IS THE HONEYMOON OVER?

Did the President's March 24th Press Conference indicate that his honeymoon is over? Although the President held his ground against some very challenging "questions," Mr. Cool wasn't his coolest in response to a "question" that criticized his two day delay in reacting to the outrageous AIG Bonuses. "I like to know what I am talking about before I talk," does not quite squelch the criticism.

The AIG Bonus problem is not a simple issue. While the bonuses may be ethically wrong, they are legally right, especially the ones contracted well before the "Bailout" was considered. To break the law just because you are in command goes back to the criticism of the Bush/Cheney Administration that this Administration was supposed to change.

The problem lies in the quick enactment of a bailout before THE LAW, and all contingencies and possible abuses were addressed and considered. The panic button usually creates more problems than it solves. Perhaps knowing what you are doing before you do something is a good policy after all.

Perhaps a pause to deal with a problem as it presents itself is a better approach than trying to solve the problem so it won't errupt in presumed disaster. Although quickly trying to avert a disaster may sound like the simplest approach, it may be foolhardy in a complex issue like the AIG affair.

Simply stated, AIG has insured the insurers of loans that are defaulting. Instead of a shot gun approach at the top, perhaps a rifle shot at the bottom might be more effective. The government might put a moratorium on foreclosures and 'responsibly' bailout foreclosures that meet established criteria for bailout. Let the Insurers perform their legal responsibility under their contracts and then let the Insurers seek damages under their contract with AIG. If AIG cannot meet their contract obligations, perhaps they should go bankrupt and remove a cancer in our economic system.

Those who are not held responsible for their actions tend to act irresponsibly! Passing on the responsibility for insuring loans to another insurer only appears to relieve the insurer from the responsibility that they contacted to accept. UNDER THE LAW,THIS DOES NOT LEGALLY RELIEVE THEM FROM THEIR RESPONSIBILITY! BAILOUT AT THE TOP VIOLATES THIS PRINCIPLE OF LAW.

ie. Under the law, if a company has an insured liability, they are responsible to the injured party for the determined loss, AND THEN the insurance company reimburses them to the extent of their insurance contract. If the insurance company secures an insurance company to insure them against losses that they cannot cover, it does not negate their responsibility to honor their contract with the company they insure; it simply gives them the right to reimbursement for their losses to the extent of their insurance contract. You can't just pass the buck, legally. (This is available to politicians only)

Unfortunately, first the Bush Administration and now the Obama Administration have ignored the law and have made panic attempts to solve the crisis in an illegal manner. Perhaps the law is not adequate, but it is the law, and perhaps attempts should be made legally until we find that we must break the law to survive. (Rob the bakery to keep from starving?)

(To my friend Marty)