COMRADE OBAMA'S SALARY CAP

boblonsberry.com ^ | 02/05/09 | Bob Lonsberry

[shortstop]

It’s a Marxist’s dream come true.

[rovenstinez]

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.

[chickadee]

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?

[what's up]

Who was it drove the company into this situation in the first place?

Well, the gov't mandated CRA stuff had a lot to do with it.

[pnh102]

It’s ironic that on the same day the president set a $500,000 cap on executive pay, his campaign manager signed a book contract for more than $1 million.

...

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.

[Sudetenland]

Total BS! Anyone who accepts tax-payer money becomes subject to governmental regulation.

These guys are simply reaping what they have sown. What did they expect to get money from the government without any strings attached? Anyone who pays attention to their state and local governments should have known that if you take federal money you're opening yourself up to governmental scrutiny and control.

This is one thing I actually agree with Obama over...not the envy stuff, but the limits on how these idiot corporate managers spend our tax money.

They should never have received the money in the first place. This is them getting their just desserts.

[lacrew]

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.

[LuxAerterna]

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?

I agree. The bailouts were of course a bad idea to begin with and should be frozen ASAP. However, the bailouts are a reality for the time being and it seems right to me that executives feeding at the public trough should have strict limits placed on their compensation. Only after they have stopped collecting public money are they entitled to whatever pay is approved by shareholders and the board of directors. And in fact strict limits on pay is a good motivator for these executives to put their businesses back in order and stop begging for public funds, even if its not as good of a motivator as ending the bailouts immediately.

[Rocky Mountain High]

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.

[WayneS]

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.

[jpl]

Yep, it's official: we're now the United Socialist States of America.

It sure was great while it lasted.

[WayneS]

Agreed.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

I watched a LA Times reporter this morning on Fox & Friends advocate this limited salary move to all companies, regardless if they take our bail out money or not. She and Barney Frank are advocating the death of free enterprise in the United States. I don't recall her name.

[pnh102]

What did they expect to get money from the government without any strings attached?

Actually, yes, they did!

[CajunConservative]

Bawney Fwank said that this cap could encompass ALL businesses.

---

Barney Frank: TARP’s comp curbs could be extended to all businesses

Would be part of broader bill limiting hedge funds, credit-raters, and mortgage securitizers; ‘deeply rooted anger’

By Neil Roland
February 3, 2009 3:01 PM ET

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies....

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC

[anoldafvet]

The only problem with your reasoning is that they should never have gotten bailout money in the first place. If these companies were stupid enough to pay these guys millions while they were being run into the ground, they deserved to go out of business.

This is typical of a government that allows the Energy Dpeartment to consume $24 billion a year to stand in the way of energy development and then taxes away the profits of the oil companies to pay for it.

[Uncle Miltie]

"In one fell swoop, the president has capped the salaries – and consequently limited the impact – of a group of people who mostly didn’t vote for him."

Wrong.

Ironically, most CEOs probably did vote for 0bamessiah.

[wtc911]

So many problems with this...

First, the cap is only on the tax deductability of the first $500k of salary. If a company wants to pay more they can do so but will not be able to expense it.

Second, only 'C' level employees and division Presidents are included.

Third, benefits are not included (ie, options).

Fourth, companies that already took TARP monies are excluded.

Fifth, it assumes that the execs who ran the company will stay with the company. Why would they if they could get exponentially higher pay by jumping to a non-TARP company. Which leads to...

Sixth, how will TARP companies compete for the best talent to replace existing execs if they are limited in the compensation offer?

[gusty]

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.

[Uncle Miltie]

"Who was it drove the company into this situation in the first place?"

In order of culpability:

1) The Federal Reserve
2) Congress
3) Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
4) ACORN