The Occasional Observer

I'm a pretty conservative guy. I like smaller government, lower taxes and less spending. That said, I'm generally ok with the idea that if you accept bailout money (i.e., my tax dollars), the government can put restrictions on you. If you were too stupid to run your business properly, and as a result now need a handout from me, well then I should have a say in how you run your business going forward.

However, what absolutely REEKS to me is the concept that they are now going to try to get bonuses back at AIG. I completely agree that it's hard to fathom how ANY responsible company could create a bonus system that at year end would evaluate derivatives traders who nearly sunk the company as worthy of a bonus. But a CONTRACT IS A CONTRACT. To have the government step in ex post facto and break a binding agreement sets a horrible precedent with dangerous consequences.

What's even more troubling is Dodd's recent suggestion. Later, Dodd told CNN he is considering an unusual approach to get the bonus money back. "One idea we're kind of thinking about is a tax provision," the Connecticut Democrat said. "We have a right to tax. You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses. That's a way maybe to deal with it."

Are you serious? That to me seems to be a horrific abuse of government. This is the same Chris Dodd, by the way, who was NUMBER 1 in contributions from Fannie, and who also received a suspect and highly favorable mortgage from Countrywide (one of the worst sub-prime lenders in this whole scandal) that saved him $75 G due to his insider influence. What a crock.

All I can say is 2010 can't come fast enough for me, and I surely hope that we pick up enough seats in Congress to be more effective at blocking all those moronic ideas. And then Mitt in 2012 to end this socialist expansion.