In the Senate, Republicans are blocking the attempt to tax most of the absurd and immoral AIG bonuses as reported by the Associated Press. These bonuses have the whole country furious, so exactly whose side are the Senate Republicans on? Not ours, apparently.
"Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republicans' vote counter, blocked Democratic efforts Thursday evening to bring up the Senate version of the tax bill to recoup most of the $165 million paid out by AIG last weekend and other bonuses in 2009. The House had swiftly approved its version of the bill earlier in the day."
In addition, where is the board of directors during all this? You know, "that group looking out for the shareholders" (who've lost a fortune to people being given huge bonuses).
"If the government goes around canceling contracts like those calling for AIG bonuses, people might stop entering into contracts that call for using government bailout money designed to get credit flowing again to help spend the nation out of recession."
Plenty of people get their contracts changed, renegotiated, or negated every day- regular people who were supposed to have retiree health benefits, for example.
When it's wrong, it's wrong.
What do you think?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 85
the deficit is 1.8 trillion dollars. The treasury just printed 1 trillion. PLUS another 2.3 trillion deficit for the next 10 yrs (is what the OCB report said).
We are basically looking at 25 trillion dollars. If that doesnt make you shutter, nothing will.
America is at risk. Europe, Russia, and the UN are talking about a global currency.
~M
Thanks Beth, Lynn, Spartan, Renee and Dusty for the comments.
The Rs are doing what we would expect them to do, after 8 years of seeing them put this country in the mess it is in.
Featured in the Triple Name Club.
I'll be off line until late tomorrow night but will comment back on the pages of all who leave remarks. Best wishes.
But, I don't like the idea of Congress being able to change laws after the fact to take money from anyone. Next time it could be me!
And, it sounds like politicians on both sides of the aisle were aware, or should have been aware, that these bonuses were going to be paid. All of a sudden, they're shocked and dismayed?
Sorry. I don't buy it. Time to replace EVERYONE in Washington!
This is where corporate America is. Those at the top get all the reward while the little people at the bottom toil away. Time for a change? I hope so.
Once they pass a law allowing something like this, they will be creating an arguing point for doing more of the same. It could effectively kill employee bonus programs as we have known them.
These bonuses equal 1/10th of 1 % of the bailout money AIG has received. Let us remember that Congress usually lets a full 2% slide on budget bills; so really, from a government involvement stance, we got off easy.
We should instead be hammering at the anti-meritocracy and capitalist hypocrisy found in the fact that AIG's previous owners and managers (captains of industry, the best that money could buy) signed contracts that awarded multi-million dollar bonuses that would be paid in the face of abysmal job performance.
From a capitalist and meritocratic stand point, that should be just totally wrong.
That's where my outrage comes from, that is what it stews upon, and that's where it remains focused.
I hope people take off their Donkey or Elephant glasses and see what is going on!
The Congress needs to know what it is that they are doing in the first place.
It’s not constitutional to retroactively change contracts, the future, not the past.
Thanks for posting your article at Barack Obama's Presidential Appointments, Bills and Policies .
It is now one of our featured posts.
Your friend.
Lloyd
When we consider how many billions of the AIG bailout went to a bank in France, when we consider the actions of congress that deliberately opened this market up to zero regulation (and these people all receive pretty good benefits on the taxpayer dollar) the thought of these bonuses (retention not performance; that needs to be stressed again and again) is the worst case of misdirection I have ever seen.
Republicans want a new “American Revolution” (note the rising tide of “tea parties”) while Democrats want a new “French Revolution” of class warfare. It was a congressman who first suggested these people commit suicide and the death treats started from there. These people have become the “royalty” of this new revolution to be handed over to Madame Guillotine.
Yes, but sadly these people are, and were, getting bonuses for NOT bringing in business, and/or for bringing in BAD business.
"...if AIG collapses the ENTIRE housing market collapses, "
That is not correct.
AIG is is not the ONLY insurer of American bank home loans; and it is not the only, or ultimate approver, of all American mortgage loans. If AIG failed, there would still be numerous banks that would be both willing and able to give mortgage loans.
Although AIG may hold mortgages on many properties, they do not hold the mortgages on ALL properties; and they do not hold the mortgage on loans that they have only insured. If a loan defaulted, and AIG covered the bank's loss, THEN they would received the note or some legal claim to the property.
"..a "stimulus package" with the majority of it being simply more pork,..""
That is just flat out wrong. Only 2% of the stimulus package was reported to be "pork." The term majority means more than 50%, doesn't it? Ferreting out facts may be more important than just ferreting out stories.
Personally I would much rather prevent problems than blame people for them.
Of course that's just me.
NO law should be rushed through in anger. Its just plain stupid to do so.
If the congress has a problem with the AIG deal, they should amend that deal, not throw together some revenge legislation.
Did any of you out there ever work at a job where you got a bonus for setting the corporate headquarters on fire, kicking your boss in the nuts, emptying the till and running out the door with the company checkbook?
That said, having congress try to fix their mess in this instance is kind of like letting a Capuchin Monkey repair a grand piano... much noise will be made and not much good will come from the process in the end. * since no one can tell me what my AIG shares are really worth as a long term investment, I'm not sure how bad these folks screwed me, or if they are even finished!
God Bless and have a wonderful Sunday!
Article 1; Section 9, line 3:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed"
Bill of Attainder- attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
ex post facto Law- ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD
In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:
"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.
2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.
3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.
4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.
"I don't believe that Congress should rush to pass yet another piece of hastily crafted legislation in this very toxic atmosphere, at least without understanding the facts and the potential unintended consequences," Kyl said on the Senate floor. "Frankly, I think that's how we got into the current mess."
Um ... duh ... of course it is. Haste makes waste was never truer. Act in haste, repent at leisure applies also. Step back and consider before kneejerking through another hastily passed action.
Amen to what you say here.
I don't like the bonuses, either.
But, I don't like the idea of Congress being able to change laws after the fact to take money from anyone. Next time it could be me!
Rick *Don Rico* J., Mar 21, 2009, 12:23am EDT
And, it sounds like politicians on both sides of the aisle were aware, or should have been aware, that these bonuses were going to be paid. All of a sudden, they're shocked and dismayed?
And, it sounds like politicians on both sides of the aisle were aware, or should have been aware, that these bonuses were going to be paid. All of a sudden, they're shocked and dismayed?
Rick *Don Rico* J., Mar 21, 2009, 12:23am EDT
even if it started out an AIG "executive compensation," "greed" or "incompetancy" problem ... it became Obama's brain child and problem when he jammed it through and signed it into law - when he signed the bill containing the bonuses into law. +shrug+
There may be and seems to be cause for anger at AIG but really .. that money is a drop in the bucket AND apparently AIG thought the matter had been settled ... um ... because they had a contract for the settlement and the POTUS himself signed off on it..
+big slow shrug+ If it turns out that I am wrong and the POTUS actually didn't sign the instrument containing the offending bonuses, then I'm wrong and I apologize ahead of time.
But if I am correctlyif simplifiedly (a four syllable word I made up) understanding it, then he did sign that instrument; and he is the one who should make good on it from his private funds.
And AIG? For the purposes of discussing this very narrow and one-time instance, AIG should be considered just another victim of Congress and Admin inability to take actual responsibilty for their actions. (Lip service there is aplenty .. but actual responsibility I see none).
What I see from the POTUS et al, IF he signed the document as I am under the impression he did, what I see from him is a lot of "whoshotjohn" as Judge Judy would put it. A lot of calling rain something that it isn't.
Absolutely. Agreed.
People... it was a contract. The government negotiated it. It is the right thing to do to honor that. Regardless of what was agreed to... it should be honored. They left a loophole completely open and it was their fault for doing so. We should be concentrating on something more important like:
the deficit is 1.8 trillion dollars. The treasury just printed 1 trillion. PLUS another 2.3 trillion deficit for the next 10 yrs (is what the OCB report said).
We are basically looking at 25 trillion dollars. If that doesnt make you shutter, nothing will.
America is at risk. Europe, Russia, and the UN are talking about a global currency.
~M
Michael A., Mar 20, 2009, 11:16pm EDT
Lynn P. "Amazes me that this minor thing can outrage you so much, but a "stimulus package" with the majority of it being simply more pork, thrilled you to the bones." Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that, so perhaps you could respond to facts...
Georgiana: great Dylan reference!
Lee: are you saying that you didn't support Congress when they voted for the ill-considered bill, based on lies from the White House and misrepresentation of CIA reports, giving George W. Bush the power to wage war on Iraq? I just want to be clear. Do you support rushing to pass bills when they agree with your political prejudices, but not otherwise, or do you condemn everyone who voted for the Iraq Bill? Obama voted against it- one of the few with enough sense and guts.
Lee: "even if it started out an AIG "executive compensation," "greed" or "incompetancy" problem ... it became Obama's brain child and problem when he jammed it through and signed it into law - when he signed the bill containing the bonuses into law." Excuse me but the AIG bailout was signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush! Look at the date on this article, for example.
Concerned dissenter: Thanks for the Latin lesson, but I know what it means. I fact, my kids take Latin in public school, you know, those institutions the Republicans have been trying to destroy because the are hotbeds of ... (shock, horror)... teaching evolution. As for "The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime..." What conviction? I don't see how this applies at all. Nobody is literally being convicted of any crime.
Duffy: for full disclosure, I too lost money because of the "great, bonus-deserving work" of the AIG executives. I'm with you. I'm not happy with them or the board of directors.
Lloyd: Thanks for the feature!
To several: The problem with AIG, as I understood it, went far beyond actual insurance and mortgage insurance to the fact that massive investments had been made in AIG by many pension funds and retirement accounts (including one of mine), thus putting many at risk (thought my thanks at stopping the bleeding after an 85% loss of value is less than enthusiastic).
BTW, I personally do think that the bailout bills of the Bush era were passed without sufficient thought, though it is clear that Congress expected the initial "gatekeeper" (Mr. Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr.) to keep his eyes on the money, which he did not. "Mr. Paulson made his first proposal for a sweeping bailout of financial institutions on Sept. 19, 2008." (the last quote is from the NYT, from a living article on the web edition called "Credit Crisis- Bailout Plan" Latest Developments | Updated: March 16, 2009.)
I agree that there are bigger problems, far bigger problems, than the AIG bonuses, but allowing people to pillage the recovery money doesn't seem like a good thing, or good precedent, to me, and by focusing on this problem for a bit, maybe the next bills will be crafted much better, and maybe other executives will decline similar bonuses, so the money goes where it was supposed to go.
All those references to the French Revolution are a bit of hyperbole, but don't forget that that revolution grew out of very real problems, and very real obliviousness to them by the ruling classes. So, while I don't believe in the death penalty and don't condone terror at all, I do suggest that the politicians listen to the people, and in this case I'd say that the Republican Senators are not. (The people may not always be right, by any means, but (a) this was a democracy last time I checked, so such listening is important, and (b) I haven't heard an argument "in favor" of the bonuses that I can buy into.)
I would like to add that there is plenty of precedent for the government interfering with/abrogating contracts, like contracts with people we go to war with.
Lee: are you saying that you didn't support Congress when they voted for the ill-considered bill, based on lies from the White House and misrepresentation of CIA reports, giving George W. Bush the power to wage war on Iraq?
Lee says: We have a difference of opinion on whether or not there *were* lies or misrepresentations (see this article: );so in light of that I'd say it's not the same thing because if there were no lies and there were no misrepresentations then it wasn't ill-considered. Although . . . there may have been mistakes and overreactions which are not the same thing as lies even if they result in the same actions ... *I* don't think so, but I give you that just so we stay friendly.
James said: I just want to be clear. Do you support rushing to pass bills when they agree with your political prejudices, but not otherwise, or do you condemn everyone who voted for the Iraq Bill? Obama voted against it- one of the few with enough sense and guts.
Lee says: Again, we disagree whether or not Obama or Bush showed good sense. +shrug+ So, in light of that basic parting of ways, I think maybe your questions are ... well, I don't have the word for it but I think you might see what I mean.
Lee: "even if it started out an AIG "executive compensation," "greed" or "incompetancy" problem ... it became Obama's brain child and problem when he jammed it through and signed it into law - when he signed the bill containing the bonuses into law." Excuse me but the AIG bailout was signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush! Look at the date on this article, for example.
Lee responds:
Your assertion that GWB signed it into law in 2008 may be true. I remember how far my respect for him went down on that day because I did not support the bailouts at all (I understand the far reaching consequences we would have suffered had we not passed it, but .. well, the consequences are far reaching even though we did pass it ,so my thinking is if we were gonna suffer anyway, maybe it would have been better to have suffered without raising our deficit by trillions of dollars in the bargain ... ).
But, well that's neither here nor there sooo ... moving on .... apparently even though the bonus stuff *was* in the bill Bush signed, seems like it didn't actually have to stay in there because ... well, to show you what I mean, here are two short excerpts from a couple of longer excerpts I will post further on (good for your view accumulation +smile+):
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/workplace/132421/how_timothy_geithner's_bailout_plan_created_the_aig_bonus_scandal/
In order to protect its bailout plan, the Obama administration protected the bonuses.
"Back in January and February, there were some votes to try and block excessive employee compensation at financial institutions receiving bailout money. In the Senate, this took the form of the Snowe amendment, which was supported by all 58 Democrats, and also by three Republicans. In the House, it took the form of the TARP Reform Act, which was favored by 242 Democrats and 18 Republicans. Overall, across the House and the Senate, only 10 Democrats, compared to 193 Republicans, voted against legislation that might have stopped the bonuses.
Unfortunately, despite overwhelming Democratic support for limiting executive compensation, in order to save their public-private partnership bailout plan, the Obama administration worked against these limits..."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/19/ap/politics/main4877412.shtml?source=search_story
"In the case of the bonus language, the Obama administration asked to confine the executive pay restrictions to contracts made after Feb. 11, 2009, fearing lawsuits if they tried to reach back further.
They also argued, as President George W. Bush's team had before them, that enacting strict compensation limits could hamper companies' ability to attract and retain vital talent at in tough financial times, according to aides who spoke privately about the internal talks."
Lee, OK. Peace.
Lee responds,
I'm there ... :)
Where I said "(see this article: )" above, there should have been a link to an article.
Here it is in a bit of context....
"Lee says: We have a difference of opinion on whether or not there *were* lies or misrepresentations (see this article: Here );so in light of that I'd say it's not the same thing because ....."
Oh, durn. In one of my other comments I forgot to make the web addresses linkable ... ah well ... chalk it up to it being time for me to quit writing for the night; I'll leave them as they are.
It is a pain putting links into comments- I've been complaining about it for a long time.
Lee: are you saying that you didn't support Congress when they voted for the ill-considered bill, based on lies from the White House and misrepresentation of CIA reports, giving George W. Bush the power to wage war on Iraq? I just want to be clear. Do you support rushing to pass bills when they agree with your political prejudices, but not otherwise, or do you condemn everyone who voted for the Iraq Bill? Obama voted against it- one of the few with enough sense and guts.
Little fact check here: Obama was in the Illinois State Legislature until 2004, the Iraq war started on March 20, 2003. Kind of hard for him to vote against it when he was in no position to vote on it at all. Obama became a U. S. Senator in January 2005.
Why does everyone give him a pass on obvious lies and deceptions. Isn't he doing everything you liberals are accusing Bush of doing? So where exactly is the change? I mean other than the voice. He's just a more eloquent and glib liar.
Ahhh...
Guess I should check out facts I'm given a little more thoroughly .... but ... well ... no matter. Even if Obama *had* voted then, you might agree the facts *today* are still the same.
As president he signed the stimulus bill in which those bonuses were found (however they got there, whenever they got there, whoever originally put them in) and once he signed that bill into law they became his burden to bear, and he sloughed it off onto AIG execs).
Eleven Hundred Page timebomb ..
Little fact check here: Obama was in the Illinois State Legislature until 2004, the Iraq war started on March 20, 2003. Kind of hard for him to vote against it when he was in no position to vote on it at all. Obama became a U. S. Senator in January 2005.
Slyphian M , Mar 23, 2009, 7:13pm EDT
However, so far, it does seem to have been Democrats who made sure the language allowing the bonuses stayed in. To avoid law suits or some such. They knew it was in there and still they insist to treat the AIG execs as pariahs for taking what Democrats and Obama signed over to them by way of the stimulus bill. +shrug+
Since they left it in why not just grit their teeth and let it stand. Stand by the decison they made for goodness sake and take the medicine they already knew might come from the public sector.
Dodd defends actions ...
"Dodd told CNN on Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
A Treasury Department official admitted to CNN earlier that the Obama administration had pushed for the language."
". . ."I agreed (to the changes) reluctantly," Dodd said Wednesday. "I was changing the amendment because others were insistent." ..."
The republicans wouldn't have to be doing anything at all, if the democrats and the administration hadn't included language in the legislation authorizing the bonuses to be paid in the first place *chuckle*
jJack Midknight, Mar 23, 2009, 7:27pm EDT
As for what Obama was saying about the Iraq war before he was in the Senate: "Obama earned national accolades from anti-war activists when he gave a speech opposing the invasion of Iraq during an October 2002 rally in Chicago. "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars," Obama said. Obama's statement came at the same time when Senator Hillary Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq."
And from me, this has proved to be the dumbest war from the dumbest President.
The above quote from from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/obama-and-clinton-go-toe_n_81285.html
I'm not exonerating Bush, he has quite a bit of influence in the legislative process, and as President he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, pretty much sending them where he will. Though he needs an act of Congress to declare war.
My point is there is enough blame on BOTH parties, neither party is innocent in creating this mess. Nor is the American public (whether they vote or not) because the majority of us keep putting these idiots back in office. Obama was part of the problem for the last 3 years, he may not have as much culpability because of his shorter time in national office but he's still part of the problem. His only change is accelerating the rate at which we're bankrupting the country.
James,
I'm not a bonus lover, but I'm skeptical about the mass hysteria over them. Wasn't it Obama who asked the American people to not let less than 10% of the bailout bill, dedicated to earmarks, distract us from this "important work"? The AIG bonus' are less than 1% of the portion of bailout money THEY received. Which way does the messiah want to play this or is it only HIS pork/graft that is allowed?
Why are AIG execs giving the money back? Maybe public relations? Maybe because they know they'll get the money back someway when the fickle public and their furor over this dies down or they get distracted by some other media hype.
For the bonus lovers, if they are so defensible, why are the executives now giving them back? Why not just sue for the breach of contract that you are claiming (with strictly legal legitimacy, but no moral legitimacy)?
James B., Mar 24, 2009, 3:26am EDT
Although they are more defensible than a lot of the rest of the stimulus which is all Obama (whether any real or dubious reasons for having to push the stimulus through started with Bush or not).
Obama is president now and he owns whatever he puts his signature to.
He should have stood by his previous decision to let those bonuses stand instead of wimping out by fanning the already smoldering flames against AIG when the situation also began to get a little hot for himself.
For the bonus lovers, if they are so defensible, why are the executives now giving them back? Why not just sue for the breach of contract that you are claiming (with strictly legal legitimacy, but no moral legitimacy)?
James B., Mar 24, 2009, 3:26am EDT
Did you see what was done to Joe the Plumber for no better reason than some people didn't agree with what he said or believed? All of a sudden he became public enemy number 1.
The ante is being upped in the case of the AIG execs. Did you hear about the death threats some of those AIG guys have gotten? Threats to their families. . . . And those who should know better had no sympathy, in fact some of them seemed as if they thought it was just what AIG people deserved. One even said, in what he thought was joking or metaphorical way, that the execs ought to commit suicide in shame. +sigh . . . sigh+
Those who should know better have never ever said a word in public denouncing those crazy things (as far as I've heard - and if anyone in the admin has denounced them or tried to defuse those kinds of feelings, it wasn't said loud, long, or earnestly enough).
In fact, Obama himself continues to fan the emotional flames of that particular kind of person and of that particular kind of emotion with his feigned outrage over something he signed into law himself.
For the bonus lovers, if they are so defensible, why are the executives now giving them back? Why not just sue for the breach of contract that you are claiming (with strictly legal legitimacy, but no moral legitimacy)?
James B., Mar 24, 2009, 3:26am EDT
*I* don't claim it. It is a breach of contract by the government irt a contract with a private sector company. I'm glad we agree on that point [ "contract that you are claiming (with strictly legal legitimacy..)"]. :)
Why not just sue for the breach of contract that you are claiming (with strictly legal legitimacy, but no moral legitimacy)?
James B., Mar 24, 2009, 3:26am EDT
Thanks, Lee, I'll read your articles (I've looked at some your posts and will keep going through them).
James B., Mar 23, 2009, 2:18am EDT
Being responsible for what is going on is just what the President is doing. That doesn't mean anyone can predict every outcome of the efforts to try to save the country's economy. Most of the "saving" will depend on the efforts and sacrifices of individuals, like the brave teachers who refused their contractually-assured raises to save jobs (and the brave AIG execs who are returning those bonuses...).
Of course death threats against the AIG execs were terrible, as they are against anyone (like when Sarah Palin's supporters kept shouting "shoot him" about Mr. Obama, and she never said a word, just winked, unlike John McCain, who refused to stand for that talk).
Yes there is bipartisan responsibility for many of the problems.
The bonuses were supposed to be a nod to capitalism and bipartisanship, avoiding the appearance of too much socialism, by rewarding good performance with money. I doubt that anyone read the AIG contracts with individual employees beforehand. They had a country to save. Yes, it was done too quickly, far too quickly. Would someone assume that poor pay deserved bonuses? I doubt it, before now. Blame the speed as much on the TV attention span of America as anything else, plus the fact that both parties had been busy trying to destroy each other while the country went down the tubes.
But that was then. Now, we can try to pull ourselves out of this mess or just whine, and I think that the individual sacrifices being asked for were inconsistent with the undeserved individual AIG rewards, which was why this became a flash point. It will not be historically significant except perhaps in illustrating how out of touch the GOP is with how normal people live and think.
t live in our world, do they?
Stopping by from The Goal Getters Team! PIF>>>
No, just being the party of the rich. Business as usual.
By the way this article is great and I believe that it has gotten out of hand like crazeeee.... I now think this: WTF? LOL! :)
You are right James...teachers (or at least in my town) are giving up contractually-promised raises to save jobs. You do what is morally right.
Did anyone ever read this? "As of March 23, 2009, 9 of the 10 highest paid AIG executives had agreed to give back their bonuses - and of the 20 highest paid, 15 had agreed to give back their bonuses." From Wikipedia.
Yes, Matthew, thanks for the comment. I read about it... nice smokescreen. Did you read the following about the NEW bonuses at AIG, dated July 10, 2009?
AIG passes bonus 'land mine' to government: report Insurer due to give $2.4 mln to executives next week, Washington Post says"The article says that the payments "involve bonuses delayed from 2008". AIG is bound by contract to pay this. Current and future bonuses will hopefully be more reasonable.
At least $2.4 million is a lot less than the bonuses in March.
Matthew, I wish I shared your hope about those future bonuses, but I don't. As detailed in earlier comments, above, this is going on at a time when teachers are giving up their contractually-determined raises to help struggling school districts and cities. There's nothing about a contract that can't be broken, especially by the recipients of bonuses like AIGs.
The behavior of the AIG execs can be called a lot of things, but I won't go through the names. I will say that this is a good example of why the rich should be taxed to pay for the healthcare plan: generally speaking, the rich have no sense of decency, except towards their own bank accounts. If they have to be forced to think of their country, so be it.