DISQUS

AMERICAblog: I'm with Claire McCaskill on this

  • Akaison · 11 months ago
    When I took corporate law, the rationalization for bonuses, golden parachuts, etc was that they created incentives for top performers to perform. I do not understand how under any definition of capitalism the incentives make sense anymore. This is not capitalism. It's legalized theft of shareholder value.
  • caphillprof · 11 months ago
    Doesn't it violate some fiduciary duty to stockholders for any company experiencing losses to be rewarding managers for bad performance?
  • Akaison · 11 months ago
    No one of the impacts of the "conservative" revolution on capitalism is that the Courts have screwed with the ability of shareholders to affect what managers are doing. Derivative suits, etc are harder to do. Someone could bring a case, but I think it would be hard to win.
  • Bush_Bites · 11 months ago
    Will be interesting to see what happens.

    $400k is a lot for most of us, but it's chump change for those execs.

    Would they refuse the money and sink their companies as a result?

    Would the board members step in and say "you're going to take it and you're going to take the pay cut."

    Will the law even pass?

    I'm curious to watch this one.
  • Bush_Bites · 11 months ago
    Should add that I don't think these clowns are even worth $400k.

    Incompetent MBAs are a dime a dozen.
  • Indigo · 11 months ago
    This is a good year for a confrontation and that's what we've got brewing. I believe it now when they say it'll take a year before recovery starts to take ahold and now I see that it will indeed.

    It will take a year to ferret out these recidivist obstructionists, identify them, set them aside, and, if necessary, prosecte them.

    Once they've been routed off to their hidey-holes in Paraguay and Róatan and the rest of their Caribbean hideouts, we can start to rebuild. As long as the obstructionists think they can resurrect Reaganism, it's going to be rough going. Defang those vampires and we can move on.
  • Theresa · 11 months ago
    And someone in the House should write up some legislation voiding the automatic COLA pay increase our Reps received. Their salaries just went up $4,700.
  • Iowan · 11 months ago
    Go Claire, Go! But, let's cap "income" rather than "salary." Salaries could be capped and actual income could be many times the cap. Expense accounts, retirement funds, insurance packages, living allowances, transportation, etc.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    she was talking $400,000 INCLUDING stock options, bonuses etc...
  • anastasjoy · 11 months ago
    I called her office earlier to thank her since I've been saying the exact same thing since the idea of bailouts first came up last fall. She is definitely on the right track here.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    but... but... but.... if they impose a pay cap, Wall Street will lose its best and brightest stars!!!!

    oh, and without big bonuses, NYC will lose more jobs!!! http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/giuliani...

    /snark
  • pdxprobert · 11 months ago
    Get'em Claire... Keep Gitmo open for them as far as Im concerned.. they destroyed the integrity of Wall St out of pure greed and are responsible for the downturn and approaching depression... they claim they have to have their bonuses so they can be retained to fix the market place becasue theyre the best and the brightest.... they should all be in prison.. theyre thieves... they created false markets through naked shorting and bogus securities products like derivatives based on derivatives then sold them world wide and laughed all the way to the bank... these thieves are nothing but economic terrorists as well as many in the oversight agencies that passed through the revolving door of the SEC to the big investment banks and had their buds at the SEC look the other way when complaints were made... prosecute them to the enth degree... show the world that this kind of greed will not be tolerated... Claire, make them notice youre serious about cleaning up Wall St..
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    I agree with you to a point.

    integrity of Wall St? c'mon... the repugnicans removed oversight from Wall St because they thought they could 'trust' the market to govern itself.

    integrity?? if you give the keys to a McLaren F1 to a 19 year old boy and tell him he can have it for the day as long as he doesn't break any speed limits... what do you think is going to happen. He's been drooling over pictures of that McLaren F1 for YEARS.

    same thing happened with deregulation... it wasn't integrity that was destroyed, it was never there. there were just rules in place.
  • Steve_in_CNJ · 11 months ago
    vlad putin would feel right at home in our western kleptocracy.
  • lucky hussein · 11 months ago
    400K ? holy crap - cut that to 300K max! now! do it now! the economy is going to collapse! now!
    seriously, these things are no-brainers, guess I should be happy mcaskill is calling for it.
  • vkobaya · 11 months ago
    Makes me wonder how accountable our Congress and chief executive, both Bush and Obama, are, given that they passed the bailout without any oversight or accountability in the bill.
  • ShirleyGoodnessanMercy · 11 months ago
    BRAVO!!!

    Although I would cut the cap down to the average teacher's salary. AND require that the CEOs volunteer 10 hours a week in a homeless shelter.
  • vkobaya · 10 months ago
    require that the CEOs volunteer 10 hours a week in a homeless shelter

    If they were contractually required to do that, I would not even reduce their salaries to below the President's salary. But, would also require that of our Congress members as an official duty. One of the things that is very encouraging about Obama is that he and his family have worked in the soup lines and homeless shelters. Aside from Jimmy Carter, I seriously doubt that any president in my times, Eisenhower on, has done that. My guess is that both Bushs as well as Reagan would not have taken the oath of office rather than do that sort of real charity work. And if the sernior Bush ever worked in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, Barbara would refuse to ever allow him in the house again.
  • Older_Wiser · 11 months ago
    Good for Claire McCaskill! But I fear this bill has no chance...after all, many Congresscritters make far more than that outside their elected positions and you know damn well they're going to protect themselves, not us.

    I hope I'm wrong...
  • timncguy · 11 months ago
    her law would only apply to comapnies receiving a bailout from the taxpayers. It has nothing to do with whatever money elected officials earn outside their elected positions unless they are working for companies that received bailout money.
  • example · 11 months ago
    Claire McCaskill is an idiot and this is all just a bunch of grandstanding. It will never pass or even get out of committee because Wall Street owns D.C. Shumer is saying we need $4 trillion to fix up wallstreet, and they'll probably get it. Never mind we could spend that money to completely re-do our entire energy system to be renewable.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    or... take that $4 trillion and divide it up equally among every person in the US who pays taxes.

    I wonder what would happen to the economy? all that money in the hands of the people.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 11 months ago
    Yeah just imagine the inflation! Then Imagine it going right back to big business in a few years.
  • aquarius2 · 10 months ago
    Claire McCaskill if far from an idiot. I believe her outrage is/was real. I know I am furious these Wall Street guys are redecorating and trying to buy jets while still asking for more money from the government.
  • vkobaya · 10 months ago
    McCaskill is not an idiot. This is, of course, grandstanding. If such a bill ever came up for a vote, she would be among those who vote against it. She knows well that it is Wall Street that bought and paid for her election. As with Arlen Spector, she is very good at grandstanding, but when it comes down to it, she knows who butters her bread and which side of the bread is buttered.
  • Jim · 10 months ago
    Sen McCaskill's election was no funded by Wall Street.

    Contributor Total

    EMILY's List $523,538

    ActBlue $88,158

    Simmons Cooper LLC $68,378

    Keeping America's Promise $50,935

    Bryan Cave LLP $44,230

    Washington University $30,600

    Blackwell, Sanders et al $28,825

    Notre Dame High School $21,000

    Baron & Budd $19,000

    Patton Boggs LLP $17,550

    American Hospital Assn $17,500

    Newmark Knight Frank $16,400

    Lathrop & Gage $16,250

    Hbj Investments $16,100

    Time Warner $15,849

    Boeing Co $15,600

    Waters & Kraus $15,585

    DLA Piper $15,300

    Moveon.org $15,100

    University of Missouri $14,900
  • MNUSA · 11 months ago
    Where do the Wall Street bonuses come from? From retirement funds for teachers, etc.? From 401K accounts (that replaced pension funds)? I think there needs to be more oversight than just Wall Street. Corporations make up the mutual funds we invest our 401K money in, and the lavish lifestyle, salaries, and bonuses of executives (not to mention golden parachutes once they've looted the company and it fails) are affecting the bottom line and the future of tens of millions of Americans.
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    Wall St... a BIIIIIIG ponzi scheme.
  • Rob Mule · 11 months ago
    Still gagging over pusbag Rudy Girliani's claim this morning on CNN that forcing a return of Wall Street bonus money "would cause unemployment" because "this money's spent in restaurants"...
    Rudy's neck has disappeared as his head now kinda merges with his shoulders and I'm assuming this now filled space is where he stashes the payoff money???
  • Soundboy_jeff_meanie · 11 months ago
    rudi is a huge proponent of trickle-down economics.

    the state gives him a raise, he uses it on a few whores... to him this is a microeconomic model of the US economy.
  • Bush_Bites · 11 months ago
    Rudy is such a dumbass.

    I remember him saying in the primaries that he would have to cut taxes to generate more revenue.

    OK, typical Repub lunacy we're all used to hearing, so no surprise there.

    But then he went on.

    He talked about spending more for the military and said something like "Of course, I'd have to cut taxes again to pay for that."

    He didn't seem to grasp the slippery slope he was on and, I guess, just assumed the government would be flush with money to spend on anything it desired if he just cut taxes completely.
  • jurassicpork · 11 months ago
    Amen, Claire. I may move to Missouri just on the strength of that tirade on the floor of the Senate. I don't think this was political theater. I think the outrage was genuine.

    Of course, right wingers will claim McCaskill is a socialist to insist that none within those bailed out companies should make more than Obama. But in theory, it's a good idea.
  • Bubbles · 11 months ago
    A maximum wage doesn't effect entrepreneurs of people who create something.

    Executives are just hired hands. They don't own anything. They are just worker bees.
  • jurassicpork · 11 months ago
    Waddya call tens of millions in exercised stock options?
  • SCLiberal · 11 months ago
  • caphillprof · 11 months ago
    Viva la France.
  • KarenMrsLloydRichards · 11 months ago
    The scandal is what has been LEGAL since 1999 and the repeal of Glass-Steagall and passage of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act. And the Commodity Futures Modernization Act the following year.

    All of this was ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED by both parties in Congress.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 11 months ago
    Amen.
  • Forty2 · 11 months ago
    Yes indeedly. Both the handiwork of Phil Gramm.
  • Galore · 11 months ago
    Actually, Obama, the height of irresponsibility is passing a bailout package that does not contain language to restrict bonuses and other compensation.
  • dances with beagles · 11 months ago
    clicked on the comments to make this same point. Thanks. What kind of idiot would vote to give banks $700,000,000,000 with no strings attached? Obama, McCaskill perhaps?
  • RangerPHX · 10 months ago
    The original bill had restrictions and Bush demanded that it be stricken from the bill or he would veto it and it was.
  • PattyP · 11 months ago
    Sweet. I'm writing to my Senators right now to tell them to support it. Everybody else should too.
  • RangerPHX · 10 months ago
    There is a noble idea I wish everyone who is upset at stuff would and not write ONLY in blogs, and you can contact all of them through the web.

    The problem is the republicans are voting on party lines so they are not listening to any of us.
  • Bubbles · 11 months ago
    I believe it was Billionare Armand Hammer who said that a person who makes $400,000 a year lived essentially the same way he did.

    Of course that's when a Billion Dollars and $400,000 were actually worth more than today.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 11 months ago
    Obama makes $400k a year? Does that include the cars, helicopters, jets, housing allowance, personal staff? I would love someone to put a number on the budget for a President. I always wondered why the Pres made any money at all. I mean, what expenses does he have? He is already a millionaire in his own right.

    As for capping income at $400k, go for it. Just another reason for those companies to go offshore. Why not cap everyones income at 400k? Doctors, Lawyers, actors, atheletes, everyone. Right? I mean just think if compensation was capped at 400k years ago we would not be here now. Because all those companies would be offshore. Maybe we can get the rest of the world to cap the incomes of their citizens. I am sure England, Japan, Germany, I am sure everyone would want to play our version of neutered capitalism.

    Its not fair what a few of the power players on Wall St did. But the answer is not to try to convince Americans that if the Pres can live such a comfortable life on $400k, anyone can.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 11 months ago
    What she should be addressing is that we should not be giving them any money at all. Can I get a list of all the mom and pop shops that where saved from closing their doors?
  • Spew Away · 11 months ago
    This is a joke right? First, there is no need to convince Americans that anyone can live comfortably on 400k a year. Of course a person can do that! The average American makes $0k a year. I'm sure most would be disgusted to hear that there are people out there who feel that it is not possible to live on $400k.

    Second, why the hell are you talking about doctor's lawers, ballplayers, etc? Strawman much?

    Third, if a bank wants to take their marbles to another county because they are asked to show a little fiscal restraint after getting tax payer dollars, then they should go! I'm sure their new hosts will be more then happy to give them the $20 billion that they are begging for, along with all the green needed for the move.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 10 months ago
    I didn't say that $400k isn't enough to live on, I simply don't think it is the govt place to tell anyone how much they can make in a free market. The govt should not be giving them any money at all anyway. They should be allowed to fail. How does it strengthen our economy by allowing these irresponsible companies, with irresponsible leadership to stay in business?
  • Steve Pipenger · 11 months ago
    Maybe you just can't read or you're just stupid. The point is this: it's capped when they are RECEIVING TAXPAYER FUNDS.
  • Same crap, different a-hole · 10 months ago
    No, I got the point. And they should not be receiving any funds from the govt. They should just be allowed to fail. They showed that they can't manage their own money, so we give them taxpayer money? Thats the answer?

    Again I go back to mom and pop shops. If the govt is going to give 'bail out' money, I would rather see it go to the mom and pop shops.
  • Jimbo62 · 11 months ago
    I love Claire even more now......wow, that is just awesome. I hope she is as close to Barack as they portrayed during the campaign.....maybe she is doing it for him. I've been wondering why she didn't get a cabinet position and it may be because Obama needs people on his side in the house and senate.
  • ALC · 11 months ago
    Congress should have insisted on rules, ie no bonuses for companies accepting bailouts! It is fine for them to rail against the bonuses but where were they when they were supposed to be providing oversight over the bailout $$$ ??
  • SCLiberal · 11 months ago
    Nelson convened a meeting in his Senate office today with Senate Republicans and some Democrats who are seeking “common ground on how they can improve the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.” Nelson’s meeting included Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).

    In an interview with Fox News after the meeting, Nelson said he didn’t know how many Democrats, let alone Republicans, would vote for the stimulus plan “as it stands today”
    source
  • red_dwarf · 11 months ago
    Did Obama shake his finger when he called these fat cats shameful?

    I'll bet they're shaking in their boots all the way to the bank. Have Conyers send them a memo.
  • TR_Baer · 10 months ago
    Ah come off it. What are they supposed to do? I know you'd like them all to get into little time machines and impeach Bush or something, but it's easy to say crap like that from here in the peanut gallery.

    Meanwhile, the Repubs are <a href=" http://www.tv1.com/playlists/225”>lying their asses off to fight him. Maybe focus you're anger there, or wait for the Che Guevara/Noam Chomsky ticket so many people in the Internet tubes seem to be waiting for....Grrrr.
  • TR_Baer · 10 months ago
    Woops, got so angry I screwed up the html. Pretty cool link and it works, anyway.
  • RangerPHX · 10 months ago
    It's nice to see some anger on all this crap, now we need the anger to spread.
  • Steve Pipenger · 11 months ago
    This is all well and good, and I'm glad she's doing this. However, first...why didn't they do this before they even passed this silly bailout? Second, they should NEVER have passed the bailout to begin with. They should have let the banks fail. The problem is the system itself. When Americans understand that our financial system is controlled by 12 COMPLETELY, PRIVATELY HELD BANKS WITH NO CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT, they will be clamoring for change. The only person in our banking system who reports to the people is the chair of the federal reserve board...and he has the longest term of any appointed person in government...7 years!!!!
  • aquarius2 · 10 months ago
    3 cheers for Claire. Finally, a senator that tells it like it is instead of trying to mince or parse words!!!

    Let's see if the big boys in Washington followed her lead and this bill.
  • paul94611 · 10 months ago
    I believe Sen. Claire McCaskill is being overly generous. I think if we are subjecting American service members to hostile fire then American finance should have their pay capped at what our service members make.
    Since I know this will never happen since service members & their families qualify for AFDC and food stamps I cheer Sen. Claire McCaskill for her challenge to her fellow members of the senate to stand up and be counted.
  • Ortles92 · 10 months ago
    "You can't use taxpayer money to pay out 18 billion dollars in bonuses"

    I think they already did. This is shear and utter bullshit. If they meant it they would propose retroactively taxing these "bonuses" to ZERO. But they haven't the guts, they are all bullshit. They aren't going to do a damn thing about it but talk AFTER all the moneys gone.

    If they had any real balls they'd start by passing this:

    http://tinyurl.com/ccoc8x
  • Randy · 10 months ago
    Is it maybe because the politicians in question expect a substantial amount of the bonus money to somehow appear in their next political campaign chests?
  • Buford · 10 months ago
    We have a bunch of idiots in Congress who handed out great big, leafy piles of our taxpayer money to these guys without any strings, guidance, or oversight. I'm glad Claire said what she said, but this is way too little, too late.
  • RangerPHX · 10 months ago
    Claire has it 100% correct and I only hope this bill can make it through the whole congress. What a shame that we could not wright this law retro-actively.

    What about a special income tax?
  • Randy · 10 months ago
    I suspect a thorough and honest IRS audit of the company and their PERSONAL tax returns would put them all in prison for a LONG time. And expose a slew of off shore tax havens and the 'advisors' they use.
    And hiring enough auditors would go a long way in itself to put people back to work...
  • insignificant · 10 months ago
    As a former Missouri resident, I've followed McCaskill and her politics for a while and have been a huge fan (apparently I'm not alone, as Michael J. Fox, President Obama and others have stumped for her as well). It's fantastic to see her finally hit her political stride. When Claire gets her way, the country benefits.