High Schools was, “Our students are not college material and it would not be beneficial for you or them to visit the school.” If I am receiving these message just image the verbal abuse that the students are receiving on a daily basis.
The strategy for Education Reform should be an analysis of all of the entities that directly or indirectly interact with the students and a determination of whether they are focused on student success or on providing barriers to success for the students that can become so imbedded that the student is destined to fail. Every school system need to develop a strategic plan for how they are going to improve the graduation rates and the federal and state funding that they receive should be determined by their strategic plan and the feasibility of its implementation in meeting Education Reform. Work Smarter, not Harder!!! It is not the length of the school day or the school year that will improve the graduation rates, but the improvement of the school environments that will be more conducive to providing educational services to the generations of today and the future.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
AIG duped the Federal Government at Taxpayers Expense
AIG duped the Federal Government at Taxpayers Expense
The Federal Government “gave” $170 billion in taxpayer monies to AIG on the pretense that it would not survive unless it received government assistance. AIG posted a fourth quarter loss of over $61 billion. Yet, the company is paying out bonuses in excess of $165 million. The Federal Government was duped. AIG just told the entire world that the Federal Government is financial illiterate and unable to comprehend basic accounting principles and business acumen. When a business posts a loss of such significance and then pays out bonuses that is awarding for not just individual poor performance, but organizational poor performance. How can any business justify the paying of such enormous bonuses when they are in financial crisis … by hiring attorneys that “justify” the expenditures. There goes that “old” legal argument that we have contracts and we have to abide by the contracts. We Americans want to see the contracts and the legal terminology. AIG is saying that in the contracts there is no clause that states that if the organization is not financially sound, then the bonuses will not be paid. That is ludicrous that an organization would not provide some type of financial protection within the contract. In addition, where are the AIG policies and procedures concerning bonuses and incentives within the company handbook. Typically, that indicates that if the company is not profitable then bonuses will not be paid and it supersedes any individual contracts. I am just bewildered that the Federal Government and our President would just allow this type of behavior with “Oh, Well! We are upset, but there is nothing we can do about it”. How can the Federal Government be so nonchalant about taxpayer monies. Where is the due diligence, transparency, and accountability that we as Americans expect the Federal Government to exhibit?
In working for companies that have exhibited losses, no matter what the employment contract states, if the company is in the “red” then that is justification enough that “NO” employees will receive bonuses regardless of their performance. I do not understand how the government could be duped. We have a President with a JD, we have cabinet members with PhDs and MBAs and yet they are not able to find a legal “loophole” that would prohibit the paying of the bonuses. It would take a simple “injunction” against the AIG prohibiting the payment of the bonuses until more legal research could be conducted. Because the government “gave” the monies to AIG, they should request that the monies be returned in their entirety immediately. Now AIG find the monies from somewhere else to pay your company executives. Maybe I am a simpleton, but I know that the Federal Government gave our monies to AIG and we have the right to request that the monies be paid back immediately since they were obtained under false pretenses. AIG should be charged with fraud and dismantled immediately. All of the executives including Libby should be terminated and the organization should file bankruptcy. Who really cares if the fail? The typical American could care less. They get what they deserve for defrauding the government and using taxpayer monies for their own personal gains. The Federal Government needs to let the American Taxpayers know that the Federal Government will not be duped and continue on with business as usual.
In the end, AIG is saying to the Federal Government, American Taxpayers, Foreign Governments and the whole world, “How you like me now!!!”
Americans should request that AIG to return the bailout monies with interest within 14 days and provide complete financial statements so that the true financial worth of the company can be assessed. The Federal Government provided taxpayer monies for the bailout and as such we should be the new stockholders for AIG and not just the Federal Government. Each citizen should receive stock certificates for AIG regardless of their worth.
Write your Senator or Representative and tell them we want our monies back immediately and we want AIG to be prosecuted for fraud and dismantled. Not tomorrow, but today.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more interesting dialogues.
The Federal Government “gave” $170 billion in taxpayer monies to AIG on the pretense that it would not survive unless it received government assistance. AIG posted a fourth quarter loss of over $61 billion. Yet, the company is paying out bonuses in excess of $165 million. The Federal Government was duped. AIG just told the entire world that the Federal Government is financial illiterate and unable to comprehend basic accounting principles and business acumen. When a business posts a loss of such significance and then pays out bonuses that is awarding for not just individual poor performance, but organizational poor performance. How can any business justify the paying of such enormous bonuses when they are in financial crisis … by hiring attorneys that “justify” the expenditures. There goes that “old” legal argument that we have contracts and we have to abide by the contracts. We Americans want to see the contracts and the legal terminology. AIG is saying that in the contracts there is no clause that states that if the organization is not financially sound, then the bonuses will not be paid. That is ludicrous that an organization would not provide some type of financial protection within the contract. In addition, where are the AIG policies and procedures concerning bonuses and incentives within the company handbook. Typically, that indicates that if the company is not profitable then bonuses will not be paid and it supersedes any individual contracts. I am just bewildered that the Federal Government and our President would just allow this type of behavior with “Oh, Well! We are upset, but there is nothing we can do about it”. How can the Federal Government be so nonchalant about taxpayer monies. Where is the due diligence, transparency, and accountability that we as Americans expect the Federal Government to exhibit?
In working for companies that have exhibited losses, no matter what the employment contract states, if the company is in the “red” then that is justification enough that “NO” employees will receive bonuses regardless of their performance. I do not understand how the government could be duped. We have a President with a JD, we have cabinet members with PhDs and MBAs and yet they are not able to find a legal “loophole” that would prohibit the paying of the bonuses. It would take a simple “injunction” against the AIG prohibiting the payment of the bonuses until more legal research could be conducted. Because the government “gave” the monies to AIG, they should request that the monies be returned in their entirety immediately. Now AIG find the monies from somewhere else to pay your company executives. Maybe I am a simpleton, but I know that the Federal Government gave our monies to AIG and we have the right to request that the monies be paid back immediately since they were obtained under false pretenses. AIG should be charged with fraud and dismantled immediately. All of the executives including Libby should be terminated and the organization should file bankruptcy. Who really cares if the fail? The typical American could care less. They get what they deserve for defrauding the government and using taxpayer monies for their own personal gains. The Federal Government needs to let the American Taxpayers know that the Federal Government will not be duped and continue on with business as usual.
In the end, AIG is saying to the Federal Government, American Taxpayers, Foreign Governments and the whole world, “How you like me now!!!”
Americans should request that AIG to return the bailout monies with interest within 14 days and provide complete financial statements so that the true financial worth of the company can be assessed. The Federal Government provided taxpayer monies for the bailout and as such we should be the new stockholders for AIG and not just the Federal Government. Each citizen should receive stock certificates for AIG regardless of their worth.
Write your Senator or Representative and tell them we want our monies back immediately and we want AIG to be prosecuted for fraud and dismantled. Not tomorrow, but today.
Visit http://eveningsofdialogue.blogspot.com/ for more interesting dialogues.
No comments:
Post a Comment