What is next a pay czar for hollywood actors?

Note the key fact here is the "for now" in the second paragraph.

The Obama administration’s sweeping new proposal to restrict executive pay is likely to be a humbling exercise for seven of the nation’s largest companies, which have received billions of dollars in federal assistance to survive the economic crisis.

But for most other companies, the plan is expected to have only a marginal effect on pay practices for now.

The Treasury Department on Wednesday appointed a well-known Washington lawyer, Kenneth R. Feinberg, to oversee the compensation of employees at the seven companies — the American International Group, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers. . . . .

Some in congress argue that the regulations don't go far enough:

Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.

The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.

Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.

"I do differ with the administration in that hope springs eternal and their position seems to be that if we strengthen the compensation committees we will do better," said the committee chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat.

Rep. Brad Sherman, a Democrat, said that instead of giving shareholders a nonbinding voice on pay, their votes should be binding on boards of directors.

Democrats and administration officials agreed that companies across the private sector need to adjust compensation practices to avoid damaging the economy.

Gene Sperling, a counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said administration guidelines call on all publicly held companies to link compensation to long-term performance, not short-term gains. . . . .

Thanks to Anthony Troglio for this last link.

Labels: ,


Blogger Martin G. Schalz said...

Socialism or Fascism? I fail to see the difference here.

Let us suppose for a moment that the government does regulate hollywood actors pay. Does this not constitute a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech? Or does the POTUS have the authority to override binding contracts? Or for that matter, does Congress?

What is too stop Congress, or the POTUS from rewriting binding contracts in such a fashion as to destroy politcal enemies?

Let us suppose for a moment, that I am the newly elected POTUS, and I am a fine upstanding Democrat that has a secret hatred for those slimy scumbag rightwingers, who have the nerve to attack one such as I. I ask congress to lower the wages for select companies or businesses that I do not like. I simply make speeches that ensure that many hate these highly paid folks because they make so much money.

A very clever way to drive folks into a different line of work, no?

If I can fire the CEO of GM, what is to stop me from ruining Dr. Lott's job? How about the staff at Fox News? High profile targets are easy to destroy, are they not?

Fairness Doctrine anyone?

Financial destruction of one's enemies is the goal here. Not fiscal responsibility. That folks, is the hallmark of Fascist governments, and is also practiced by Socialists as well.

Last, but not least. I as POTUS delegate the job to a scapegoat of a pay Czar, so that if any outrage occurs, I can simply replace said Czar with another lackey who will do my bidding.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Any questions?

6/12/2009 8:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home