And so it has come to this. There are armed guards being posted outside AIG offices in Conn., death threats showing up in employee inboxes, senior managers submitting their resignation, employees going AWOL and perhaps most shockingly, a prominent senator suggesting AIG executives leave the company the traditional Japanese way: Suicide. (I think he was kidding.) 

Clearly, the issue of the $165 million in bonuses and whether they are moral in light of the $170 billion the company has taken in taxpayers money is rousing some deep, public passions. To many, it is a symbol that all is wrong with Wall Street--greed, selfishness and now welfare on a colossal scale. To others, it's a sign that the government is simply not up to the task of reforming Wall Street. 

Joe and Jane Public certainly have a right to be frustrated--perhaps for a lot of reasons. AIG may have contract law on its side. The debate has been loud and vociferous, and I'm not really aiming to weigh in on that. A New York Times columnist makes a case for why the bonuses must be paid. Detractors can make a strong case in the other direction.

All in all, I think many would agree that AIG can be legally within its rights and really sleazy at the same time. I'm sure many of the bonus recipients took long showers last night, especially those in the financial products group that pushed AIG deep into the CDS business. I'm sure there are also some executives there who are convinced they deserve every penny. 

But here's what all recipients have to understand: There seem to be some legal remedies aimed at recovering the bonus money. Folks, it ain't over till its over. Congress has seized on the idea of a special tax that could recover up to 100 percent of the bonus payment. Sen. Charles Schumer is all but but demanding the money back.  "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," Schumer said. Some senators are all but promising action--within 24 hours in one case. 

So what to do? The world is crying for some leadership on the part of AIG executives, who are not your traditional welfare cases. There must be one, or two, or more who are willing to stand up and take responsibility. Who will stand up and say, "Yes we'll give the money back." That would likely open the flood gates and it would be a much better solution than a special tax.

The world would applaud. - Jim