... for executives of companies receiving government bailout money.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay

It's a sad day when the government has to police the actions of these CEOs ... I'm more of a laissez-faire guy, but in light of the current economic conditions, and the egregious behavior of these companies on the dimes of you and me, I laud Obama for this.

It's a good thing.

Headlines today on Huff-po. "It's not fair".

Call the Waambulance, I think we have a CEO that needs some attention!

It's about time. Good for the president.

Brianl writes;

It's a sad day when the government has to police the actions of these CEOs

Yes, it is a sad day. However, since we are the taxpayers, thus making us the loaners of said money, we expect the banks to use the money for what we loaned it to them for, bailouts, to stimulate the economy. We did NOT give it to them to put in their own backpockets nor did we give it to them to fight the impending "workers right" (union) legislation we will see in Congress later this year. If the execs don't like it, there's plenty of people on the street looking for positions that will be more than happy to do what their doing for a lot less that what these idiots are doing it for. These people can't be trusted, I've said this for years and got flamed all over the internet and by many here on this site for it. So all I have to say is:

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This will stop some items:

1- Banks that were buying other banks with the TARP money (like that was suppose to help.).
2- Those banks that are justing keeping the "TARP" money under a mattress until the economy recovers.

What will happen now, those who have kept the money under the mattress will send their TARP money back to keep their salaries high.

Those who spent the money on buying other banks will have to take a pay cut for their actions. So they will try every way possible to raise funds to pay off the TARP loans so they can get their rate of pay back to where it was, or get fired by the Board of Directors for using the money to buy other banks.

With the billions returned by CEO's who don't want to have a pay cut there will be more than enough money for the Stimulus.

So the screwing around the GOP has being doing the past two weeks, well the just got hit broadside. Now Obama has the money needed from prior approval's to actually make a stimulus package happen.

Aok - did you miss the rest of my post?

Other parts of this bill, that I like:

-The pay cap is $500,000 per year. (Pennies compared to what most are getting now.)
-Stock options can be paid aside from this cap, and not count towards the cap. However, if an executive is to cash in that stock option, the money from it must go to pay back the taxpayers first. The executive gets what's left.
-Any perks, or privileges, must be submitted, in writing, to the shareholders and taxpayers BEFORE being doled out, and approved.

It's a good start.

Almost everybody I talked to today thought the same thing. It doesn't even have to be perfect, just decent.

Funny how that works.

I like the stock option deal too. Nice BIG incentive to sort this stuff out and get it right.

It's a good start.

Better than anything that DUHbya and Co. ever did....

Hey only 8 posts to bring up W. New record!
I am hoping that by CEO's BAMA means Nancy Pelosi and her private jet and 500 million unemployed?
Or Geinther's tax bill? nah, W would have let that stuff go too.

Thanks for the insight Dodger...

WOW!

"It's a good start.

Better than anything that DUHbya and Co. ever did...."

And that up there is insightful? In what way?

HOW ABOUT PAY CAP FOR ENTERTAINERSOPRAH,PAUL MCCARTNEY AND PRO ATHLETES!!??BASKETBALL,BASEBALL,FOOTBALL,ETC

There is.

So, uh, yeah, how 'bout that.

michael Jackson,Paris Hilton,etc., too!!ALL Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys,Oboma's,Mccain's!!Any/all other double-dippers,triple-dippers!!??Campaign contributions should count 2X as taxible income!!

If they were asking for tax dollars from the Government, I would consider a cap for them too.

Besides, it's a voluntary program. They don't have to agree to the cap if they don't want to. ( I know I'm sounding like it's a program that is already in place. I know it's not. But if we are debating the logic of it, I stand by what I posted ).

kgw - many sports leagues do have a pay cap for its athletes. It's called a salary cap, and it takes different forms. In the case of the NFL, it's a hard cap for the team, where their payroll can only hit a certain ceiling, and no more. The NBA and NHL have a "soft cap", where the teams are allowed to go over a cap ceiling to retain players they already have, but the maximum the player is allowed to make is capped, and there is a luxury tax threshold that must be paid once the franchise exceeds X amount of payroll.

The salary cap for entertainers, whether it's sports stars, movie stars, music stars, what have you, comes from US the consumer. People bitch all the time about the salaries of professional athletes, but at the same time as long as we're willing to drop the money to go see the games, order NFL Sunday Ticket, or NBA League Pass, or MLB Extra Innings ... buy the merchandise ... those salaries are going to be high. Same goes for us going to the movies, buying CDs, etc. We are supporting the salaries of these people.

CJ has it right, if we were subsidizing these performers with tax dollars, I would be all for a hard-line cap. But they're not, and it's up to US to provide that cap.

There is another way to look at this.

In business, those people with the money own things. They call the shots, they get the biggest returns, and they are more significant than those without.

Well, if the big banks LOST their MONEY, and have to ask US to be INVESTORS, then we get some OWNERSHIP. That's the consequence of not shepherding the money properly.

They are oppose it because it's a surrendering of power and entitlement.