One possible way for the Congress to deal with this issue is to require companies to report how many options they have outstanding and at what share price. For example, they could require companies to disclose that they have 200,000 shares obligated at an option price of, say, $85. But I think you're barking up the wrong tree. As I've said previously, most of MS's options are underwater. That means that employees will never see any profit from them and, therefore, there will never be any expense to investors.
Another thing that I wouldn't mind seeing done is to prevent CEOs and higher management insiders from exercising stock options until at least 120 days (or longer) after they have left a particular company. That would prevent many of the fraudulent shenanigans that we are seeing.
The real game here is that Democrats want to get Republicans on record for opposing expensing stock options; in that way, they can paint Republicans as the "Party of the Rich". As a result, I would caution you to beware of who you side with on this debate.
I do appreciate your measured and sensible retorts.
Your points have been well taken.
I believe that a recognition of "current liability" associated with the potential excercise of options considering the difference of current price to strike price would be a good approach.
Thank you indeed for the stimulating conversation.
One last item, please. I never had any real cause to believe that MS would abuse my trust by using their "background capabilties". However, I do not like it that they created that "capability", and didn't tell me about it. (It resulted in "fear" the first time it became apparent, because I thought it was some sort of attack by an unknown third party. (Just because one is paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, you know!)
If you would be interested in the story you can find it at:
http://www.geocities.com/RISUQDM/