By:
TJHalva |
Comments [1] | Category:
Barack Obama | 3/23/2009 9:04:52 AM CT
The continuing saga of AIG's taxpayer funded bonuses may be eclipsed by another company's incompetence; Merrill Lynch is ready and willing according to the New York Times:
Merrill Lynch's $3.6 billion bonus pool has been among the most controversial payouts on Wall Street. But most of those bonuses, which included some 700 awards of over $1 million, would not be affected by a new bonus tax being considered in Congress.
The tax, which passed in the House on Thursday, would affect only bonuses paid during 2009. Typically, Merrill's bonuses are paid in January, along with the rest of Wall Street's. But the investment bank pushed $2.5 billion of the bonuses out the door in December in advance of its merger with Bank of America.
Source: New York Times
Without making any judgment with regard to the ethical payout of these bonuses, the legal argument is clearly supportive of Merrill's intentions. The creation of new law will be required to prevent, or inhibit the payout of these contractually obligated bonuses; but the creation of these new laws could establish dangerous precedents. The new administration has clearly stated their intent to limit these bonus, and it may possible for the President to directly intervene without Congress' assistance.
Based upon our Friday article, it is still possible for Obama to abuse his Executive power to detain any person who "substantially supported" terrorists; the term used by the Bush Administration was "Enemy Combatant." Using the evidence presented by Bush's Government in the Rapp Declaration it becomes clear that the term "Enemy Combatant" encompassed financial terrorism; this nomenclature would then translate to "substantially supported" financial terrorists under the Obama Administration's new characterization.
Before we continue, it is important to understand what the term "terrorist" actually encompasses; as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary:
[a. F. terroriste, f. L. terror TERROR: see -IST.]
1. As a political term: a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the "Reign of Terror".
b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.
In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects.
2. Dyslogistically: One who entertains, professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger.
3. attrib.
Hence terro'ristic, -'ristical adjs., characterized by or practising terrorism; also terro'ristically.
Source: Oxford English Dictionary
Using the above bolded, definition one could argue that the large institutional banks coerced the Government into providing large payouts in an attempt to remedy the terror invoked as a result of selfish financial management. If the Obama Administration is serious about recouping the taxpayer funded bonuses, Obama, as President, could declare any recipient of these taxpayer funded bonuses an accomplice to financial terrorists.
While I doubt my previous train of thought passes legal muster, a move of that magnitude may finally force TARP funded bonus recipients, and their respective companies, to realize that the entire financial scenario is "not a fucking game." If the individual agrees to return the bonus money, Obama could simply repeal or pardon his detention order.
1
Response(s) to
Squashing Fiscal Abuse
Leave a Reply:
Name: (Defaults to Anonymous)
Type the characters you see in the image below: