Posted on 01/30/2009 11:55:19 AM PST by Red in Blue PA
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after President Barack Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.
An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I’d prefer a media exposure cap for idiot politicians (which is just about every dang one of ‘em).
Will professional athletes be included? My state pays dearly to keep a football team from leaving. So in a way, we have been bailing them out since 1984. Being that this is the case, why should an athlete on that team make more than the president?
“Personally, I think those who are stockholders in the company should be the judge.”
You don’t get it.
Stockholders have ZERO say in the compensation packages of execs. These are determined by Compensation Committees, which are NOT acountable to the shareholders, the so-called owners. That needs to change.
Not all Wall Street people are idiots. Senators, on the other hand...
“But not all expensive people are competent..............”
The people posting here seem to have the notion that no price is too high to pay for an incompetent Wall Streeter, but the GM CEO needs to make a buck a year.
While we can all sympathize with capping salaries for CEO's of companys which get bailed out, the greater argument is (a)what entitles them to the bail-out in the first place and (b)why can't we find a comparable and suitable penalty for the jerkwads in congress who did even more to create this mess?
“Not all Wall Street people are idiots.”
Okay, not all. How about 70%?
Have you seen how many 100 year old firms have gone down in flames on Wall Street?
My dog could have done better.
No, because you want the USG to micromanage these companies. And you are missing the larger issue, i.e., the Dems are pissing away more than a trillion dollars in pork that will reward their cronies and constituents and failing businesses that deserve to fail, all on the taxpayers dime not only for the living but their children and their children's children. 17 cents of every federal dollar is now spent on servicing the debt and this will increase significantly because of these "stimulus" bills.
You are falling for the Obama strategy of focussing on these issues [class envy] rather than what is in the bill. Obama used his power to prevent Citibank from buying a $50 million corporate jet. This played well in Peoria, but it wasn't the full story. The new jet was to replace two older ones and decrease operating costs.
I sure as hell want the corporations to operate their own business and not have Obama micromanaging them. Obama has never run anything larger than a Senate office staff prior to becoming President. It is up to the Board of Directors and the shareholders to hold the executives accountable and set salary levels.
There WERE no terms. This is an after-the-fact demand by the commies in Washington who have decided, 3 months later, that they didn't quite like the way the money that they gave away was spent.
They should have considered making a contractural agreement before dishing out the taxpayer's money.
Better yet, they shouldn't have given away money in the first place. The only reason this bailout occurred was to hide the fact that it was the government at many levels that caused the housing and credit debacle in the first place. They're covering for their own inept policies.
I hate to break it to you but a Republican Administration is the one who doled out the money.
I don’t believe it’s tinfoil..slippery slope and all that..once it’s in for a few, it won’t be long before they (dems) find a way to make it so for the rest, whether or not bailout money was received..
Believe me, I WISH it was tinfoil, but once entrenched on the slope, the slide becomes faster..
IMHO
This will cause a flight of talent from troubled firms.
“It is up to the Board of Directors and the shareholders to hold the executives accountable “
THEY. AREN’T. DOING. THIS!
Anyone who thinks that capping salaries is a good idea is an idiot.
The market works just fine when the proper oversight is provided by the Board of Directors.
99% of these bonuses went to the guys in the middle-those who’s salary is based on the amount of business that is brought into a company. And you know what—during the past year those folks who’s business it is to “trade” have done a great deal of business. They make money going up, and going down. These are not “buy and hold” shops, they are brokerages. If there is no trading going on, they wont make the commissions and bonuses.
You cannot just decided that a business model doesnt work because you dont like the outcome. if it bothered them that much, dont pay them the TARP money.
The folks in Washington, and in middle america don’t understand how this business has worked for a thousand years.
Go ahead—wage controls worked great in 1970, I am sure they will do wonders now.
Fools.
“Being that this is the case, why should an athlete on that team make more than the president?”
That reminds me of the story about Babe Ruth. In 1931 a reporter asked him if it embarrassed him to be earning more than the President of the United States, and the Babe replied “No, I had a much better year than he did”.
“This will cause a flight of talent from troubled firms.”
All 4 people?
“99% of these bonuses went to the guys in the middle”
Run the numbers.
This is simply not the case.
Spare me the sophistry.
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.