Life on the Road – Trucking News Blog

Okay, I haven’t posted here, or anywhere, for quite awhile. Frying other fish. Nonetheless, writing can be cathartic – and this is something I really need to get out of my system. Now, before I go any further with this opinion, make no mistake, that which follows is purely opinion.

The politicos are making a giant fuss over the bonuses paid to AIG executives. These bonuses, mind you, were contractual obligations; and the contracts were in place well before AIG accepted tax-funded, Democrat-led, Congressionally-mandated, bail-out money. (Okay, that part of my tirade isn’t opinion or supposition.)

Here’s where the opinion and supposition part enters into the post. Prior to dumping billions and billions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of AIG do you suppose Congressional leaders asked for, and received, information pertaining to any and all of AIG’s obligations; contractual or otherwise? Yes, I imagine they did. I don’t know that they did, but it would seem to be something simple due-diligence would require. You know, the painstaking research executed prior to handing over a few billion of our collective dollars.

So let’s assume, for arguments sake, that the Democratic-led Congress, or at least the pertinent committee leaders, were well aware that bonuses, sure to be unpopular with the public, were looming on the post-bailout horizon.

The leadership (did I mention they’re Democrats?), knowing about these bonuses, had at least two potential courses of action:

Course 1

It would have been little trouble to stipulate that the acceptance, on AIG’s part, of bailout money would require that any future bonuses, including those to which AIG had previously obligated themselves, would be deferred, renegotiated or, even, eliminated until profitability were attained.

Obviously,there were many avenues of opportunity available to Congress prior to AIG receiving bailout money. So then, why did Congress choose to leave these little bonus-bombs fused and ticking? Read on.

Course 2

By leaving, in place, the AIG bonus structure, Congress knew that a no-lose situation, at least for the Democrats, would blow up in March. If John McCain were elected, Democrats in Congress could point fingers at Republican led administrations, both current and previous, for lack of oversight. If Barack Obama won, it would be an opportunity to display leadership and calm the madding crowd.

But all that is peanuts compared to what, I believe, was the real issue – no matter which party held the Presidency. Congress knew that these bonuses would be unpopular with the public. They knew that the public would demand unprecedented Congressional action. They knew that this little time-bomb would explode and, with it, would come a public mandate for Congress to reach even deeper into the control of, and responsibility for, our financial institutions.

Conclusion

Congress, now, has more responsibility for, and control of, private business than ever. This will not come easily to an end. The slippery slope will prevail and Congressional responsibility for control of private institutions will increase – creating a mathematically mandated decrease in individual responsibility for control.

This is an incredibly dangerous situation because Congress has limited accountability and it has long been recognized that responsibility without accountability is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, I know, those who hold seats in the House and Senate can be voted out of office but, in reality, Congress will always be able to defer accountability.

One More Thing to Consider

Individual rights. If you think about it, every individual right, rights that we all believe to be intrinsic (granted by God), rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, come packaged with reciprocal responsibilities. The right to a trial by jury, for example, comes packaged with the reciprocal responsibility to serve on a jury when called upon.

If we, as individuals or groups, abdicate responsibilities, those who accept them will, sooner or later, insist on the corresponding rights. In other words, if we assign or abdicate our individual or public responsibility to Congress, then it follows that Congress will, at some point, insist on the ability to exercise the accompanying rights; to the exclusion of that individual or group assigning or abdicating responsibility.

The more responsibilities assigned to Congress, the fewer the rights available for claim by the group or individual; thereby diminishing the power of the Constitution.