|
Conservative Compass Blog
|
|
Written by Bob Sordahl
|
|
Saturday, 04 April 2009 |
As I check out the news each day, I often read an article that I describe as a “head scratcher”. That is an article that on the face of it doesn’t make sense to me. They are strange, contrary to logic or just unfathomable. I usually e-mail them to my conservative friends, and move on to more important issues. This morning however, as I read my online subscription to the Washington Post, I was perplexed by this headline:
“Administration Seeks an Out On Bailout Rules for Firms” .
It seems that the Obama administration is trying to figure out a way to circumvent the Congressional restrictions on executive pay for companies receiving Government bail out money. I’m now wondering what happened to the President’s outrage over the “obscene” amounts of compensation being paid to AIG executives. Apparently, it’s not bothering him so much anymore because as the Washington Post article stated:
Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.
It’s funny that Congress with the administration’s support didn’t seem so concerned about persuading anyone to do anything except pay ridiculous taxes on their legally earned bonuses. It also looks like the Bush administration tried to limit executive compensation tied to the bail out, only to be overruled by the incoming Obama administration. The Post article continues:
At first, when the initiative was being developed last year, the Bush administration decided to apply executive-pay limits to firms participating in this program. But Obama officials reversed that decision days before it was unveiled on March 3 and lifted the curbs.
And finally:
Obama's team is also planning to exempt financial firms that participate in a program designed to find private investors to buy the distressed assets on the books of banks.
Hmmm, head scratcher right? Until I see this next headline: “Top Economics Aide Discloses Income” . As required by law, some of President Obama’s top aides had to disclose their financial information this past Friday. Guess what? Apparently many members of the Obama team, have received large (shall we say obscene) amounts of money, some from the same firms that benefited from Federal bail out money. Chief among them is Lawrence H. Summers, the President’s top economic advisor. The Washington post describes it like this:
Summers -- who, as chairman of the National Economic Council, is a leading architect of the administration's economic policies and helped shape the response to the global recession -- appears to have collected the most income. Financial institutions including JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch paid Summers for speaking appearances in 2008. Fees ranged from $45,000 for a Nov. 12 Merrill Lynch appearance to $135,000 for an April 16 visit to Goldman Sachs, according to his disclosure form.
Others are named such as National security adviser James L. Jones, David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and Senior adviser Valerie Jarrett who earned equally “obscene” salaries though not directly from bailed out companies -- at least not yet.
I’m thinking that, with Congress falling all over itself to retroactively tax “excessive” executive pay, the administration is now scrambling to protect their own by finding a way around those punitive actions. One could logically assert that paying excessive speaking fees is no different than excessive bonuses for a company that is running on taxpayer money, thus putting Mr. Summers compensation in peril.
I know the media will largely ignore these two stories and the connection between them, but we shouldn’t. They cut to the heart of this administration’s philosophy of economic equity -- the Government will decide who wins and who loses. All I want to know is: when is the busload of “outraged citizens” going to show up at Mr. Summer’s house?
|
