.
Posted on 06/10/2009 7:57:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Obama administration official says the administration will appoint a "special master" to oversee executives' compensation at companies receiving large amounts of government aid, with the power to reject pay plans deemed excessive.
The official said the special master will review the compensation for the top 100 salaried employees at firms that receive exceptional assistance under the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Among the companies that could be affected would be Bank of America, General Motors and the American International Group.
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the program had not yet been announced.
The special master is expected to be Kenneth Feinberg, a lawyer who oversaw payments to families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
I guess these folks are going to pay to play. LOL
Fascism is on the move.
Unreal...we have a dictatorship in the USA.
.
Maybe this will encourage more private companies to stay off the dole.
Special Master............a ironic title from some one who wants slavery reparations.
They took the cash. Did they really, honestly think it was going to come without strings attached?
Who gets to decide what is “excessive”? ....... Barry?
They shouldn’t have taken the cash if they didn’t want restrictions. I see this less as fascism and more as reaping what you have sown.
Another Czar?
Barney Fwanks partner.
Isn’t that always the problem with the ‘isms’ — For instance the sate run media see themselves on the inside ... But then find themselves in the same gulags.
“Special master” equals “Kommisar.”
I guess "Czar" is getting too conspicuous.
Forced? Nothing in the legislation demanded that they take the money so they were not compelled by
Was there arm twisting? Yes there was. And this is what happens to you when you give in to arm twisting rather than standing firm. They should have stood firm, screamed louder, and refused.
At any rate - Ten of them paid back last week and more are queuing up.
We’re all on the big plantation now. Have to do what the Overseer says.
...Why don’t we do this to GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES first? You know, BEFORE forcing others to do it...
Should have said “compelled by force of law.”
Sorry. I type most of these on a smartphone that I’m getting used to using.
Who says the two are distinctly independent?
Personally I think they did think there'd be no strings attached, because these companies didn't bother to have a payback provision included in the bills that authorized the initial disbursement of welfare.
Yess Sirr Maasta! --
Go straight to H----!
errr... Because we do. Employee compensation is a matter of public record for most government employees and those salaries are reviewed regularly. Sometimes there are cuts and sometimes there are raises.
Even in Texas I can go to an Austin database and type in a name or position title and get a result of how much they make a year.
Sure sounds bad.
But, that’s what happens when you take the king’s coin.
Any other large investor would want similar oversight.
Like it or not, Obammy’s government has replaced the private investor for these companies.
I thought we had a Pay Czar. Is this different?
THANK YOU CitizenUSA.
I think they thought it would come with few if any strings just like bailouts in the past. I think they got grabby and got their fingers burnt.
Do I understand correctly that when you ask “Who says the two are distinctly independent?” you are referring to force of law and the arm twisting I referred to?
Force of law - sourced in legislation
arm twisting - unethical pressure applied without legal backing
Did Obama apply pressure? Sure did. Should those companies have resisted harder and screamed louder? Yes they should have. Did they? They did not.
Under communism the government sets prices and pay.
The really alarming thing is that the administration is playing around with the idea of extending this to non-TARP corporations!
I”m sorry .. where in the legislation did it say they HAD to accept the money... did they feel pressured? Yes they did. Was that pressure outside the law? Yes it was.
this czar and special master stuff is unconstitutional on its face. this is a mess.
Go look it up!
What law is zero going by that gives him the right to do half of what he is doing? He is making it up to fit his Fascist agenda!
Another CZAR answerable only to OBAMA!
That is rather my point - that the pressure was outside the law but nothing in TARP compelled them to accept. They folded under pressure.
When I say force of the law I mean something very particular. I mean that they would have faced criminal prosecution. Nobody faced criminal prosecution if they turned down TARP money. Please find me a citation for that if that is what you are suggesting.
Companies that were over-leveraged had a choice. They could accept TARP money or find another means of securing themselves through private investment... Most of them CHOSE TARP and all the strings that might come along with that.
Was there pressure outside the law? Yes? Was this illegal and unethical? Yes it was. Was it something that people should be prosecuted for? Yes it was.
Was it something these companies COULD have said no to? Yes it was.
This was all about nationalizing the banking industry. Force the banks to take funds, then you can dictate what they can do. And those that you don't need, you let them pay you back. Those you want to keep controlling, you say "you're not stable enough to pay us back".
Consider the "formula" for the stress test hasn't been made public; how can we check to make sure a bank is really healthy enough to give back TARP, or is so weak it has to keep the funds? Only because Mr. Geithner said so!
Not if they wanted to stay a company. Paulson (and Obama, later) could bring them to a halt with a top-to-bottom audit of everything. No transactions allowed until the audit is complete. Oh, and for good measure have OSHA go over every doorknob of their branches, have the EPA check every carpet and air filter, etc.
The threat of heavy regulation can destroy any company. Especially one that relies upon regular and daily transactions. Slow them down for a few weeks, and they die.
What was offered to the banks was "either take TARP, or don't and find yourself so regulated and examined that you will go bankrupt and then you will take TARP under the Court order".
Either play now with the two strings we show (and the 17 we don't), or your successors and creditors will be forced to play with us in the future.
Some choice...
Take the Kings shilling, play the Kings tune.
I don’t feel sorry for GM, Chrysler or any of these banks that begged for and took/stole MY money.
I’m not so sure about that, and IIRC, several of the banks/financial co’s were begging for the money.
I’ve read those documents and what I see are talking points and contracts. The talking points did not COMPEL them and the contracts did NOT have to be signed. What you’ve provided is evidence of pressure but not evidence of compulsion.
Nobody would have faced prosecution for violating the law if they hadn’t signed. Some of them were so eager to sign that they didn’t even bother to review payback provisions.
This is my bottom line - nothing in the law compelled them to do this. In the absence of that they made a choice. It was a bad choice made under intense pressure but that’s why they make the big bucks. Or used to at any rate.
They had a choice. Applying lots of pressure doesn’t remove that choice. I wouldn’t protect them from the consequences if they signed these exact same contracts and terms with a private firm and I won’t protect them from those consequences when the signs these contracts with the state. They never should have signed. They should have closed their doors first.
For me at least this is a “Come back with your shield or on it!” moment and it looks a lot like they decided to pawn their shields.
You are correct - and I still think they should have stood firm and not signed.
Sometimes the price of standing firm is defeat on one front but that usually opens other doors. Companies folding under that sort of pressure would have been impossible to hide and would have led to an INTENSE and long overdue review of the government by otherwise sleepy citizens.
I said it before and I’ll say it again - I think this was a “come back with your shield or on it” moment and they decided to have another glass of wine instead.
Regardless of what one calls it, I believe what is happening with Obama is dangerous to our freedoms and our national identity.
Reaping what they sow is right. I find it difficult to feel sorry for the likes of Lewis when he has been hell bent on shipping jobs to India, and has picked up the pace after TARP, meaningless provisos aside.
Not that it makes a difference either way, with or without porkulus and it’s piglets, but he was and is methodically moving BoA to India. Like all the other big banks. Hope everyone feels realy secure about their personal data and finances being handled like that. Just sayin...
I think the CEOs and CFOs of the banks looked at this as a no-win situation; they had two choices:
1. Accept the pressure, take TARP, and try to deal with the aftermath but at least survive.
2. Refuse the pressure and TARP, get broken by the Government, and open yourself up to personal lawsuits by your investors for material harm to the company, and end up broken yourself.
I think self-preservation, and optimism (we'll figure out how to get through this) took over and got us where we are today.
Fundamentally, this wasn't a failure of the banks; this was a success of the Government starting to nationalize industries. It's awfully hard to stand up to the Government when they decide to bring their assets to bear (I know, I've been there personally).
Of course the banks will say that. Gotta save face you know. However, the excuse "sorry honey, I was forced to have sex with that stripper" won't work with most of our spouses and it doesn't work for these banks.
It was these banks that literally marched on Washington demanding that we bail their worthless welfare queen asses out of the fire because they chose to make poor business decisions. It is not my fault that they didn't insist on a payback provision to be written into their little "gift" from me and the other taxpayers.
What about the option of refusing to bend to pressure, publicizing that illegal pressure, and taking a firm stand for what you believe to be ethical and legal?
American corporations seem to have reduced themselves to bottom line considerations. That’s fine as far as that goes but they then need to start making bottom line arrangements with me. They took MY money in TARP funds and I have no qualms about them being squeezed hard as long as they keep it. If they had made an ethical decision to resists illegal and improper pressure I would have stood beside them.
I think I meant something a little different but I take your meaning.
I’m just not oozing with sympathy for these people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.