HOOD ROBIN: TAKING FROM THE POOR TO GIVE TO THE RICH

If you make money doing something wrong, you don’t usuallyget to keep it.  Or if you do a jobbadly, you don’t get a tip.  Thoserules don’t seem to apply to bankers.

Trying to control rogue bonuses, Democrats in Congress haveapparently added a measure into the stimulus package to limit those year-endpresents.   Bonuses would becapped at one third of base pay and would be given in stock options  What’s more, banks topped up by TARP mustvote to agree to the terms—or give the dough back.  Congress seems to realize it’s not right to take from(relatively speaking) poor taxpayers and give to rich bankers for a job thatcan be described as  playing threecard monte with zeros.

But it’s a little too late.  After bankers gottheir TARP money, there were still millions and millions of bonuses disbsersedin late 2008. Merrill Lynch paid out $696 million, according to Andrew Cuomo.

Last week, a civil proceeding decreed that Ponzi GeniusBernard Madoff must repay some of his fleeced investors.  Convicted criminals aren’t allowed tomake kingly royalties from selling their movie rights.  Drug dealers and anyone who assists inthe trade can have his or her property seized.  The concept of “forfeiture”  (quite the opposite of finder’s keepers) allows property tobe taken from someone if it was ill-gotten.  It also applies to money laundering and RICO acts.  (Legally, the concept stems from commonlaw when an object could be seized from its owner if it caused someone’sdeath.)

So why should Wall Streeters get to keep theirill-gotten bonuses of 2008?  Granted the payments were not criminal because the 2008 TARP restrictions on compensation were soflaccid.  Not criminal, but not right.   Americans were mad enoughin September at the idea of bailing out the banks—nobody told all thoseconstituents calling their representatives that the bankers would still getgood booty. But why aren’t they complaining so loudly now? 

Apparently, according to the stimulus bill that passed, the Treasury Secretary wouldneed to review payments to top executives of the companies that received aidsince October—and could negotiate for reimbursement if the payments are seen tobe “contrary to the public interest.”   Those payments are contrary, and I bet most taxpayers who don’tsee lots of zeros on their paychecks, want the government’s money back.

If the government takes just some of the money back, thatwould buy a lot of a lot of food stamps.  Something that a lot of people are going to need.