How Far, Is, "Far Enough?"

[rushmc 23]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html


Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/31/09


House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 24,2009. Frank's committee has passed a bill giving Geithner extensive control over salaries of employees working at companies receiving government bailout funds.
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.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

Huh! This bill might discourage companies from trying to get federal money for a multitude of reasons, including bailouts and loan guarantees. Sounds like a good thing.

[kbordson 8]

Just what we needed. More laws. More government control.

Just be sure to tell lil Johnie as he finishes high school not to worry about working hard to get that big position.... the government will take care of all that.

People. You just don't have to worry anymore.

Isn't that nicer?

[billvon 3,120]

>Just be sure to tell lil Johnie as he finishes high school not to worry about
>working hard to get that big position.... the government will take care of all that.

Naah. Let's scrap this bill and ensure that lil' Johnnie doesn't have to worry about working hard at his new job. The government will bail him out if he fails!

[kbordson 8]

Quote

>Just be sure to tell lil Johnie as he finishes high school not to worry about
>working hard to get that big position.... the government will take care of all that.

Naah. Let's scrap this bill and ensure that lil' Johnnie doesn't have to worry about working hard at his new job. The government will bail him out if he fails!

OR... we tell the government, OUR government, to back the fuck up and quit spending societies tax money on publically owned (non - government) businesses.

If they fail, it's sad. But the government CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be responsible for saving everyone. . . . and thus controlling everyone.





"Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 3,120]

>OR... we tell the government, OUR government, to back the fuck up
>and quit spending societies tax money on publically owned (non -
>government) businesses.

Also a good option; sign me up.

>If they fail, it's sad. But the government CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT
>be responsible for saving everyone. . . . and thus controlling everyone.

Agreed. And under no circumstances should the government provide a bonus for failure; indeed, companies should be discouraged from even seeking such a remedy. Hence this bill.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just what we needed. More laws. More government control.

Simple - then they don't have to take government money. Let them get their financing elsewhere.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Just what we needed. More laws. More government control.

Simple - then they don't have to take government money. Let them get their financing elsewhere.

Yup.

They shouldn't have asked and/or Gov't shouldn't have offered.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

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.

Surely there's an exception for union members?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Huh! This bill might discourage companies from trying to get federal money for a multitude of reasons, including bailouts and loan guarantees. Sounds like a good thing.

I would agree from this perspective it is a good thing. However, Sir Barney is wanting to further than that. Any company they deem important could be targeted. Even if they do not take fed dollars....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[piahenzi 0]

...so what are we going to do about these tactics in DC??
Anyone ??
Who's ready to march on Washington??
Sending letters to your Congressman & Senators yet??
Making some calls??
Sending some emails??
If not now, when??


edited for poor grammar which may still be present but unidentified by me so far.

[billvon 3,120]

> However, Sir Barney is wanting to further than that.

No, he doesn't. (Outside of whta the Rush Limbaugh nut cases think, that is.) This is what the article actually says:

"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."

And I'm all for that. Want government cheese? Expect it to be painful. That way fewer companies will try to get it.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Just what we needed. More laws. More government control.

Just be sure to tell lil Johnie as he finishes high school not to worry about working hard to get that big position.... the government will take care of all that.

People. You just don't have to worry anymore.

Isn't that nicer?

It's easy; if you don't like the terms, don't take the taxpayers' money.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.