McCaskill vs. CEOs

Sen. Claire McCaskill made it big on the news last week with her proposal to limit the compensation of Wall Street and banking executives (1/31, A-1, “McCaskill on corporate execs’ pay: ‘These people are idiots’.”). She proposes limiting the total compensation package of executives to $400,000, which is the same compensation as the president of the United States and, as she claims, eight times the median income of the average American family.

I am not defending the spending of the executives, but this proposal by Sen. McCaskill is another prime example of why the bailout was a bad idea. Government bailout money given to these corporations allows government dictating to the corporations how to run their business. This wouldn’t bother me if government had a history of being able to balance a budget and promoting efficient business practices.

I have a proposal for Sen. McCaskill. How about we limit the pay of our senators and representatives to $50,000 annually until they learn how to balance a budget?

Mike Hilboldt
Kansas City

Are Wall Street executives idiots? Maybe. But so is Claire McCaskill. Either that or she is deceitful. Her plan to limit executive compensation will have a consequence, and it will not be reducing executive pay. The plan will run all competence out of the same companies we are trying to bail out.

Wall Street employees are able to go to work for the highest bidder, which they will surely do under McCaskill’s idiotic plan. Shouldn’t we be trying to secure the best and most competent minds on Wall Street to protect our investment? Or does McCaskill think it is better to run them off to their competitors that didn’t require bailout money in the first place, leaving the people’s investment in the hands of executives no one was willing to pay?

The result of her legislation will be the bankruptcy of the bailed-out banks and the rise of their competition, resulting in a total loss for the government.

If McCaskill cannot understand the end result of her plan, then she is the idiot. If she does understand it, then she is deceitful. Either option is not very complimentary to the senator. Nor is it encouraging for our country.

David Rose
Kansas City

Who are the real idiots here? Claire McCaskill thinks Wall Street CEOs deserve the title. They’re sitting with full bank accounts now because the idiots out here (voters) elected idiots to Congress who handed them the money with no strings. Doesn’t sound like they’re too stupid to me. They’re just taking advantage of what they’ve been given.

We need to do a better job when we elect our representatives, and vote out the ones who went against the wishes of so many constituents to vote for that initial bailout.

Debi Hunter
Parkville

I hereby nominate Claire McCaskill to be the economic recovery czar, provided that she is given a mandate to bring criminal prosecution against those who violate her proposal for a cap on executive salaries and benefits.

As one of the little people who pay taxes (remember Leona Helmsley?) I am sick of the billionaires and multimillionaires who are pursuing their latest entitlement programs. Those individuals display a level of greed that would even have the legendary King Midas saying, “Geez, isn’t it ever enough?”

Charles Wilson
Raymore

Comments

[jeepster4]

If we went back to a progressive tax system and put the 70% bracket at about $500.000 and we quite taxing the financial industries' bonuses as capital gains, eliminated over paid board of directors that owed their salaries to the executives that select the boards, I bet the salary matter would take care of itself and as a by product, the real owners of the corporations, the shareholders, would be paid dividends again. But that's just an old liberals dream.

[zenozac]

Or maybe a different thought. Instead of imposing limits on how much someone can make in a particular industry. Why not prosecute and jail the criminals who committed fraud, along with the politicians and the bond rating firms who allowed all this to happen by covering up the messes the firms got themselves into.

This blustering about CEO's salaries is great theater and appeases temporarily the liberal wing of the democratic party, but will accomplish nothing to help us here and now, or ever for that matter. The big banks got their money with NO STRINGS attached. How is it the politicians who gave them the money, never had the thought "maybe I should ask what they will do with it?"! Now after billions are gone, the same people who gave them the money, are making great speeches about how "we are gonna fix you now"! Why do I suspect that the "big boys" suddenly will right their ships without any more money from Uncle Sam?

You libs really believe the democratic party is for the little guy. The "WHO" said it best, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss, so I'll pick up my guitar and play, just like yesterday, (and blah blah blah) pray we don't get fooled again"

[Engineer]

Do we also get to limit Pelosi to $400K worth of jet fuel per year rather than the $5 Mil or so she now uses up? Obviously there is a lot of "green" out there and, as Jim would say, McCaskill is making political hay out of it.

[whispering_to_kc]

The defense of multi-million dollar banker salary/bonus payouts even as their institutions are bailed out is common on CNBC/FOX and even wingnut local talk radio (KMBZ).

Their defense of continued unlimited wages for Wall Streeters is usually built on the supposed free market notion of keeping the "best and brightest" on the job and keeping them from jumping to greener pastures. The wingnuts never bother to explain where these greener pastures might be to absorb all of the fleeing bright boys. They also never fess up to the idea that our current economic problems were triggered by these same bright boys' pursuit of personal wealth through financial engineering and clever sleight of hand.

The defense of unlimited Wall Street earnings and wingnut attacks on proposed government bonus caps as "populism" is particularly odd since these same media wingnuts were only weeks ago demanding wage cuts and attacking the $14-28 UAW wage as spectacularly "rich" and uncompetitive with the commie Chinese.

Disgusting. It's all sad and disgusting.

[Roger Lambert]

I'm guessing that the $400k cap will be extremely popular with the American people. If you do such a poor job as an executive that you have to get a multi-dollar bailout from the Feds, then how have you even earned $400k?

It's bad enough to compensate CEOs with multi-millions when they do well; it's beyond obnoxious when they walk away with millions when they fail.

I wonder how many Gary Forsee type packages will get pushed through in the next few years. Americans are sick and tired of it.

[TinaMcG]

"The plan will run all competence out of the same companies we are trying to bail out. "

It's fair to say that all competence was run out of those companies long before Sen, McCaskill made her proposal.

She has been VERY VERY clear that this "string" would only be in place for those companies who depended on government bailout money to stay afloat, and it would only be in effect until the banks paid back the government in full. I don't believe this is the government trying to dictate what bank execs get paid. But when they're being paid with OUR money, we have a right to put the kibosh on million-dollar bathroom makeovers and billions of dollars in bonuses for performances that clearly did not deserve bonuses.

[Jim]

It's not the salaries that necessarily bother me as much as the bonuses, which are much more substantial. The CEOs need to be asked what part of their job they would stop doing if they didn't receive these bonuses. They're already paid quite handsomely and receive huge perks as part of their jobs, so the idea that no bonus this year or the next would put them in the poorhouse is laughable.

The elitist culture is a big problem. I honestly don't think they understand what's going on in the average American's life because they're so far removed from it.

That's why we end up with companies that were on their supposed deathbeds spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a retreat to the Bahamas a scant two months later. It's also why a guy who gets a free car and driver doesn't bother to find out if he should treat that as income for tax purposes. They're so far out of touch they think all that stuff is owed to them.

[Stifled Freedom]

Mike Hilboldt, your letter is nothing more than a deflection of the issue. Anyone in their senses believes that if banks are really in such dire shape that they need govt bailout, the execs should not be getting 7 figure salaries at the tax payers expense. Changes to elected officials salaries isn't going to make the bailout stipulations any more sensible either.

I think what Claire McCaskill proposed was about the most practical and sensible thing Congress has seen yet. Any elected official who votes against it should be removed from office.

I'll bet you wrote your letter before you knew Wells Fargo was planning a lavish retreat to Vegas for its execs. They have since canceled that ruse.

If banks dont like the stipulations, let them go a bailout somewhere else. Good luck because no other govt cares.

Debi Hunter, that all sounds nice and thoeretical, but we just had an election. You just elected these people 3 months ago. As always, we were left to choose from the lesser of evils because poeple dont think outside the box when it comes to politics. People vote for the guy who tells them what they want to hear. You did it again and you got it again.

[JayhawkinMO]

I wonder where Hilboldt, Rose and Hunter got their doctorates in economics? And it's a good guess that Rose and Hunter didn't vote for Senator McCaskill. Based on bank's records since implementation of TARP, the banks can't afford to pay CEOs seven-figure salaries. The major banks that took TARP money have lost two-thirds of their net value since then. Consequently, I think it quite reasonable to impose salary limits if a financial institution wants to accept bailout money.

[Pub 17]

HILARIOUS.
Listen to the 'pubs defend seven-figure salaries for people now officially on government welfare.

David Rose--yours is particularly funny. "I'm not gonna take this $400000 crap! I'm gonna take my dolly and my dishes, leave Wall Street and open a Dunkin' Donuts in Kyrgyzstan!" Yah, shoor. Don't mean to be too harsh, ninja, I LOVED "The Stripper" back in the day.

[Marctnts]

As much as I have a distaste for the TARP bailout, financial institution participation has been voluntary (with the exception of a few big banks who were "forced" to participate to avoid the creation of a stigma). It's awfully hard to argue against government making business decisions for you when you have your hand out, begging the government for more money.

Since the executive compensation we're talking about is a drop in the bucket compared to the big number problems the corporations are facing, McCaskill's proposal seems top be about "appearance" rather than actual economic effect. But, with Well Fargo style junkets in the news almost every day, maybe an appearance makeover isn't such a bad idea.