Since Congressmen and U.S. Presidents also suck from the hind, teat, I think we need to limit Bill Clinton, he can’t make more than 500g all year, he needs to charge LESS for his speeches.
I don’t like the idea either, but when business decides to use public money instead of letting capitalism work as intended, then, as a “shareholder”, I agree with caps on salary. Who was it drove the company into this situation in the first place?
...
It’s hypocritical.
Did Obama's campaign manager go on welfare like these banks did? No, he didn't. As a result, He's entitled to make as much as he damn well pleases on any legal business deals in which he involves himself.
I’m conflicted on this. I do think executive compensation has gotten out of hand, and not contingent upon the actual success of the company. I attribute alot of this to shareholder apathy. With the rise of the 401K and mutual fund, we have created a class of investors who don’t really ‘know’ what companies they are invested in, and really would find it difficult to move money out of one stock, if they thought the CEO was making too much money.
Of course none of that matters - we are talking about one man dictating the salaries of others. I do think that, as an ‘investor’, the government should have input...but only to the extent that they are invested in these comapanies.
One positive byproduct of this - these banks now have an incentive to pay back their TARP money sooner, rather than later....or not at all.
Uh, WE’RE paying their salaries! If they’re using my money, they sure don’t need to live high on the hog with it.
I actually agree with this part of the plan. These are failed companies using taxpayer dollars. Once they become profitable again, this stipulation will go away.
The head of the FBI dosen’t get a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded bonus.
In truth, the “maximum wage” DOES only apply to corporations which are bellying up to take MY money from me.
(Of course, it’s probably just the beginning)
I’d prefer NO “bail-outs” and NO salary caps.
But, if I HAVE to live with the one, I don’t mind the other being imposed on those who are stealing my money.
It sure was great while it lasted.
Wrong.
Ironically, most CEOs probably did vote for 0bamessiah.
The law of unintended consequances would take effect big time on this. Our financial industry would move to London, Dublin or Toronto leaving us nothing.
“Some animals are more equal than others”
Animal Farm
For crying out loud! Why is it that conservatives are so easily distracted by issues like this rather than focusing on the real target which is killing this socialist “stimulus” package.
This only applies to companies that took taxpayer money for a bailout. Bitch about the government regs that in part brought this about but the gov regs were not the only reason these companies got into trouble; the execs running things deserve a fair part of the blame as well. The companies that are not running with our money are free to pay their CEOs anything they want.
Whining about this puts conservatives in the position of supporting the use of tax dollars to obviously maintain the lifestyles and perks of company execs. The money is supposed to help save the companies not save the execs lifestyles of the rich and famous. Yes Virginia, if they took our money then they signed on to regulation; but they are treating it like a gift from Santa. If they are successful in bringing the company out of trouble and paying back the taxpayer then the boards and shareholders can lavish whatever salaries they want on them.
This is a side issue and almost a non-issue. I could almost believe that BO Plenty’s advisors pushed announcing this knowing that conservatives would impulsively react, blow it out of proportion and pull attention away from the issue of killing the stimulus package. Give it a rest and get focused on what really matters.
The CEOs affected by this brought it on themselves when they agreed to take money from the government. But when they start decreeing it for businesses that don’t take the handouts, it’s going to hit the fan.
Bullcrap. If their banks followed the normal rules, they would be bankrupt, and executive salaries would be zero.
The executives decided to be marxist-oligarchs, and get their friends in DC to use MY money to take the hit for their sharp-shooting internationalist banking scams that fell.
Then, as soon as they had taxpayers cash which they had NO right to, they became “free market capitalist” again. A massive reduction in their pay seems to reflect their performance. In truth, they are public employees now. And with a poor track record.
And of course,,they are always free to go work for a non-bailout firm. And then they can freely demand the 50,100, and 300 million they believe they are worth.
Theres a reason why they don’t. The bailout might be socialist, but capping the pay of federlly funded employees such as bank executives, isn’t.
I don’t feel sorry for these executives at all. They took the government money, so they have to dance when the gov’t plays the tune.
If they wanted independence, they should have stayed independent.
And it sets a precedent that, where government money is involved, Obozo or his minions can now set salary caps. [See the same concept, in the context of quotas, with Title IX, athletic programs and colleges that directly, or indirectly, i.e student loans, get Federal money].
Perhaps Obama should a place another cap: If you owe more than $500,000 in back taxes you can't be appointed to a Cabinet position. $499,999 is OK.