Link: Obama Administration Seeks to Regulate Executive Pay

[crimson_blood]

Obama Administration Seeks to Regulate Executive Pay

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a plan to overhaul financial regulation, the New York Times reported.

You knew it was coming...BHO and the Fed will be putting a cap on how much $ you can make...and they're using the AIG uproar to fuel the regulation. To me, this is the key to the article:

The regulations would reportedly cover all financial establishments, not just those receiving federal bailout aid and would likely work to ensure executive pay was in line with the financial interest of the company.

Though such rules have been discussed previously, recent uproar over executive bonuses has reportedly prompted action from the administration.

Of course, this is unconstitutional and Uncle Sam has absolutely no business telling a company how much it can pay its employees, especially if the company has received no "bailout" money. Just one more step on the road to Socialism...

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I agree that any institution NOT receiving government funds shouldn't have the government intervening on salaries and compensation packages. However, I have no problem with them stepping in on the ones that have received it.

I understand "contracts" and all that but I've also been apart of buyouts when new owners buy a company. Everything that was promised under the old owners means nothing now because they don't own the company anymore. Contracts are "opened back up" and "gone back into" to be redone. It is very legal and happens all the time. This what should happen with AIG and the rest of these companies receiving bailout money. There are new owners now and things are about to change....immediately. As a majority shareholder the U.S. Government has the right to exercise it's majority shareholder rights. It can eliminate the bonuses LEGALLY if it wanted to. No need to go into the tax code.

 

[ValuJet]

If the gov't has an 80% stake in a company, then it absolutely has the right to limit bonuses.

But, the government should never hold an 80% stake in ANY publicly traded company. There's probably not a happy ending to all this.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

I agree that any institution NOT receiving government funds shouldn't have the government intervening on salaries and compensation packages. However, I have no problem with them stepping in on the ones that have received it.

I understand "contracts" and all that but I've also been apart of buyouts when new owners buy a company. Everything that was promised under the old owners means nothing now because they don't own the company anymore. Contracts are "opened back up" and "gone back into" to be redone. It is very legal and happens all the time. This what should happen with AIG and the rest of these companies receiving bailout money. There are new owners now and things are about to change....immediately. As a majority shareholder the U.S. Government has the right to exercise it's majority shareholder rights. It can eliminate the bonuses LEGALLY if it wanted to. No need to go into the tax code.

I agree. There is no way that this will pass if it covers ALL businesses. The ones under control of the US government should have caps on executive pay. Others, definitely not.

I really don't think you should worry about this covering businesses not under control of the US government. There will never be a bill allowing the government to control the pay of private businesses.

 

[Bamaro]

Since most that this will affect only still have a job because of the government, I hope they shut up and get used to it.

 

[cbi1972]

I agree. There is no way that this will pass if it covers ALL businesses. The ones under control of the US government should have caps on executive pay. Others, definitely not.

I really don't think you should worry about this covering businesses not under control of the US government. There will never be a bill allowing the government to control the pay of private businesses.

Minimum wage.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

Minimum wage.

Touche.

There will never be a bill capping a salary in a private business.

 

[Tide n True]

I think I'm going to sue the Federal Government over the bailouts anyway. They're not Constitutional, but at least it would force all three branches of government to admit they have no regard for the Constitution.

 

[Mamacalled]

I agree. There is no way that this will pass if it covers ALL businesses. The ones under control of the US government should have caps on executive pay. Others, definitely not.

I really don't think you should worry about this covering businesses not under control of the US government. There will never be a bill allowing the government to control the pay of private businesses.

Let us think about this. The companies that are under federal control are the ones that need a very good person to come in and return the company to a profitable one. You have a guy that has proven himself as someone who can turn a company around. You contact him and let him know that you would like him to come in and turn this federally controlled company around. He says that he is very interested but he would like to be paid competively. Another company, one that is not under federal control, puts out an offer to him. They make an offer of $250,000 a year with a bonus of 10% of the savings he brings to the company. The company that is under federal control offers him $250,000 but can not offer him a bonus because they are limited to how much they can pay. Well, too bad for the federally controlled company because any executive worth his weight will not work for them.

I would like to ask you, do you receive any financial aid from the government to go to school? If so, shouldn't the government limit what you can spend money until all money is repaid? Same thing isn't it? I hope that you haven't bought a playstation, beer or cable t.v. with that money because it had nothing to do with your education and the purpose of that money.

 

[Relayer]

Touche.

There will never be a bill capping a salary in a private business.

I see absolutely no reason why they couldn't pass such a bill.

You know there are more than a few lefty representatives who would be very pleased to offer up such a bill.

We only need to continue to move in the political direction in which we are currently headed.

 

[formersoldier71]

Touche.

There will never be a bill capping a salary in a private business.

Never is a word that shouldn't be used too often. I know as I have gotten older, I have done plenty of what I had said I would never do. And when it comes to government and power, never should never be used.
If the people allow it, it certainly can happen. If I live long enough, I expect to see plenty of "never's" happen in this country.

 

[RhodeIslandRed]

As much as this executive pay bonus galls me as much as the next guy, the $165 million is less than 1/10 of 1% of the $170 billion given out to AIG which should have never been given out to support a business with an illegitimate business model. As Ron Paul has said, this focus on bonuses has taken away attention from the real issue.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

As much as this executive pay bonus galls me as much as the next guy, the $165 million is less than 1/10 of 1% of the $170 billion given out to AIG which should have never been given out to support a business with an illegitimate business model. As Ron Paul has said, this focus on bonuses has taken away attention from the real issue.

I think it's gone way past the point of considering the materiality of it. I know it has for me.

 

[Bama4Ever831]

I think conservatives go crazy at the first "liberal" thing they see and scream socialism. Liberals do the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. There is no way to physically put a roof on earnings. They can tax the hell out of them, but there will be no "roof" on private businesses.


To Mamacalled, I understand the argument about the attracting employees. How did they obtain a bonus? Running the company into the ground didn't seem like something worth rewarding. Had they been making money, sure they should get bonus, but they are the ones on the verge of collapse but still giving out millions in bonuses.

And I don't have any loans from the government that I have to repay. And yes if you are getting federal loans you shouldn't be buying beer on it, but I am sure some do, but it is on a much smaller scale. The entire economy doesn't rest on a few individuals that are buying beer with federal loans. I wasn't meaning to be such a stickler on it. I just think that it is irresponsible to reward the direction of their company with lucrative bonuses. I don't know much about business.

 

[Mamacalled]

I think conservatives go crazy at the first "liberal" thing they see and scream socialism. Liberals do the same thing on the other end of the spectrum. There is no way to physically put a roof on earnings. They can tax the hell out of them, but there will be no "roof" on private businesses.


To Mamacalled, I understand the argument about the attracting employees. How did they obtain a bonus? Running the company into the ground didn't seem like something worth rewarding. Had they been making money, sure they should get bonus, but they are the ones on the verge of collapse but still giving out millions in bonuses.

And I don't have any loans from the government that I have to repay. And yes if you are getting federal loans you shouldn't be buying beer on it, but I am sure some do, but it is on a much smaller scale. The entire economy doesn't rest on a few individuals that are buying beer with federal loans. I wasn't meaning to be such a stickler on it. I just think that it is irresponsible to reward the direction of their company with lucrative bonuses. I don't know much about business.

Do you think that those receiving welfare or section 8 housing aren't buying cable, alcohol or other items that are considered unneccessary are in the minority? I certainly doubt it.

As for AIG, many of those that received bonuses are from operations that actually made money. Many are the ones that AIG are depending on turning the company around. All of these are under contract. Do you feel that the government should step in and be able to void a contract? If you have a contract with a company, how would you feel if the government stepped in and cancelled your contract? Do you feel that the government would be o.k. if you had a contract with them and you decided to just void the contractwith them if you felt that they were spending money in a manor that you deemed irresponsible? I guarantee you that they would have you in a mess if you ever tried to pull that off.

 

[jthomas666]

I agree that any institution NOT receiving government funds shouldn't have the government intervening on salaries and compensation packages. However, I have no problem with them stepping in on the ones that have received it.

What you said.

 

[Pluck and Grit]

As Ron Paul has said, this focus on bonuses has taken away attention from the real issue.

You, Ron Paul, a bunch of other people, and me are saying a mouthful right there. And I don't even like Ron Paul. This $165 million is definitely a sideshow from what's going on with the other $169+ billion that AIG has received. Which is only a small fraction of total TARP money and bailout money across the board, for which we still have no hard answers, from anyone, relating to how it has been spent.

I feel more hoodwinked every time I think about it. When's the last time we forked over a trillion dollars without any idea on how it was being spent? I have my sincere doubts that either the President or the Treasury Secretary even know. The $165 million is chump change.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Do you think that those receiving welfare or section 8 housing aren't buying cable, alcohol or other items that are considered unneccessary are in the minority? I certainly doubt it.

As for AIG, many of those that received bonuses are from operations that actually made money. Many are the ones that AIG are depending on turning the company around. All of these are under contract. Do you feel that the government should step in and be able to void a contract? If you have a contract with a company, how would you feel if the government stepped in and cancelled your contract? Do you feel that the government would be o.k. if you had a contract with them and you decided to just void the contractwith them if you felt that they were spending money in a manor that you deemed irresponsible? I guarantee you that they would have you in a mess if you ever tried to pull that off.

Yep. It happens all the time in the private sector when a company is bought out by new owners. I worked for the largest entertainment company in the world which at the time was a publicly traded company. A private investment group purchased the company, taking it off the public market and did as they wished. Our big executives (under the previous regime) had "guaranteed" payments/bonus for all kinds of crap. The new owners exercised their ownership rights and canceled everyone of them or in corporate lingo "restructured" them.

In this situation you're not dealing with private monies. You're dealing with taxpayer/government money. AIG ASKED for the money yet wants to tell the giver of the money what to do with it? I don't think so. Over 80% of AIG is owned by the taxpayers who are pi$$ed off as it is and aren't real interested in getting into red tape legalities about why this company needs to payout $165 million in BONUSES. Work for what your agreed upon BASE salary is and get the job done. If you don't like it then pay us the money back and we'll let the piece of crap company sink like the titanic like it should anyway. It won't be the end of the free world, we'll survive and recover. The people being hired to "straighten this thing out" are doing nothing but what the old AIG regime did and that was milk the cow for all it could. They see an opportunity to make big bucks.

I've never demanded a bonus to get a project done. A lot of the people getting paid bonuses are workers in salary grades UNDER $100K which means they aren't very high up on the corporate food chain. They can be replaced very easy considering how many professionals are out of jobs right now. So you've basically got every salary grade level receiving "retention" bonuses to clean up this mess. I say that decision should be made by the majority owners of the company which just so happens to be the government, and if the people don't like it they can walk. At this point who cares? But to sit here and payout "retention" bonuses all the way down to people under the $100k salary grade so they'll "get the job done" or "stay" is nothing more than vultures picking the dead carcass for all it can. In other words same old same old.

 

[Relayer]

There is no way to physically put a roof on earnings. They can tax the hell out of them, but there will be no "roof" on private businesses.

If the government can order businesses to pay a minimum compensation, they can certainly mandate a maximum compensation.

If you know of a reason why they cannot, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Tide n True]

Do you think that those receiving welfare or section 8 housing aren't buying cable, alcohol or other items that are considered unneccessary are in the minority? I certainly doubt it.

As for AIG, many of those that received bonuses are from operations that actually made money. Many are the ones that AIG are depending on turning the company around. All of these are under contract. Do you feel that the government should step in and be able to void a contract? If you have a contract with a company, how would you feel if the government stepped in and cancelled your contract? Do you feel that the government would be o.k. if you had a contract with them and you decided to just void the contractwith them if you felt that they were spending money in a manor that you deemed irresponsible? I guarantee you that they would have you in a mess if you ever tried to pull that off.

I don't understand why so many people keep talking about the contracts. The way I understand it, had they not received money from the government, the contracts wouldn't have mattered anyway.