Obama: Executive excess 'bad strategy'

Once again Obama the Unqualified shows how really ignorant he is.

Why don't we limit all income to $500,000?

Mr. Obama can lead the way by giving up all of his book proceeds over $500,000.

Next, Hollywood can make the supreme sacrifice and limit all of their incomes to $500,000.

Never going to happen.

Market based pay is in danger and we are one step closer to any incentive to create, innovate and take risk.

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems.

My heart goes out to the bank execs - I dont understand how they can possibly live on only $500k/year......

The problem is not these companies, it's the fact that politicians accept huge sums in campaign donations then turn around give taxpayer money to them, or pass bills helpful to them and other special interest groups like unions, whatever.

THAT is the bad taste and bad strategy. The legalized bribery by which our entire country is run.

"We all need to take responsibility. And this includes executives at major financial firms who turned to the American people, hat in hand, when they were in trouble, even as they paid themselves customary lavish bonuses," Obama said. "As I said last week, this is the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful. And that's exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."

THIS from the ONE who when being paid to vote and represent the people of Illinois Said "Present" 130 times INSTEAD of doing what he was paid to do. Namely vote.

THIS responsibility from the ethical??? liar who SEALED his University Transcripts.

Thank you Mr. President, now we can put this DIVERSION aside. Next he will be asking for a 1 to 2 Trillion in additional funds to stabilize the financial markets. This pay and perks issue, is just the ol' Chicago shuffle to muddle the discourse on the failures within the Pork Act and prepare the American taxpayers for another big hit for bailout funds. Geithner, the tax hiccup, is so important because he is the inside guy the WS clowns are depending on to cover their a**es. And Obama will tells us we have to act now with more doom and gloom. The herd will follow without question and yell "obstructionists" to those who do.

What other control will government begin to assert over private business? More baby steps towards Socialism.
Spread the wealth!

I could think of a few more things that are more shameful and arrogant than executives being paid more than $500,000 after the federal bailout.

What about lawyers who sue poor physicians to make millions convincing jurors of malpractice in cases of medically-acceptable care which had a poor outcome? Will Obama be willing to cap the salaries of lawyers throughout the country to curb the exorbitant excesses of the lawyer industry? How will Obama ever reform healthcare if he is not willing to attack a root cause of exploding healthcare costs from defensive medicine?

If Obama is not willing to cap lawyer salaries at $500,000, he will be demonstrating a double standard to the American people.

I think this is a step in the right direction, although we should fire those executives at failing companies and have them recompensate all bonus they've gotten for doing a bad job.

I mean seriously! You do not get a bonus or millions of dollars for running your company into the ground. Bonus is a Latin word for good, usually rewards for people doing a GOOD JOB. You do not do a bad job and get rewarded!!! Let's see blue collar workers get reprimanded or FIRED for doing a bad job. If I do badly in a class I FAIL that class, fail enough classes and i get KICKED OUT of school. I don't graduate summa cum laude for failing!!!

Thank God!!! Talk about the will of the people! The bloated CEOs, lobbyists and paid-off politicians have been trying to spin this, but the majority of hard-working average Americans are going to win out.

CEOs don't like it? Leave then and try to find another Golden Parachute. Go to another country - you think US taxes are bad? You think the US is the only country in a recession?

BS bonuses are part of the billionaire boys club, and if you're feeding from the public trough, then you get the rationed amount. Live with it....or don't.

Something tells me that Obama is using another illusory form of "weapons of mass destruction" in order to garner our support for his stimulus package, its called "panic" this time.

Another bad strategy is allowing your goverment officials to waste millions on perks for elected officials.
Cancel Pelosi's plane - make her ride coach if she "needs" to go home each week. She is heading up the most failed group in the country, with the lowest approval ratings in history. All elected officials should be required to fly coach, use an HMO like most americans, send their kids to public schools etc.
Funny Barry thinks the goverment should have a say - more of " do as I say - not as I do!

Obama is right on target as these well payed execs can be compensated with restricted stock if necessary to retain such "talent" and only for banks taking federal dollars until paid back. This is no different than the terms banks place on borrowers where if they are breached can recall the loan, only much more generous! Comments implying that free market pay is in danger because of these terms being placed here by the lender (US Treasury) are ridiculous.

What? Limit the pay of the CEOs? What an affront to aristocracy! It violates the natural order! How uncivilized!

Don't think The Presiden will win this one.
Too many lop holes including himself-
Example-Congress spending
excess money on them selves for a midwinter retreat AND ON and ON-

The President planing a unecesary trip to Springfield Il-

Or a trip to Chicago to throw out the opening ball at White Sox opener and ON and ON.

Now Obama reveals his real agenda - the government limitation of all pay. Companies that accept this bizarre handout (which will cost the taxpayers bazillions for decades to come) had better think twice. Once government gets in your face, they want to dictate every move made. Obama, as we all knew prior to the election or should have known, is a die-hard, radical, left-wing, America -hating socialist/communist. I think we should limit his taxpayer funded perks - which he will suckle off for the rest of his and his family's life. This, plus his tax-cheating pick for the head of the IRS.....pretty sad for our country.

Now Obama reveals his real agenda - the government limitation of all pay. Companies that accept this bizarre handout (which will cost the taxpayers bazillions for decades to come) had better think twice. Once government gets in your face, they want to dictate every move made. Obama, as we all knew prior to the election or should have known, is a die-hard, radical, left-wing, America -hating socialist/communist. I think we should limit his taxpayer funded perks - which he will suckle off for the rest of his and his family's life. This, plus his tax-cheating pick for the head of the IRS.....pretty sad for our country.

I think this is a spectacular idea! So many other federal funds are tied up with legislation, so it strikes me as very responsible to dictate that OUR money (from taxes) does NOT go into the personal bank accounts of people that caused the mess to begin with. Don't believe about other federal funds? Look up e-rate funding for your library. Smaller libraries don't have enough $$ to afford computer systems and ongoing support bills. The federal government arranged, in their absolute generosity, for these libraries to apply for assistance with computer purchases, broadband subscription, etc. BUT then everyone got a bug up their rear about children's viewing habits in the library - since parents are too busy to do their own jobs and expect librarians to do that for them. Solution - make it required for the receipt of federal e-rate assistance that the libraries also install filters (for the children, of course).
No big deal - not like limiting bonuses to $500,000 for men who get 64 billion plus otherwise... Except that the limits in the libraries make it so that the 12 year old girl who's mother is dying of breast cancer (said girl is, of course entering puberty herself) CAN'T go to sites that have medical information, because "breast" is a "bad word" according to the filter - puh-leeeease.
If you want the obscenely rich to keep hoarding their gold, then at least make it so that my child doesn't have to be limited by someone else's morals. Limit the usage so that it will actually do more than one person some good, or remove ALL the limits so that federal money can be used by any institution in any unregulated fashion...

Market based pay is in danger and we are one step closer to any incentive to create, innovate and take risk.

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems.

Posted by: zermatt | February 4, 2009 12:53 PM

I'm all for the market. Too bad, the Bank Execs aren't. They've taken BILLIONS from the government to stop the effects of the market on thier companies. If the market was setting thier pay they'd be makiing ZERO since their banks would have already failed. If lawyers and Hollwood stars take bailouts from the taxpayer, their pay should be limited too.

"Moreof thesame" The reason why Speaker Pelosi is flown on a government airpalne is due to security reasons and per the request of the Secret Service. As to Congress having what you call "the lowest approval ratings in history", that is due to the total disgust that the American people have for the Repubs who helped put this country on the edge of a Depression.And regarding President Obama, by law he receives $400,000 as compensation for being president of the United States.

Gee, I sure wish I could get paid a quarter to half a million bucks a year for f**king things up beyond all recognition.

Poor babies, only making 250K a year....

.

Just Another Day Of Cleaning Up The Bush/Cheney Trash For Prez Obama!

"If Obama is not willing to cap lawyer salaries at $500,000, he will be demonstrating a double standard to the American people. "

"Why don't we limit all income to $500,000?

Mr. Obama can lead the way by giving up all of his book proceeds over $500,000."

When the lawyers of America (and folks in other fields) go to D.C., hat in hand, looking for BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to compensate for their own mismanagement, then we can talk. Until then, try making comparisons that actually make sense. In the meantime, why don't you folks explain why it is that Comrade Bush felt the need to put our nation's largest banks on welfare- $350 billion worth.

Socialism 101.

but obscene spending in pork bill that dwarfs these salaries is a-ok with the zero? appointing tax cheats to jobs where they will essentially putting their boots on the necks of other non-taxpayers is just spiffy? obama's lightweightedness is starting to be a little too obvious for even the swooners to ignore.

Wow, a lot of you sure seem angry that welfare recipients won't be paid more than $500,000 a year. Perhaps you can pool your own money to help the corporate CEO's with their hands in the taxpayers pockets. YOu are all a bunch of socialists who hate the free market. The free market says, you f****** up and you don't get your fortune. The Socialists want the taxpayers to bail out their failures to "spread the wealth" to those corporate bigwigs who have bankrupted their companies.

Congress failed its fudiciary responsibility in its haste to help. Secy of Treasury was complicite and the CEO were crooks. There should be a way to recoup the $20B in bonuses, especially from firms that come back for more money.

Of course the people crying the loudest here against any cuts to executive pay are also the ones who most loudly demand that Union workers give up pay and benefits.

Remember, the union worker making $50,000 a year is greedy, the CEO making $20,000,000 a year is a noble hero who deserves everything he gets.

Why don't we limit all income to $500,000?

Mr. Obama can lead the way by giving up all of his book proceeds over $500,000.

Next, Hollywood can make the supreme sacrifice and limit all of their incomes to $500,000.

Never going to happen.

Market based pay is in danger and we are one step closer to any incentive to create, innovate and take risk.

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems.

Posted by: zermatt | February 4, 2009 12:53 PM

The best and the brightest? Market based pay? Market based pay says these people ran their companies into the ground, they are out of a job. Best and brightest, then why do you beg the government to save your butt because you have failed. If you have a problem with this, you pay their salaries, not the taxpayers. Or do you think it is up to the government (taxpayers) to do everything for everyone? I say if they want salaries above $500,000, let them earn it. But, then again, I'm not a Socialist like you.

The House Democratic Caucus spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer money over the past five years for its annual retreats at resorts in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

On Thursday, Democrats will head to the Kingsmill Resort and Spa in historic Williamsburg, Va., for the three-day planning powwow. The resort boasts multiple championship golf courses, a full-service spa and six restaurants.

USA Today 2007
WASHINGTON — It's been nearly three years since Democrat Claire McCaskill loaned $1.6 million of her own money to her unsuccessful bid to become governor of Missouri.
Now, as a U.S. senator, she's finally getting around to recovering the funds. But campaign watchdogs are concerned about her ability to collect donations toward this debt from corporations that may seek to influence her in Congress.

Last month, McCaskill received $4,600 from Missouri-based beer giant Anheuser-Busch, Inc. She also received $4,600 from Busch Entertainment Corp., $4,600 from Busch Media Group, Inc., $4,600 from Busch Properties, Inc., $2,000 from Anheuser Busch Packaging Group and $4,600 from Busch Agricultural Resources, Inc., according to a quarterly report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

Leadership by example! The Washington way just paying back the loans, no!

If you idiots approve of bank execs flying around in 50 million dollar planes on your dime, gorging on outrageous fees, then taking bailout money with your taxes, just go to your nearest Bank of America Branch, sign over your check and then tell your wife why your bills cant get paid. I will be in the other line demanding what the heck is the problem. There is a difference between a private company and a business that takes tax money and abuses it. At least someone is raising a question.

I find it ironic that most of the people yelling "socialism" or saying it's not the government's business to tell the banks what they can do with the money the government is giving them are people who DON'T and probably WON'T ever make $500,000+ a year. Cut the crap, these bankers are shrewd, "me me me" kinds of people who don't care about the stockholder or the average consumer. They deserve to be taught a little responsibility.

Notice the loophole? Note the word "exceptional" -- [[Under new rules, companies that receive "exceptional financial recovery assistance" - large bailouts like those given to Citigroup and American International Group - would not be allowed to pay senior executives more than $500,000 in total annual compensation. ]]

I don't see "exceptional" defined.

This is nothing more than a ploy to change the Daschle subject. And why is Tim Geithner still around, anyway? If the other two send the wrong message, as a supposedly contrite Obama said yesterday, why is the other guy still keeping his job?

Hypocricy we can believe in!

Some of you people are not only incredibly selfish, but are also incredibly stupid! He is only referring to the firms that have accepted bailout money from the government!...So all of you money hungry people can take a breather...

I believe it is the right thing to do! Stop rewarding execs for failure...

The rich Republican Wall Street fatcats live in an alternative reality, one that is so detached and so stupid that they're drooling all the way to the bank. They've created a corporate culture that not only fails to punish foolish behavior, it rewards it.

-On the Wall Street fatcat/Republican side of the scale: executives gut their corporation, cripple the economy, and pocket billions in the process,
-On the Obama /Dems side, Wall Street fatcats will work hard to make rational decisions, share the profits with the shareholders, reward employees for their hard work, and take a fair cut that matches their contribution to the company's long term health.

Is it any wonder this scale has tipped completely over and the Republican ranks have dwindled down to just a small pocket of idiots in the south?

Things have changed for the greedy white collar Republicans. No longer does it seem reasonable -- if it ever did -- that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker, as was estimated last August by the Institute for Policy Studies and the nonprofit group United for a Fair Economy. No longer does it seem acceptable that John Thain, the since-ousted Merrill Lynch chief who ordered the accelerated bonuses that would spend $1.2 million of his fast-sinking firm's money to redecorate his office -- and then, with Merrill's losses being revealed as even greater than feared, request a bonus of up to $10 million for himself.

The idea that executives and boards will undertake this reform on their own? Now that really is stupid. If we want this changed, it's going to have to come from the ground floor, and from Capitol Hill, not from the Republican board room.

Have to agree with the govt. on this one. NO executives should receive any money if they accepted TARP or bailout funds. Their banks failed or would have failed. Are we rewarding for failure? They should not get a penny, they are lucky to have job. They mismanaged their business and should not get a penny of a bonus. Bonuses are given for success not failure. No cap and definitely no bonuses!

I have no issue with it if you accept the money dealw ith it I just want it across the board, if you get federal money cap them all. Schools, Hospitals, subsidised industries, the arts, local governments that get federal money all of it or none.

Didn't we just find out that school official in Chicago were making that kind of money or close to it??? and that guy is now in DC probably buying more expresso or crapoccino makers.

Will Obama put a limit on Charlie Rangel's trips to the Caribbean paid for by Citi group - OOPS - your tax dollars?

Posted by: zermatt | February 4, 2009 12:53 PM
"Why don't we limit all income to $500,000?

Mr. Obama can lead the way by giving up all of his book proceeds over $500,000.

Next, Hollywood can make the supreme sacrifice and limit all of their incomes to $500,000.

Never going to happen.

Market based pay is in danger and we are one step closer to any incentive to create, innovate and take risk.

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems."
=========
That is the problem, the best and the brightest are not in these positions currently. So we are paying a lot for dumb people. Case in point all banks CEO/CIOs do not understand the VERY basic idea of loss reduction. They would rather loose $250,000 on a loan with a foreclosure then re-do the loan to reduce the loan to $200,000 and just loose $50,000. They should know that no one will buy that house with banks not giving loans, and that the house will be stripped of everything of value from it so they will be stuck with no money and no house to sell. The problem is the same dumb people who put us here are the ones who are going to get us out of it.

We need to clean house, and get some good management. Bonuses should be based on the success of the company not just one area. If a company looses billions of dollars, why would anyone deserve a bonus? Just because your one very small area did well, well it did not really help the company at all because you just lost billions of dollars. The company I work for does bonuses that way. If we have a bad year, no bonuses are paid out. And surprise, it is one of the few companies still doing well in this economy and is still hiring people.

Before we answer Zermatt's provocative question, I'd like to know:

Where were Nancy Harry and Barney when the first bailout was "drafted" and they left out the clawbacks, safeguards, oversight, etc. that would have prevented the payment of billions in bonuses to bozos??

Then we can figure out how to compensate those same bozos in the future. Sorry, I meant "best and brightest bozos".

good...this is probably the smartest thing jesus (read: obama) has done yet....i'm sorry if i'm bailing out a failing company then those execs who have let their company go should take a pay cut...give them stock that they can't cash in till the money has been paid back to the people....i am flat out against giving my money to corporations and banks who have proven that they don't know how to manage that money well....let those execs quit...how long do you think it'll take them to find another job? specially in this economy....if a CEO making 17 million takes a 16 million dollar pay cut and that 16 million goes to employees that would otherwise be "layed off" and those people make a minimum of 30k a year you would save 533 people their jobs? tell me....what is better for this economy....1 person making 17 million a year or 533 people making 30k a year....those people get to stay in their home, put food on their table still...put clothes on their kids....

To all those crying about free market pay: Those limits ONLY apply when the company wants to avoid the consequences of the free market mess they made.

Finally, the voice of reason.

Thank you President Obama. You have guts to stand up to these fat cats. I'm proud of you!

Our government should not spend a penny to manage failing industries. We can debate whether they deserve aid, but the most inept businessman is more likely to know how to run his business than the most vocal politician.
Nationalization of industry is just as problematic if government has 1% or 10% or 100% control.

wow, what a plan. I hope this means that us tax payers, who are footing the bill for our over compensated politicians, will be able to limit their pay as well as the perks they get at our expense.

Obama so missed the point. If the companies receiving bail-out funds had been allowed to fail, as they should have, instead of being bailed-out, the companies themselves would have ousted the executives. This is far, far too much monkeying in the private sector.

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems.

Posted by: zermatt | February 4, 2009 12:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------
Once again we have logic challenged posters assuming that if you pay a lot of money for a job, you get the best and brightest. Based on that theory, we definitely over paid for the Presidency the last eight years.

But more important, since all these Wall Street banker types were getting all those big payouts the last few years, given the condition they are in now, if that is the best and brightest, you can have 'em. Give me a few underpaid dummies. They couldn't screw it up any worse.

But it is apparent that zermatt isn't getting big money for his contrbutions to society.

WHY SHOULDNT WELLS FARGO GO GAMBLING IN VEGAS WITH TAXPAYER MONEY?

Get serious , anyone who thinks that they should MUST BE AN INSIDER.
No sober taxpayer would agree with that....
The conference is a Wells Fargo tradition. Previous all-expense-paid trips have included helicopter rides, wine tasting, horseback riding in Puerto Rico and a private Jimmy Buffett concert in the Bahamas for more than 1,000 of the company's top employees and guests.

In bad taste? Yeah, that's kind of how many of us felt about the $750 + MILLION Obama raised (razed) during his run for the Presidency. Looks like a 'do as I say, not as I do' kind of Administration. That kind of money is absurd and we need "change" to the laws so we KNOW from where the "donations" were made.

Why stop with Bankers? Why not limit the pay of all football and basketball players to $500,000 per year? Baseball players too. Then ticket prices could be lowered. No one playing professional sports today needs more the $500K per year.

I agree with the limit on CEO pay, with emphasis on those receiving tax payer bailouts. The bailouts were intended to help people stay in their homes, continue to keep credit flowing and help stableize the markets - not to pay the bonuses, then the shareholders, then build up the stockpile of moneys, tighten up lending, and continue to let homes become foreclosed.

All this anger about Obama's agenda, and yada yada yada. It was the greed of Wall Street, the padding of pockets of the Bush administrations personal interests, and the false inflation of an economy that was teetering on the brink. All of you who are complaining - are you paying your mortgages? Are you on time with your bills? Your car leases? Do you still have every little gadget you think you need to have? Or are you wondering when the phone rings if it is a bill collector, because you are deciding which bills can be paid this month?

The bailouts were aimed to help Main street, and yes, those that squandered their handouts of billions from you and I working so hard every day, should be held accountable, ethically, morally, and federally. No one handed me a bailout to go on vacation with. No one even handed me a bailout to keep my business going. No one hears me scream every time the mailman comes with another bill that needs to be paid.

Yes, Prez Obama - hold those captains of banking to a far higher standard, because Bush's boy Paulson certainly didn't care.

And, yet politician's raise their pay all the time? And they make millions in speaking engagements, book deals, etc. Chicago alderman make in excess of $100,000 a year for part-time work! Give me a break!

I agree... government should not be dictating how bank execs get paid... because the banks should never have gotten OUR money in the first place! The "brightest and the best" are running companies that do not need bailout money... The jamokes that run the companies that can't take care of themselves need to be weeded out. Survival of the fittest. That SHOULD be the American way of business. That's the only way to ensure quality and pride in American products. Yeah... goes for car companies too, and any other company too near-sighted to have a sound foundation.

The limit is a good limit. Executives must turn around the bleeding bank or company. Pay back the American treasury FIRST, then they can pay themselves a bonus. I think it's the all American way ---to leave a carrot out there for those executives. Pay us back first then you can earn unlimited salary.

I would think that ANY company that accepts a federal bail out loan or grant should be required for to limit the total compensation, excluding stock options (for any company executive) to a maximum out what the chief exexutive of our country (gets)... possible add a housing bonus of $5,000 per month and a car allowance for use of a "made in America" car.
Stock options should be based on the growth of profits for the company only.

Well Fargo did not want to take Federal Bailout money. Their CEo was part of the group of nine CEOs that hank Paulson called to Washington on October 13, 2008. They were put in a room and told they could not leave until they agreed to take the money. Wells fargo was nit in trouble because of subprim loans and said they didn't need the money. However thgis was a "take it or take it " deal. This has been reported by the the WSJ, New York Times and International Herald Tribune. However, the fact that some of the banks like Wells Fargo were forced to take the money is conveniently forgotten. And since when the President get the right to set salaries? How long will it be before salary caps are set for other industries?

So after today's exec payment limitation, Goldman Sachs decides that they don't need the $10 billion that the government gave them in the first bailout and they are planing to give it back. Take a look at the compensation that the top execs of this company made during the year 2007:

Gary D. Cohn President and Chief Operating Officer $600,000 (base) $72.5 million (total)
Jon Winkelried President and Chief Operating Officer $600,000 (base) $71.5 million (total)
David A. Viniar Chief Financial Officer $600,000 (base) $58.5 million (total)
Edward C. Forst Chief Administrative Officer $600,000 (base) $49.1 million (total)

What a frickin' joke! Almost $250 million out the door to 4 people! No wonder they gave back the $10 billion as the top players would have to take a 17% base pay cut and they'd lose millions in bonuses. As if that is working in the best interest of its shareholders. I seriously hope Goldman Sachs goes belly up. This company is the epitome of everything that is wrong with America!

If you limit pay you won't attract the best and the brightest to solve these problems.

Posted by: zermatt | February 4, 2009 12:53 PM

-That's why European researches and Doctors who are miles ahead of us in some areas are flooding the US......oh they're not. Or the car designers and manufacturers that are outselling US models 4-1. Money isn't always the carrot on the end of the stick.

Banking institutions