BlogBreak

By Dan

October 8, 2008 9:34 AM | Link to this

Completely and utterly absurd, not to mention unconstitutional. Oh and the bailout stuff has exactly zero to do with it. If you loan someone money you have the right to control what they do, just put it in the contract, but general caps on salarys, 100% asisnine. It is simple pandering to the uneducated

By zeke

October 8, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

NO-NO-HELL NO! If you want all these government intrusions into the free market system, go to China, Cuba, Venezuela and find a home! Not Russia, because they have finally figured out that personal advancement, success and wealth are the true engines of success! Too bad the democrats, liberals, anarchist activist groups in the USA cannot understand that is what made the USA, the USA!!!

By Truth Be Told

October 8, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

NO - executive pay should not be limited! How ridiculous! With that being said, what should be done is eliminating the “golden parachute” an executive gets when a company is failing.

By Road Scholar

October 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this

If they decide to take the loan, yes as a condition of the loan arrangement. Better yet, arrest their butts for fraud, taking a commission for losing value and/or money in the business they manage. Make them repay all bonuses as their fine. If not, make them watch 24hr continuous repays of W’s speeches! Also let the employees have their way with them as did one who punched an executive out at the company health club recently. Let the execs finacially support the laid off workers.

By The Truth

October 8, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

Barack is turning everyone into communists! THIS IS AMERICA! A FREE ENTERPRISE! The Government should have no basis, input, etc. on what the private sector pays their employees. It is just wage envy. Instead of focusing on what 1 or 2 people make you should focus on fixing the problem of companies sending their jobs oversees and raising their prices.

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

I agree Rhodes Scholar. If you borrow the money then you know what’s attached. If they cannot govern their greed and arrogance on their own, then perhaps in black and white is the next step. As for this all being un-American ….I think the bailout has already taken us to a socialist level. Drawing the line at the “intrusion” of salary limits smacks of selfishness. Help us but only if it does not inconvenience us sounds like the motto we are hearing. It’s time for sanity to be weaved into the chaos that those who worship the Golden Parachutes have wreaked.

By nana

October 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Not only no but (*#@ NO. I am at a loss as to why the people in this country do not see what is going on here. The government is trying to take over every aspect of our lives. All an intelligent person needs to do is look at how badly everything that the government is involved in is is poorly ran, the post office, social security, etc. America is GREAT because of the people not the Government.

By The source of the problem

October 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Executives need to be put on a budget like the rest of us. They FAILED their company, ran it into the ground…and they are walking away with millions. It is absurd given our economic state right now. Amazingly enough, I don’t aspire to be one of these excutives, because I know how they get their money, on the backs of hard-working people like myself.

By The source of the problem

October 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this

Executives need to be put on a budget like the rest of us. They FAILED their company, ran it into the ground…and they are walking away with millions. It is absurd given our economic state right now. Amazingly enough, I don’t aspire to be one of these excutives, because I know how they get their money, on the backs of hard-working people like myself. Its called greed and its what got us in this mess.

By Jason

October 8, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

“As Steve Schippert states, ‘Laws on minimum wage are one thing, but putting a government imposed ceiling on earnings in a capitalist free-market economy smacks of class warfare and incremental socialism.’”

Ha! Capitalist free-market economy? What kind of free market permits a trillion-dollar government bailout? If failing companies are going to use taxpayer money to clean up their mess, then they’re going to have to play by the people’s rules, which include a cap on executive compensation. What you reap is what you sow!

By ESR

October 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

My heavens, what is happening in America today? When did we take loss of our senses and become a Socialist country? In a time when the worthless and impotent government should play less and less of a role in our lives, it’s all of a sudden consuming us like a cancerous tumor. We have the most ineffective Congress in the history of America and you want that band of dunces reaching deeper and deeper into our lives until they yank out our very souls and force more big government and rules on us. Were you all raised on welfare? People..people….read about pre WWII Germany and how the Hitler movement started. The elite, the artist crowds and even Jews looked at Hitler as if her were some type of fashion statement prior to him coming to power. Now , look at how we’re acting and how kids are singing songs praising Obama and how blindly peopel are followig this man down a path of financial ruin. You all screamed to high heavens about the Patriot Act and how it infringed on your freedoms yet you’re ready to toss them away for the sake of haveing Obama at the helm. God save America from the idiots who are allowed by law and not by intellect the right to vote.

By Chaz

October 8, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this

How about we put a limit on how much legislators can make? That would need to include skimming and kickbacks, of course.

By Motorcyclist

October 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this

For general businesses, never. Let them throw their money around. But for any business that wants to reach into my pocket and take my money (bailout), yes. I need to stop their wasteful practices. If they don’t like those business terms, then they should be free to fail (or succeed if they can) without my support.

By Jason

October 8, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

“Now , look at how we’re acting and how kids are singing songs praising Obama and how blindly peopel are followig this man down a path of financial ruin.”

First of all, Obama’s mentioned nowhere in the above post, so I’m not sure why you’re suggesting this is all his fault. (How can we follow him down a path of financial ruin if he—as you and your ilk like to emphasize—is not a leader? Make up your minds.) Secondly, McCain both voted for the government bailout and has called for limits on executive compensation; he’s just as “socialist” as Obama.

By Authorboy1

October 8, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

The idea of government limiting executive compensation is laughable. Corporations have stockholders and a board of directors. It is THEIR responsibility to reward or penalize their executives with money. It is nobody’s business but them how much their executives get paid. The person who wrote this blog must be either a capitalism moron, or was throwing out an incendiary idea just to get responses.

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

The comparison between Obama and Hitler is borderline ridiculous. Perhaps if you dug deeper into American History you would find a better example of what I think you are trying to say. And if I recall correctly then everyone of those dunces in the house are up for re-election along with a few Republicans who espoused this course of action as well. The idea that free enterprise is a proven and error proof concept is showing to be an inaccurate. When dealing with human beings you are introducing an element into the equation that almost guarantees errors and inperfection. While I agree that socialism and her cousins sound abhorrent to me….I think we are in a quandry where all manners of ideas should be presented and thought over…without tossing them out with a Capitalism uber alles mentality. Government should be fluid not rigid as some problems may take a course of action once thought of heresy. We are imperfect beings, our government following that reality predicts that it too will make mistakes.

By TheBlogger

October 8, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Yes - something must be done. I say this as a consumer and also as a stock holder in many American corporations.

These CEOs don’t live by the same “maket place” that you would think. The “supply and demand” for those positions are far different from any other normal job. You cannot apply the rules to them (and they know it).

These people are usually good friends with each other and they sit on each other’s Board of Directors (BOD). It is the BOD that determines the CEO compensation.

Imagine if you could gather 8 or so of your closest friends to determine your salary - this is what they are doing! Literally!

As a share holder in the company, I have no say in the CEO salary. As a consumer of their products, I have no say in the CEO salary.

Their salarys have gotten way out of line of reality in our economy. No way are they worth 1,000 times more than a regular employee. Yet, their salarys are more than 1,000 times the regular employee salary.

I don’t like government as much as anyone, and I am not saying specifically that the government should limit CEO compensation. I am saying that it is out of control and something must be done.

By muffin

October 8, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this

if they take the government’s bailout money, then yes they should be capped as a condition of the loan. how many more times are we going to bail these companies out for their own mistakes?? why are we bailing them out to begin with? this country has recovered from a mess like this before without a bailout and we could do it again. this country is going right down the toilet.

By SteveO

October 8, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

Absolutely not. The pay of an executive is to be determined by the shareholders and the board. Various mechanisms exist within the board-shareholder relationship to self-regulate this relationship. Government intervention is unnecessary. It makes no more sense to limit executive pay then it does to regulate professional athlete pay.

By Jake

October 8, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this

All those memos from Lehman executives worrying aobut their bonuses as the company was collapsing shows reform is needed. Caps aren’t necessary, just put an unavoidable 90% tax rate on them and make the big boys pay more of the bill for the damage they’ve created.

By byron

October 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Can we vote on reducing the pay of our Senators and Representatives who bear as much responsibility as ‘Wall Street’ for the mess? Should we also limit how much entertainers are paid for movies and musical tours?

By Screw them all

October 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Why should we tax payers take on the burden of digging these greedy people out of the hole they dug and THEN reward them for their “work” by giving them tens of millions of dollars in bonuses? Is that how we will get paid back? Is that what they deserve for thrusting us into the greatest financial crises of our lifetime? Teh common man gets screwed while the rich man takes his money… typical. But I guess that is what we get for allowing our government to turn over the reins of our economy to these thieves.

By PDQ

October 8, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

zeke said:

“Too bad the democrats, liberals, anarchist activist groups in the USA cannot understand that is what made the USA, the USA!!!”

Hee hee… yeah… so how is that 401k holding up there zeke? 2 TRILLION dollars in retirement accounts vanished this week. Hope your not planning on retiring before you turn 80… That is what your Republican friends have allowed to happen to millions of common tax paying Americans. And if you think that that is OK, then you seriously do not get it.

By MaggiesDad

October 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

I do not think the government should set limits on Executive salaries.

That being said, I do think someone/somehow/somewhere there needs to be regulations that keep these buttholes from walking away with millions once the company is destroyed.

I firmly blieve Executives should be rewarded when a company does well and I believe they should not be rewarded when it fails.

The Government needs to investigate and pursue legal channels against anyone who has been involved in illegal activities, fraud, etc. If they got it illegally then they need to pay it back and suffer consequences. Including our governments officials as well…

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

I like that self regulate quote…that’s done really well for us so far(heavy sarcasm). Don’t worry though if all you fear comes to fruition….I’m sure the CEOS will always find a loophole to better their meager existence. Comparing athletes to CEOS is an insult to most athletes, their performance is readily seen on the field for all “sharholders” to see. The CEOS we are referring to have hidden the damage from others until its too late. Then they want help and no limitation on their unwarranted rewards. I for one want that to change and the hell with some free enterprise/capitalistic principle.

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

I like that self regulate quote…that’s done really well for us so far(heavy sarcasm). Don’t worry though if all you fear comes to fruition….I’m sure the CEOS will always find a loophole to better their meager existence. Comparing athletes to CEOS is an insult to most athletes, their performance is readily seen on the field for all “sharholders” to see. The CEOS we are referring to have hidden the damage from others until its too late. Then they want help and no limitation on their unwarranted rewards. I for one want that to change and the hell with some free enterprise/capitalistic principle.

By David S

October 8, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

All of this is the result of the Federal Reserve printing money and causing inflation. The ONLY reason there was this kind of money available to pay these jerks these multi-million dollar salaries was because of the actions of the FED. But of course in typical Washington style, they put a bandaid on the symptom rather than attack the root cause of the problem.

This web page is showing its further ignorance by even bringing up this issue. The salary of a CEO is between the CEO and the stockholders via the board of directors.

Why don’t you have a blog regarding getting rid of the Fed and restoring the gold standard?

By Boat Dog

October 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

In general there should be no federal caps on executive compensation. However, I agree with those who say companies accepting a bailout loan need to accept stipulations that come with it - which may include restrictions on bonuses. If you fail you don’t get a bonus.

I also believe that hiding your financial condition from stockholders or calling financial transactions something they aren’t for the sole purpose of getting around regulations is fraud. There should be arrests and justice for those who are guilty - just like Enron’s executives got.

By David S

October 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

All of this is the result of the Federal Reserve printing money and causing inflation. The ONLY reason there was this kind of money available to pay these jerks these multi-million dollar salaries was because of the actions of the FED. But of course in typical Washington style, they put a bandaid on the symptom rather than attack the root cause of the problem.

This web page is showing its further ignorance by even bringing up this issue. The salary of a CEO is between the CEO and the stockholders via the board of directors.

Why don’t you have a blog regarding getting rid of the Fed and restoring the gold standard?

By redtop

October 8, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

If any of these financial-giant CEOs are found guilty of criminal activity, I think their golden parachutes should be used to buy up as many bad mortgates as possible. Make them actually pay for their wrong doings.

By GeoffDawg

October 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

Are you freaking kidding??? Why don’t you just call this the socialist blog and be done with it?

By John

October 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

While their at it get rid of Mike Hampton’s 15M a year he gets for sitting around with his arm in a sling. Congress is really interested in running America’s pasttime too.

By Tom

October 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

No, there shouldn’t be a federal cap. But the rules limiting derivative suits by shareholders should be eliminated. Make the John Fulds (former CEO of Lehman) of the world personally liable to shareholders who lost money based on his bad decisions. That would be the real incentive for quality CEO performance.

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Those who are saying this is a socialist blog….express your viewpoints rather than huff off with an overgeneralization. I can’t stress enough how only a combination of idealogies are gonna help engineer constructive change. Let’s empty the boat of water then build a better one. All of us drowning to hold on to a principle is the defination of defeat.

By Noelle

October 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

Limiting executive pay and bonuses should be part of any government bailout plan. It should also apply to any company that receives any kind of direct government funding (subsidies, grants, etc.). That’s the taxpayers’ money they’re spending, not money they’ve earned on their own.

No, it shouldn’t apply to all companies. OTOH, why not offer a tax break to companies that choose to put specified limits on executive compensation? That way it’s not required, but there’s incentive for the companies to do it anyway.

(I’m betting a lot of companies are going to start addressing the problem of excessive executive compensation on their own anyway, since it’s become such a huge PR nightmare.)

By No Way

October 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

Oh so I see geoffdawg… we should just let the government take our tax dollars and throw it at these people who have made billions already just to keep them afloat in their lifestyles… Sounds like Russia under the Czars. The rich take what they want and we… the hard working people have to pay for it. If that is how capitalism is supposed to work, then sign me up for socialism… anything has got to be better than this system.

By clthurman

October 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

Well spoken Noelle.

By WilleBkind

October 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

I am confused!!! Executive pay? Is that the yearly earnings? If you want to pay the executive a $140 million dollars a year to bankrupt your company then go ahead. However, compensation at the end of employment is different. That is not executive pay but simply extortion of the stockholders and taxpayers. Pay is for services performed for a specific time during employment. Do not re-define employment or employment period. That is a scam by the affluent to pack their wallets. Please explain it if I am wrong?

By TheBlogger

October 8, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

Newsflash to SteveO and others:

Stockholders do NOT determine CEO compensation AT ALL.

The CEO compensation is solely determined by the Board of Directors of that corporation. Im case you don’t know, the Board of Directors are composed of primarily the “friends” of the CEO.

Sure, stockholders such as myself get a so-called “ballot” in the mail to “vote” for the Board of Directors. But, that ballot only has the name(s) of the people that they want on it. So again, the shareholders have NO TRUE SAY.

Also, for a shareholder to have any true say in anything, one would have to hold 51% of the stock. Have you any idea how much money that represents? You are right - it would have to be someone very wealthy that is likely the CEO themselves (or at least their buddy).

Americans have to get a clue as to this scam going on for the ultra-wealthy. They line each others pockets with our money - especially now with the bail out money. They don’t give a darn about their company or the shareholders - they only care about how much money they can personally bank and how golden their parachute can be (that’s the bonus money they get if they ever lose their job for whatever reason - what other person has a job with a “bonus” if you get fired?).

I am sure that the AIG folks on the Board of Directors that approved themselves to spend $400,000 of the taxpayer bailout money on a vacation trip for a week give a darn what the average American thinks. Right.

I know that there are few CEOs that are good, but those are the ones that don’t have these outrageous compensation packages because they care about their company and stockholders.

By The Path to Socialism

October 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this

Another dumb suggestion floated by economically illiterate “journalists.”

Why stop at controlling executive pay? Why not have the government control prices of all goods and services along with what particular goods and services—and in what quantities—are produced?

Democrat Congresswoman Waters and others want to control the oil companies—why not everything? The government has done such a marvelous job with Fannie and Freddie—why not health care? Automobiles? Clothing? Houses, of course! Cell phones, certainly! Consumer electronics?

If you think the Castros are running the Cuban economy effectively, make a big splash about “outrageous executive pay” and insist that government can do better job of “controlling it.”

You folks are a bunch of knuckleheads.

By Michael

October 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

This is crazy, but it wouldn’t be discussed if America’s CEOs had any self respect or integrity. Home Depot and Delta have both given big bonuses recently to 2 bozos who should have been thrown on the streets. The AIG guys should be in jail.

By krisg

October 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

Hey, you nutjobs…

If you are so paranoid that capitalism is so fragile it can’t handle any kind of adjustments for modern times, you’re telling the world capitalism doesn’t work.

As far as “rules” being the bane of a successful economy, go right ahead. and to your logic of taking everything to extreme conclusions on the first sign of an insult to your failed principles, we should legalize theft. Theft would balance out the economy for anyone with a gun. People who think theft is wrong are obviously communists.

By CBL

October 9, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

Corporate executive officers are paid what they’re worth to the company and its shareholders. If the shareholders didn’t approve of the leadership, then they would sell their holdings. If one company wants a particular person to come lead and hopefully generate the profits for the shareholders, than they will pay him/her what is necessary to come aboard and not go somewhere else.

Government has no business meddling in such affairs. The job belongs to the company, not some bureaucrat. With government’s inability to balance a budget, control spending, and limit their own self-aggrandizement, these people couldn’t run a corner gas station successfully.

By mechi

October 9, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Noelle, good suggestion..I totally agree.

TheBlogger, good info and very true.

By OMG

October 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Yes but only if its a government worker. They even need to take pay cuts themselves and get a different health and retirement plan. How about a nice 401K plan to go along with their social security benefits. Hows that for an answer.

By OMG

October 13, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Jason, Both Obama and McCain voted for the bailout. Its something that had to be done. While McCain went further and stated that the CEO’s of these companies that mis-stated their financials to get that huge bonus should not be given the bonus. The money was not there, an end result of the mis-managed industry. Learn before you post would you!

By Paul V

October 13, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this

While I do not agree that the government should decide what execs do, I think there should be some legislature/law enacted that when an exec takes the company down the drain they are not rewarded with millions of dollars in perks, etc. Having worked for a company where this happened, I think it is assinine that the very exec that sunk the company, now walks away with millions in golden parachute clauses - have them take that many and pay us poor working people our unempoyment/wages/etc with it instead. The fact that someone has a college degree and that the idiots that are on the board of directors allow this is a cold slap in the face to those of us with more common sense then those above us who work to eak out a living. Ask the working class who through their toil & sweat they reaped their riches what should be done. To keep allow this will only lead to the ruin of our business & economy, but what do I know? - I only have an IQ of 138.