AIG Is Dirtier Than First Assumed (And That Doesn't Even Mention The Politicians Involved)*

*Image courtesy of AP Images.

It turns out that AIG bonuses were even larger than first assumed--$218 M to be exact, and we shouldn't be surprised if they get larger as more digging is done. Whatever the case, it seems our President was too busy filling out his NCAA brackets, insulting intellectually disabled athletes while interviewing with Jay Leno, and sending love notes to Iran to do anything about it. Or maybe he just didn't want to get sued.

Am I the only one sensing a lack of focus by the administration on what matters most here? Apparently Mark Steyn over at "National Review" thinks much the same while noting the hypocrisy of so many outraged politicians (and yes, they just might be the ones who passed the bailout without reading it).

Now there is the question of just how to punish this wanton spending on bonuses. Shouldn't we reward talent, even if the company fails? But is this really talent if they are responsible for the company failing? Maybe the company shouldn't be allowed to get that large? Maybe we should just tax the bonuses? There are all sorts of questions, some good and some bad. What I do know is that these lawmakers should have read the bailout bill before they voted to disperse taxpayer money. Better yet, they should have let AIG fail. After all, the market generally rewards merit, a quality in seriously short supply here.

In the end, while we have to admit that executive bonuses are often obnoxious, this sort of government involvement--too much and too late--is even worse.