This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 23, 2008 9:33 PM. The previous post in this blog was C a K9 U like?. The next post in this blog is Feminist summit. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

And now, a public service announcement

"We support the bill, but we are opposed to provisions on executive pay," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president for government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group. "It is not appropriate for government to be setting the salaries of executives."
Mr. Talbott, I think I speak for tens of million American taxpayers when I say: EAT MY SHORTS!

This has been a public service announcement from bojack.org. We return you now to our usual programming.

Comments (9)

If my tax dollars were spent for that PSA, I approve.

I don't understand the problem. Any company that doesn't want to submit to pay limitations doesn't have to participate in the bailout.

Any company that doesn't want to submit to pay limitations doesn't have to participate in the bailout.

Absolutely. Sounds fair...government has been telling states they cant have federal money unless they submit to their regulations, corporations can have the same rules.

If you aren not scared sh*#less by the Sec. of the Treasury and his proposal...
you are not paying attention!
George W. Bush not the worst president of the United States...the last president.

Since when is it not appropriate for a new business owner to not be able to set salaries?

Did anyone tell these clowns that they no longer have any leverage at the bargaining table?

The ultimate irony would be if these executives got their salary cut to the point they couldn't pay the mortgage on their ridiculous Park Ave. penthouses and vacation homes in the Hamptons, and THEY get foreclosed on.

Nothing short of a public hanging of these scumbags will satisfy me at this point.They have stolen billions of dollars from old folks who will never recover their losses. People who worked hard and saved their whole lives, not priviledged executives who have never served this country in any manner and have spent their lives living well off of the rest of us.

A very level-headed voice in all this is that of Dean Baker, co-head of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Here's what he has to say on this subject in his blog, "Beat the Press":

"In his weekly NYT column, David Leonhardt argues that limits on executive compensation are a sideshow to the bank bailout. Actually, they are an essential part of the story.

"A key issue in the bailout is addressing moral hazard. The message to Wall Street should not be to get rich on fees from stupid loans and then run to the big government to save your rear when the loans go bad. We give this message to the shareholders by saying that we are going to own much or all of your bank if you come to us for help.

It is necessary to give a similar lesson to the CEOs. A major problem in corporate America is that top executives have been able to pillage their corporations at the expense of shareholders. This problem is nowhere worse than on Wall Street, where high level executives (not just CEOs) routinely earn tens of millions annually in compensation, and sometimes hundreds of millions.

It is therefore crucial that the CEOs also be forced to take big hits in this sort of bailout. Otherwise, their incentive is to rip off their shareholders in the good times with irresponsible lending policies (thereby getting huge fees) and then have the government kick the shareholders in the teeth in the bad times, but they themselves can escape unscathed.

"In short, kicking the top management in the teeth as part of the bailout is both a necessary part of the bailout and good policy for stemming the growth in inequality over the last three decades."

I agree with Allen. One of the serious problems that has surfaced here is that the American system of corporate governance simply does not work.

Does any truly think that a legitimate vote of Goldman Sachs shareholders in 2005 would have authorized a $39 million BONUS payment to the already well-compensated Mr. Paulson? If so, please explain to me how that was "earned."

A frequent reason given for needing to pay high bonuses is to keep "key" managers, and prevent a "brain drain" on a given company. http://bojack.org/2008/09/yeah_they_ran_through_the_bria.html

So if we didn't pay them the big bucks were would they go? China? Russia? Middle East?

Me thinks that kind of expertise may no longer be in demand.

Clicky Web Analytics