Obama Seeks to Cap Pay on Executives
By JIM KUHNHENN, AP
AOL News
(Feb. 4) - Call it the maximum wage. President Barack Obama wants to impose a $500,000 pay cap on executives whose firms receive government financial rescue funds, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.
The new restrictions, described by an administration official familiar with the new rules, are to be announced Wednesday morning at the White House. The steps set the stage for the administration's unveiling next week of a new framework for spending the money that remains in the $700 billion financial rescue fund.
GO HERE to read more.
18 comments:
and the talented ones who did nothing corrupt or wrong, and were only victims of market forces will go overseas and leave us in the hands of the untalented and unmotivated. thanks a lot.
We should also pay the house and congress according to what gets accomplished. They'd all quit cause they'd go broke. This is on verge of communism at its best. President is acting like dictator. He should say, either do this yourself or you don't get any money, not mandate it from the WhiteHouse. RP
Who will now work for these companies? Surely not the best and brightest who would demand more pay. Now these companies are going to be forced to hire less desirable employees who will not be able to turn these businesses around, at least not as quick.
Obama shouldnt allow a company that pays that much to their execs any money.
Why are they paid so much if they are not successful enough to even brake even? They should be fired and another hired. Thats alot of greenbacks. The wrong is with the "board" or owner of the companys. Let them fail and another will be born to pick up the loss or need of the service that is lost.
Its called "capitolism". It will have its own checks and balances on its self. But people that have "more" than they could ever use are getting caught up in the "power" game. It aint about the money....its about winning or losing. Egoes have to be brought into check and when ones ego gets to large it fails and our Government has allowed the bar to be raised so high that when it comes to egoes reaching the top and time to fail they cause such a drop that it is more devistating than can be obsorbed by society.
This is the trouble with allowing Government to be involved with private industry. The trouble has begun from people not being satisfied with success. Ego and "winnimg" out against fellow beings is the trouble.
We must devise a way to return the size of those egoes to a level that "natural" progression can once again have control over all.
I remember a old tv saying that went something like this : "You Better Not Don't Mess With Mother Nature". Now I see that this did'nt only pertain to butter :). It is Natures own set of rules that God has created. And we can't better Gods work. No matter how we try.
But we Will see this sooner or later. For what will be will be.
11:32, et. al.. Y'eh...so Elmer Fudd can only own a mansion OR a yacht on 500K large. If you don't like it-don't take the {MY!!!} taxpayer money; you know where bankruptcy court is-don't let the screen door hit you..In case you missed the memo; there are a lot of people who were making 100K a year or more and are now bringing in a whopping $1,000 a MONTH in unemployment benefits. That sound you hear is me playing the world's smallest violin for greedy corporate execs....many should be happy that they escape prison justice where they can eat dubious green jello off a plastic tray while the people whose retirement money they speculated on, and lost without corporate bailouts, "Keep It Realer" for them when the C.O.s look away....you guys have lost your bloody minds...
Or these companies can choose to live within their means and NOT accept government funding. These executives making large sums as the "best and brightest" got the companies into trouble by bad business practice decisions. Giving credit when they should not have to individuals who could not and never would be able to pay. Bad business. This is capitalism. Make a bad choice, die as a business. If they continue to want government funding to keep the company alive, then accept the conditions. Consumers must accept their business conditions. Surely these "best and brightest" understand that.
The "Fine Print" of this policy says that those companies that have already received the money, THOSE execs DO NOT have to abide by this--in other words, it is , YET AGAIN, EMPTY WORDS from "The One" Those that have already made of with the millions, all of those Wall Street execs,get to keep what they have stolen from the taxpayers. Obama's big announcement is like wearing a condom the day after sex.
If this egotistical terrorist is so concerned about money then why did he allow a $170 million to be spent on his innauguration??
just more social engineering, not telling you what to do but controlling the choices.
Those companies can always choose to NOT accept bailout money. Then they are on their own, made or broken, whichever the case.
11:32 says "Who will now work for these companies? Surely not the best and brightest..."
These are jobs in the SERVICE sector. Why would a great nation want its best and brightest in the service industry???
We want our best and brightest creating things and making things (engineering, sciences,...). When parents push their bright kids into the service industry (doctors and lawyers,...), they are actually making America weaker.
There are other nations are not making this mistake...
Hey 12:53
The government does not have the right to renegotiate its contracts unilaterally. If Obama could have made it retroactive to include the money that the Bush administration gave away, I'm pretty sure that he would have done so.
I cannot believe some of the comments here.
Have we forgotten what AIG and others did with OUR bailout money?
I still say don't give them a DIME unless they want to clean house with the executives and board members who put them in trouble to begin with.
You can give them all the money in the world but if you still have the same people running things, you're just throwing OUR money away.
I'm happy to hear this report. I just wish it also would prohibit bonuses, because that is how they will get around it.
Once again, an INCOMPLETE bill passed in Washington DC.
Heck, let's not make sure we cover every angle, let's just put it in place and then worry about the loopholes....sound familiar?
Happens all the time!
If you want to accept bailout money you have to accept the conditions that come with it. If GM wants many mill$ then if the President says okay but you have to develope a car that gets 55 miles to the gallon, those are the conditions. Whoever gives a loan sets conditions on that loan.
Now since the goverment can dictate how much a executive can earn, what is the next step? Personally setting limits on earnings will cause some to just take the money and run some will jump to better offers and the ship will still sink.
These corporations are playing the government and the taxpayers for fools. The banks that have received "bailout" money designed to free up funds for loans, have sat on the funds; used the funds to pay bonuses; and/or used the funds to purchase other banks. Citigroup, which accepted $45 billion in bailout money had to coereced to give up on their recent idea of purchasing a $50 million corporate jet. Now the federal government is pressuring them to back down from their agreement to spend $400 million to put their names on the New York Mets stadium. I can't believe some in here are talking about "the best and brightest." If they can't make it on $500,000, let them go down the street to the next bank or corporation and try their hand that someone is hiring. "Ability gets a person to the top, character keeps him there." Certainly are a lot of people at the top sliding down these days. What the country is really in short supply of these days are people with character.
Anonymous said...
just more social engineering, not telling you what to do but controlling the choices.
1:15 PM
"engineering"
Bubba Comagees?
Two thoughts, #1, what a GREAT P/R stunt for the president, demanding those $500k caps for CEO's, but in reality it wouldn't apply to many, and even for those who received money afterwards, it still doesn't apply to ALL those CEO's whose companies are receiving cash.
#2, What should happen is that the demand be made retroactive and require all CEO's of companies who received such bonuses to hand them over.
As to those who feel capitalism should be let to sort it out, not on MY taxpayer back. If those companies are demanding handouts, then they should be allowed to fold per pure economics. If the government AKA "US" has to keep their boat afloat, it should come with strings, strings called interest to pay it all back, and then some.
Oh, and to Anonymous 11:32AM, about the "Who will now work for these companies?" ~~ Apparently they didn't hire such top guns the first time around, you can pay any idiot $20 million a year, but that doesn't make him able to run the company and keep it in the black. On second thought, those idiots who can't do the job are pretty smart to be bringing in the $$ and laughing at the rest of us all the way to the bank. Keep those salaries that high and you'll still get more of the same.
These are top of the line workers earning multimillion dollars salaries? Then I'd rather pay someone $500,000 and run it like crap for a couple of million dollars savings. Its called greed.
Post a Comment