I fully support this bill. Let those who embrace Uncle Sugar reap the whirlwind. There should come a day when the smallest business in the nation looks upon federal assistance as one would look upon a raging case of syphilis. *That* should be Obama's legacy to the rubble of commerce he will leave in his wake. Hey stupid-assed Obama-voting union loving auto worker! How's the coffee this morning?
gus.
It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.
Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.
"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."
After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.
Hmmmm. I wonder if this would extend to government employees? They are paid with the taxpayers' dollars -- including the president, vice-president, Geithner, Clinton, etc. Poor performance=no money. I've always thought that was the way it should be, with no exceptions.
Oh! And we could make it retroactive to past administrations as well.
**********
I am a Nobody.
Nobody is Perfect.
Therefore I am Perfect.
This message has been edited by barbhardi on Mar 31, 2009 11:46 AM
Hmmmm. I wonder if this would extend to government employees?
Since government employees are not executives of financial companies that recieved bailout funds, the answer to that would be no.
But can you cite any examples of government employees that get non-performance related bonuses?
They are paid with the taxpayers' dollars -- including the president, vice-president, Geithner, Clinton, etc. Poor performance=no money. I've always thought that was the way it should be, with no exceptions.
This bill says nothing about salaries, only bonuses.
This message has been edited by jrooth on Mar 31, 2009 11:51 AM
I think you're incorrect, Jan. The paragraph below reads to me like it's salaries, or *any* compensation to *any* employees of *any* company that has accepted TARP funds.
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
the feeding frenzy rooted in the left's 'Politics of Envy' and feel-good pandering for votes casts all common sense out the window....then reality sets in....once again.
the feeding frenzy rooted in the left's 'Politics of Envy' and feel-good pandering for votes casts all common sense out the window....then reality sets in....once again.
What is this "'Politics of Envy?" Anyone you know personally who goes by this?
Yes, those who are outraged by money paid to someone they don't know from Adam, and with zero knowledge of in what circumstances the money was paid, because theoretically it's "their" money, even though they have *never* expressed any such outrage over 40 years of identical government stupidity. My run-on sentance for the day.
I think you're incorrect, Jan. The paragraph below reads to me like it's salaries, or any compensation to any employees of any company that has accepted TARP funds.
A BILL
To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
1(a) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards- Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5221) is amended by redesignating subsections (e) through (h) as subsections (f) through (g), and inserting after subsection (d) the following:
(e) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards-
(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--
(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2); or
1(B) includes any bonus, retention payment, or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) STANDARDS- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall establish the following:
(A) UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION STANDARDS- Standards that define unreasonable or excessive for purposes of subparagraph (1)(A).
(B) PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS- Standards for performance-based measures that a financial institution must apply when determining whether it may provide a bonus or retention payment under paragraph (1)(B). Such performance measures shall include--
(i) the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States for any capital investment received under this title;
(ii) the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates;
(iii) adherence by executives and employees to appropriate risk management requirements; and
(iv) other standards which provide greater accountability to shareholders and taxpayers..
(b) Revision to Rule of Construction- Section 111(b)(3)(D)(iii) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5221(b)(3)(D)(iii)) is amended by inserting before the period the following: , except that no entity subject to subsection (e) may pay a bonus to any of its employees or executives, without regard to when the arrangement to pay such a bonus was entered into..
Yes, the left and most Dems practice this constantly. They use it to pander to those that envy those that are successful.
Even Obama capitalizes on it; remember he said we need to "spread the wealth". All rooted in the libs 'Politics of Envy' strategy.
Those left-wingers that are average wage earners love it, the government going after all those evil corporate types that make high salaries and take it away and spread it around.....
(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement-- (emphasis mine)
I'm not so sure, Jan. This can be interpreted exactly as the author of the article did. And when dealing with thieves and con artists, especially government thieves and con artists, it is only prudent to make all the allowances possible for worst-case scenario.
Maybe so, Gus. I'm no lawyer, so I may not be reading it correctly.
Anyway, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on this bill. I think there's good reason for putting some control to prevent outright waste of bailout funds. But whether this is the way to go about that I can't say at this point.
Anyway, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion on this bill. I think there's good reason for putting some control to prevent outright waste of bailout funds. But whether this is the way to go about that I can't say at this point.
An opportunity to reitterate my opinion, I think it should be passed and interpreted at it's very worst, and brutally enforced. Lessons need to be learned here by people who should damned well know better, but need a shot where it hurts the most in order to learn them.
An opportunity to reitterate my opinion, I think it should be passed and interpreted at it's very worst, and brutally enforced. Lessons need to be learned here by people who should damned well know better, but need a shot where it hurts the most in order to learn them.
What brutal lesson do you think we'd suffer, if this passed? Let's suppose your reading of the bill is right, and let's suppose that means bank tellers or janitors or some other kind of ordinary employees at Bank of America (or some other institution that took bailout funds) are subject to some reduction in pay. (I find this hypothetical passing unlikely, but what the hell, let's go with it.) Exactly how would this deliver a "a shot where it hurts the most" to anyone but those unlucky bank tellers or janitors?
And how would that be any worse than the "shot where it hurts the most" that was already delivered to US auto workers at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress?
What brutal lesson do you think we'd suffer, if this passed? Let's suppose your reading of the bill is right, and let's suppose that means bank tellers or janitors or some other kind of ordinary employees at Bank of America (or some other institution that took bailout funds) are subject to some reduction in pay. (I find this hypothetical passing unlikely, but what the hell, let's go with it.) Exactly how would this deliver a "a shot where it hurts the most" to anyone but those unlucky bank tellers or janitors?
And how would that be any worse than the "shot where it hurts the most" that was already delivered to US auto workers at the insistence of the Republicans in Congress?
Well, let's dwell a moment on what I assume has to be a shared frustration at times, the utterly boneheaded nature so often displayed by the American people. While you may or may not subscribe to the "Idiocracy", I have an unshakeable faith, based wholly, and simply on the available data so far, to wit: the greatest nation in human history. I only bring this up to give context to my question. Does the American worker have any idea what the fundamental difference is, between having his *boss* cut his pay, and having some mid-level beurocrat in the Treasury Dept. do it? It really all boils down to that, it really does. Because if he/she *doesn't* know, and/or couldn't care less, then we're fucked in my opinion, and I will do my best to live out my remaining days as quietly, and comfortably as possible. If he/she *does* know the difference, then the days of the Obama Left are numbered in their ability to turn their agenda into policy, and I am very likely to injure myself in an overaged attempt to dance in the streets with other *Americans* who, thank God, haven't actually forgotten who they are, and what they have built, and how they built it.
But Gus, the corporations affected here are a relatively tiny subset of the workforce. So I fail to see how this is going to have any broad impact, even if your most extreme reading of this bill comes to pass.
In the far more likely case that the only ones affected are a small number of executives who got disproportionately big bonuses, your imagined impact evaporates completely.
Wow... those on the far far right now say that there are people who envy the totally f**ked up and broke ins. group AIG?
AIG screws over their investors, runs to mommy and daddy government for loans to cover their broke ass and when mommy and daddy government set up rules for the broke ass AIG to follow it's mommy and daddy government that are the devil. Typical teenage behavior. Wha wha wha... don't want mommy and daddy to have a say in running your business????? Then don't ask mommy and daddy for money to prop up your failure of a business you worthless twit!
But Gus, the corporations affected here are a relatively tiny subset of the workforce. So I fail to see how this is going to have any broad impact, even if your most extreme reading of this bill comes to pass.
In the far more likely case that the only ones affected are a small number of executives who got disproportionately big bonuses, your imagined impact evaporates completely.
There's no guarantee this bill will even pass the House. But we're 60+ days into a four year administration. What number comes after a trillion?
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
