Say on pay: House says yea

Of course the republicans voted no on this. They have no shame! These are 'PUBLIC' companies people not private!!!! You wingnuts just keep digging your grave more and more every day! I love it!!!!

Good luck, boys and girls. This doesn't stand a snowball's chance of surviving a constitutional challenge. And it WILL be challenged.

Republican Congressman who oppose universal health insurance should immediately relinquish their federal health insurance. After all, these members of Congress have long enjoyed taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, a privilege that they apparently believe tens of millions of working, uninsured Americans and their families don't deserve.

If Republicans don't think being uninsured is a big deal, then they should go right ahead and try it out. And if they really believe a public plan is such a bad option, maybe they can persuade their parents to give up Medicare too.

The proposed legislation only provides for a NON-BINDING referendum. I believe that it may finally provide a vehicle for the shareholders to voice their displeasure in paying Millions to the corporate officers who aren't worth that amount of money.

A note to Scott: these ARE private companies; investment in them is, for the most part, open to the public. The disinformation provided by your post is disturbing to this "wingnut" republican, because it leads me to believe that a large part of the populace bases their opinions on incorrect facts and theories.

Posted by: A Once and Future Skeptic

If they received federal bailout money, as the article suggests, they should be subject to restrictions on compensation.

"A note to Scott: these ARE private companies; investment in them is, for the most part, open to the public. The disinformation provided by your post is disturbing to this "wingnut" republican, because it leads me to believe that a large part of the populace bases their opinions on incorrect facts and theories."

Correct. These are private companies so they shouldn't accept the government bail outs if they want their bonuses. If they accept the bail out money, then the shareholders (taxpayers) should have a say on whether and how much bonuses they get! Otherwise, we will just continue the corporate welfare program with no end in sight.

To the extent that PRIVATE companies do not require public funds to keep themselves afloat, I think they absolutely can do whatever they want to do to compensate their management. And, in the current economic climate, for leaders of those companies to have kept their organization profitable, they've EARNED pay raises and bonuses -- to whatever extent the shareholders are willing to support. That's what entrepreneurs are here for, and why they command the pay they do. They take the risks, they put in the time, do the homework and gather the research, and they make (or don't make) the deals that differentiate between success and failure. When they're good and the company is profitable, they deserve whatever they can successfully demand.

It's when private companies take public funds to avoid bankruptcy that my willingness to indulge them stops short. I don't see rewarding poor leadership, bad performance, clouded vision and ultimately incompetence with a raise and a bonus.

Scottie,

This is a problem that does not need a gov't solution. And every gov't solution is a hammer and every private sector problem is a nail - in the eyes of the gov't.

This bill is all style with no substance. It is ADVISORY only. Shareholders already have a say on pay - it's called selling thier stock.

Once again, the liberals think gov't can do something better than the private sector.

A wonder if thsi will apply to Fannie and Freddie?

"We've got to act to prevent the next financial meltdown,'' added Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) - Shows you don't need brains to be a Congressman.

Skeptic,

Ignore Scottie - he's from the north of the border and economics and business aren't his strong suits. He is a good PR spinmeister though.

Republicans crying for the obscenely rich.......priceless......and it pretty much tells Americans all they need to know about the priorities of todays Republican party.

* * * * *
Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | July 31, 2009 2:48 PM
.
I think you’re right. If the bill were applicable only to companies that took TARP money or other government bailout funds, I could see it passing muster (if one blinks at the constitutionality of TARP and other bailouts). But it is not so limited. Section 4(b) of the Bill provides that:
.
“Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and taking into account the factors described in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection 25 (a), the appropriate Federal regulators shall jointly prescribe regulations that prohibit any compensation structure or incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such compensation structure or arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate risks by financial institutions or officers or employees of covered financial institutions that— (1) could have serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability; or (2) could threaten the safety and soundness of the covered financial institution.”
.
A covered institution under the bill includes “(A) a depository institution or depository
institution holding company, as such terms are defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813); (B) a broker-dealer registered under section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o); (C) a credit union, as described in section 19(b)(1)(A)(iv) of the Federal Reserve Act; (D) an investment advisor, as such term is defined in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b–2(a)(11)); and (E) any other financial institution that the appropriate Federal regulators, jointly, by rule, determine should be treated as a covered financial institution for purposes of this section.” (See http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/financialsvcs_dem/comp_001_xml.pdf )
.
In other words, the bill purports to regulate the compensation of all known financial institutions, and it goes far beyond companies that have taken TARP or other bailout money. In fact, federal regulators have the power to redefine “covered institution” to include any other financial institution they think ought to be covered under part (E) of the definition. So, those of you who believe the bill is aimed only at corporations receiving public assistance - are WRONG.
.
Furthermore, the bill contains no findings of fact, and it doesn’t cite the portions of the Constitution that supposedly authorized Congress to enact such legislation. That doesn’t bode well for the legislation. The lack of findings makes it difficult, if not impossible, to sustain this bill under Congress’ commerce or so-called “spending” power. Private compensation contracts aren’t goods or “commerce” under the Constitution. Thus, findings would normally be required to demonstrate that such practices somehow impede or disrupt commerce for it to come within that power. Congress is not spending money on all of the covered institutions, so compliance with the regulations can’t be seen as a quid pro quo for Congress’ spending. Nor are all of these companies covered under FDIC, in which case the regulations can’t be seen as a proper regulation to protect FDIC coverage. There are no other portions of the Constitution that come close to justifying this bill.
.
This just goes to show you what little regard Congress has for constitutional restraints on its power. It should also be another eyebrow raising example of the continued use of “regulators” and “tsars” to do Congress’ work for it.

John W: Congress does have the right to coin money, set the value thereof, regulate its use, etc. Therefore, the various bank bail-outs (Dem or Rep) do seem to be constitutionally valid. However, mea culpa, I decided to read without posting, and was not aware of the cite you list. This language does disturb me, and should concern us all, since it seems, as you noted, to be improper and perhaps illegal intrusion by gov't in contractual matters not permitted by the constitution.

Supreme Irony: the US Congress saying that somebody else is paid too much.

Ignore Scottie - he's from the north of the border and economics and business aren't his strong suits. He is a good PR spinmeister though.

Posted by: Terry | July 31, 2009 5:28 PM

LOL, it seems the MAJORITY of posts on this website tend to disagree with everything YOU say. I may be living 'North of the Border' but I am still a tax paying American citizen and if MY tax dollars are going to these companies then to me they ARE a public issue as posted by most people on this thread.

Your rhetoric is so boring and meaningless to all but a few. Why dont the 'Three' of you go start your own blog so you can pat each other on the back and feed your overblown self rightious WingNut egos.

Scottie,

"it seems the MAJORITY of posts on this website tend to disagree with everything YOU say"

Didn't one of you heroes, Bill Mahar, just call this is a stupid country - he might be right.

This is just companies where you tax money is going - this is ALL publicly traded companies.

Don't you have a KRUPS espresso machine to tend to?

"it seems the MAJORITY of posts on this website tend to disagree with everything YOU say"

Didn't one of you heroes, Bill Mahar
Posted by: Terry | August 1, 2009 12:01 PM

So far I count 7 us, 6 you. After this post 8 us 7 you. I win YAY!

And what exactly does Bill Mahar have to do with THIS thread? Typical wingnutcase to change the subject when they have noting else to say! LOL You;re a freaky stalker man get a life.

Scottie,

I see you math skills are improving. However, you better quit posting because you are running out of fingers.

As far as you friend Bill Maher is concerned. Your quote "it seems the MAJORITY of posts on this website tend to disagree with everything YOU say". And Billy Maher says the United States is a stupid country. I'll connect the two - so what if the majority of post in here disagree with me, Bill Maher says its a stupid country anyway.

Do you follow or do you need some coffee from you Krups coffee maker?

I see you math skills...
As far as you friend Bill Maher...
do you need some coffee from you Krups coffee maker?

Posted by: Terry | August 2, 2009 9:54 AM

Ya I'm guessing the stupid Americans Bill is talking about are the ones who dont know how to spell 'Your'.

My opinion is that Barney Frank should have his legislative payday tied directly to his performance as a congressman.

Apparently his role in the Housing Debacle played major part in our Economic Meltdown.

Barney, I want to be on an oversight committe that will make such congressional performance evaluations.

I hope that you can live on minimum wage and reduced benefits.

Thank you,
Andrew McCreight

Liberty County Texas

Scottie,

If complaining about my lack of typing skills is the best you got, I guess we will say it again. Game, Set, Match.

Whoooo hoo goody for you!