One Woman Stood Up

If the Republicans cry about not being able to attract talented executives on salary of $400K, all we have to reply to them is that $400K was enough to attract top flight talent like George Bush.  What can they say?

Thank you for posting the entire 5 minutes and 48 seconds; the whole segment is much more powerful than the shorter versions I had seen on the news.

This is a woman with the courage of her convictions. She came out for Barack early on - when it wasn't easy or popular - and she stood firm through all the ups and downs of the campaign. It makes me proud.

When I was in college I had the opportunity to hear Bella Abzug speak. What I remember best about that night is her saying "I always had a strong sense of outrage." That resonated so strongly with me at the time. The last 8 years may have beaten some of that out of me, but I am inspired again by Claire McCaskill's genuine sense of outrage at something that is, truly, outrageous.

Maybe common sense from our government isn't too much to hope for after all!

Another excellent summary of the situation:

"<Daschle> was a savvy political operator playing according to well-established rules. His mistake was not realizing that the rules had changed. But then, it's not clear that anyone realized the rules had changed. Not even the man who changed them."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2009&...

This will have an effect on consumer confidence that is probably even bigger than the monetary value of this stimulus stuff. It's not just ethical to do this, it is clever politics and clever economics as well.

I love this!  It's about effin' time.

I work at a large corporation and have heard this kind of mealy-mouthed justification for golden parachutes and insane executive compensation way too much.

My experience is that there are plenty of talented capable folks who would love to bring home $500K.  So, call their bluff and let the cry-babies walk.

We're better off without 'em.

And maybe, once it become public knowledge that corporations can be led successfully for $500K and under, that will become the new market price.  The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?  Maybe not so much, under the Obama administrations, suckas!

The ultimate joy would be to see these wusses come crawling back, begging for a couple hundred thou when that became the new reality - and be turned away.  (Masters of the Uni-what?)

Delicious.

Sanders was praised on the Rachel Maddow show today for suggesting something like this in September. I remember the "Sanders bailout" being very popular on Digg/GOS etc.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/sanders100208.html

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/6084

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/22-6

McCaskill has better timing on this and I hope more people think its a vote winner and pile on.

...The change is dramatic - to say the least. If he can pull this off - it will be seen as a turning point  -which Dashel is also a part. This isn't about party -this is about a corrupt and corrupting system. And People have felt powerless in the face of an exploitive culture that sucks the blood from the average worker and feeds it to the corporate vampires who think the are lords in some feudal system.

Boggles the mind that Democrats haven't been screaming from the highest mountain tops for exactly this type of reform. Out the Republicans as the whores of the rich that they are. Unfortunately, a lot of Dems chose to participate in the orgy, leading to a sense that the parties were the same, leading to Nader, leading to Bush.

Al,

I agree with your enthusiasm for Sen. McCaskill's statement. It was a brave and radical offering that might shine some light on the shadows of Wall Street, but is limiting executive compensation for firm's receiving bailout money anything more than another scapegoating and finger-pointing gesture? Debatable.

Personally, I am more concerned that bailout funds are used for their intended purpose; kick-starting credit markets and buying toxic mortgages, rather then padding the pockets of execs in the form of bonuses.

Nonetheless, Mr. Reda certainly did his case no favors by showing a total lack of humility, sensitivity, class or tact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/nyregion/04paterson.html?_r=1&ref=nyre...

It's been pretty clear that Paterson was doing this, though I'm not sure the people he's probably trying to ingratiate himself with really care about what happens beyond getting that seat for someone they can control, but it's good to see that truth making it out and being investigated responsibly.

As for the compensation cap, I'm ecstatic that it includes bonuses but I'd love to see this passed legislatively rather than handled through executive oversight, but I'm not one of the sad-sack so-called progressives who will illogically blame Obama if McCaskill's legislation fails.

Steven Pearlstein,  columnist for WaPo has a good column on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR200902...

I hope this helps a much needed conversation about class in our society.  The issue of entitlement is key. I don't expect it will reach the place where individuals who rent their homes will be able to take a tax deduction for the rent they pay - but, I defer to Robert Reich, always, on the issue of executive pay in ratio to wages of employees.  Think it's now something like 400 to 1.  Crazy.

Sen. McCaskill's cadence in this clip resembles that of Michelle Obama.  It's a nice sound.

Roy-

The problem is that many democrats are, as you say, no better.  Don't blame Nader and other that realize it.  It may make sense to criticize their strategy, but it's more than just a "sense" that the parties have been largely the same.  Remind me again, just what resistence did the Democrats put up to the war or the economy the last two years?

Hopefully Obama can help change that.  But he's going to need those same people that voted for Nader in 2000 to do.  Those that understand this isn't a problem only with a single party.

What a wonderful woman and what a wise elected official; she knows exactly how people are feeling and took action.

As long as companies are taking money from the taxpayers then they are accountable to all of us. It's nice to hear a Senator say it outloud and try to do something about it. It's more than nice, it's heartening and it does build some confidence (it'll build far more if the bill actually gets passed). People who yell 'nationalization' and 'socialism' don't seem to get that we all have a right to demand fiscal responsibility from these companies. We might not have a right in general to tell them what to do with their money but when they're taking billions of dollars from us we sure do. We have more than a right, our elected leaders have a responsibility to do exactly that!

I spent time last night firing off letters to our Representative and Senators after reading an article about Wells Fargo's upcoming junkets to Las Vegas (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28999671/). I ended by asking them to have someone in their staff contact me and let me know what actions Congress will be taking. Now I know what to write them about today.

Indeed, I am heartened by a pro-worker administration.  My hope is that Obama is way, way better than the weak Clinton when it comes to labor.

We are hearing more and more warnings agaisnt 'protectionism' in recent weeks.  Have these people been asleep for the last few decades?  If more neoliberal, race-to-the-bottom greed is the 'cure', we are very much in trouble.

Still, an honest discussion about jobs, immigration reform, and medical care will still be off limits for the corporate pundit class.

Developing and protecting decent jobs in the long-term is step one--and I have my doubts that the corporate elite have any compunction or ideas to practice economic patriotism or truely sustainable reforms.

Maybe it needs to get so bad that people actually can't eat, see a doctor, or have shelter before the grass roots start organizing in ways that put the necessary pressure on Obama.  The President, no doubt, will not walk out on a wire without a net--and he can only use his own organizational capacity so far.  However, organizing outside the Obama organization will get the attention of the powers that be--and this will put Obama in a much better position to advance progressive, sane reform.

In short, for me the capacity to grassroots organize in order to address deep structural problems is the key indicator as to whether we can get the US as a nation on a more healthy track.

(*Note: doesn't Dashel's greed epitomize how lame the Democrat Party has become as they have drifted every more to the pro-corporate right over the decades?  Lord, being already a millionaire and cheating--in order to enjoy opulence and pats on the back by the ruling class--is simply lame.  Dashel's core instincts were accomadationist and cynical.  Now he has to endure the taint until he hits the grave.  If he starts helping Carter with Habitat, and actually works, he might redeem himself a bit.)

while the ceo:normal worker ratio is way out of whack, you also have to be careful trying to reign it in.

underpaying people of power often leads to corruption. classic example is police forces, but another classic example is the us government <-> industry/lobbiest cycle in the US.

just limiting a single position ('CEO') seems risky too--that means other positions ('CEO's wife') can be used to siphon money, or more dangerously CEO puppet gets paid at max while some other position gets the real power.

the real question is how to get CEO type people to think long term, and to avoid the cycle of boards-of-directors giving eachother raises because they sit on eachothers boards--that's a much more complex governance issue than just 'cap that guy's pay by fiat'.

addendum now that a quote from Obama is there: seems like he understands a lot of the larger issue--a very encouraging sign, though the issues of corruption remain. (though i'd hope you could find people willing to work for a mere $500k and also able to fight off those willing to work for $500k above board and undefined other benefits later.)

I think it kind of missed the mark. No one in any firm that takes bailout money should be paid more than that. While the executives carry a great deal of the blame because they were in charge, it's the people 1-2 tiers below them that came up with crap that caused the collapse. These companies are the ones that caused this resession/depression and no one that works for them needs extravagant pay. When you look at how much the execs at one company made in salary and bonuses it comes down to a small amount of what they got from the treasury.

Al,

Sorry for being off-topic but I have to ask you this. I feel like right now the Democrats are not giving Obama a lot of support. In some ways, it seems like his own people are undermining him. What do you think?

Now let's see the Obama admin put all their weight behind Hilda Solís, because we have to tackle the labor-capital issue from all fronts.

If the government gives money to individuals who have fallen on hard times, it's welfare: That's a form of socialism. If the government takes measures to discourage individuals from relying on the public larder, that's welfare reform, which is good, since it checks socialism.

If the government gives money to companies which have fallen on hard times, that's not socialism: That's just what needs to be done to keep the market going. If the government takes measures to discourage companies from relying on federal rescue money,  that's bad, since it interferes with the market.

Ignore the man behind the curtain.

Ms. Claire is da hotness. 'Nuff said.  :-)

Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón

"It would be really tough to get people to staff" companies that are forced to impose these limits, he said. "I don't think this will work."

Oh, cry me a river and get lost, chump - I second that so before the chump gets lost, I want him to come cry me a river, too.

I haven't seen a whole lot of discussion of this on the blogs that I read, although they seem to have plenty of time for the usual children's table antics.

Reda reminds me of another elitist, roughly two years ago:

He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona... "I'll take it!" one man shouted. McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

Wasn't blaming Nader; not for THAT anyway.

I said "Dems chose to participate in the orgy, leading to a sense that the parties were the same, leading to Nader, leading to Bush." Cause and effect; cause and effect; cause and effect.

There's plenty for which to blame Nader. Not having any sense of when to leave the stage, for instance. Embarassing himself and undermining his well-deserved reputation as a consumer advocate. And, yes, not having had the good sense to throw his support behind Gore down the stretch when the race was close.

...and so it was! Oh well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azVLk.22AkLI&refer=home

Executives at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and hundreds of financial institutions receiving federal aid aren’t likely to be affected by pay restrictions announced yesterday by President Barack Obama.

The rules, created in response to growing public anger about the record bonuses the financial industry doled out last year, will apply only to top executives at companies that need “exceptional” assistance in the future. The limits aren’t retroactive, meaning firms that have already taken government money won’t be subject to the restrictions unless they have to come back for more.

Etc.

The language is carefully crafted to only apply to "exceptional" cases. In other words, a few scapegoats to act as cover for the lack of any deeper change.

Or is it just meant to be a "symbolic" gesture?

"Was this even imaginable a year ago?"

Perhaps not. BushCo's empty symbolism tended to find ways which didn't inconvenience anyone above a certain payscale. Obama's team knows how to seduce progressives better.

1) BAC, C, WFC and possibly JPM are Insolvent at this point.  These banks should be nationalized and restructured or put down by the market (with FDIC insuring depositors). $500,000 is still too much to compensation for some at these banks. Debt markets are dead for now and should be as there's a lot of crap to clear out.    Yes, great to limit executive pay but doesn't apply to traders or others though - lots of insane money made there.

2) Geithner is a goon -- he rode shot gun for Paulson.  Why Obama picked him and that woman for FINRA (Obama's SEC pick) is beyond me?  In picking these two, Obama has shown that he intends to play nice with the gangsters that got us to this point.  Yuck! 

3) Obama's stimulus plan is not BIG enough and will get smaller.  (media is inciting public on its "waste" ) When Eisenhower did public works -- he thought big $100 BILLION for interstates in the 50s.  There is nothing stimulative of this scale in this plan.

4)the outrage about wall street is true but I think this provision is a gesture thrown to masses to appease for the next big bank bailout (it will be massive and that is where money will be directed)   Wall Street is crying fake tears on this provision. 

5) Why doesn't this speak-for-the-people-congress freeze their own pay -- that's right they voted for their annual increase. At a time when people are being laid off, pay frozen. And Geithner the taxdodger as part of a plan to limit pay, forcing others to do the honorable thing.  Hypocrites.

6) Finally, don't celebrate this "comp cap" too soon, as this Executive pay provision will amount to peanuts compared to future Treasury bailout plans for our money  (the latest unconfirmed rumor that mark-to-market suspended for valuing bank assets.) We taxpayers are getting reemed!