Special offer

White House Pay Czar Responsible for Pay Cuts

By
Real Estate Agent with Remax Estates Properties DRE #0892215

Oh, Yes, this is terrible that those greedy executives are getting their pay cuts...You think so?

What is worse is that they have been trying to give this money back and the White House will not take it.

It looks like the mouse took the bait and is now caught in the trap!

If these financial institutions would have known the cost they would have to pay for taking the Governments hand outs they would have never taken it in the first place.

Why does the Government not want to get our Taxpayers dollars back?

Why is the Government with no business degrees in the Business and Fianance Industry in the first place, since none of these Czars have any financial degrees is what we should be asking instead?

Who let these Czars out to make decisions without the Approval of Congress in the First Place?

Who is running this Government really?

 

As per the Associated Press Article here is some of the article:

White House pay czar Kenneth Feinberg was the driving force behind the move to order steep pay cuts from bailed-out executives, and did not even seek the president's approval before making his decision. 

The Treasury Department is expected to formally announce in the next few days a plan to slash annual salaries by about 90 percent from last year for the 25 highest-paid executives at the seven companies that received the most from the Wall Street bailout. Total compensation for the top executives at the firms would decline, on average, by about 50 percent. 

The sweeping decision, though, came from Feinberg and not from President Obama. 

One official told Fox News that Feinberg from the start had the independent authority to work with companies and make such a call. Obama was never required to sign off before final decisions were made. 

On Thursday, the chairwoman of the panel that oversees the $700 billion federal bailout fund said the Obama administration is serious about the new plan. In an interview, Elizabeth Warren said reports of pending slashes in executive salaries are "real." 

"It's real in the sense that it says, 'Guys, you have to understand that you can't party on like it's 2007. If you're going to take taxpayer dollars, then the game has to change. In that sense it's real,'" she said on CBS' "The Early Show." 

The seven affected companies are: Bank of America, American International Group, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial. 

Smaller companies and those that have repaid the bailout money, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., are not affected. 

Under the plan, at the financial products division of AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance valued at more than $180 billion, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, one person familiar with Feinberg's plan said. 

The administration also will warn AIG that it must fulfill a commitment to significantly reduce the $198 million in bonuses promised to employees in its financial services division, the arm of the company whose risky trades caused its downfall. 

The pay restrictions for all seven companies will require any executive seeking more than $25,000 in special benefits -- things such as country club memberships, private planes and company cars -- to get permission for those perks from the government.

Posted by

Ocean

 *All views used in these pictures have been sold by Mary C. Thomas

                                                                 

                                        Mary C. Thomas Realtor- 310-946-2205

This blog is property of Mary C. Thomas copyright 2008

 

 

Comments (3)

Barbara Michaluk
Weichert Realtors | Phone Direct 240-506-2434 | 301-681-0550 office - Silver Spring, MD
Leisure World Specialist / Full Service REALTOR

Mary, Thanks for sharing this.  It's interesting all the different views and ways everyone sees this story.  I for one, would like to see our government take the money back.

Oct 22, 2009 09:18 AM
David Holzmann
Holzmann & Associates - Mountain View, CA

Mary, I think it's interesting that you say,

"If these financial institutions would have known the cost they would have to pay for taking the Governments hand outs they would have never taken it in the first place."

And in the article you quoted, it says things like,

"...the seven companies that received the most from the Wall Street bailout."

"'If you're going to take taxpayer dollars, then the game has to change.'"

and

"...AIG, the giant insurance company which has received taxpayer assistance..."

Notice how all that sounds like they either passively accepted a friendly gift or actively pursued welfare?

But that doesn't jibe with the conclusion of this report, from October 5th, which says,

"In a new report, Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), reveals that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and key federal regulators forced the nation’s nine largest financial institutions to take billions in taxpayer bailout dollars in October 2008, threatening that if the banks refused, the government would take their stock shares anyway."

And it repeats the allegation of governmental force in a variety of ways:

“Officials at Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and other federal regulators felt strongly that the nine institutions should not be permitted to reject the government’s capital infusions,”

"...the government did not consider its plan optional."

“We don’t believe it is tenable to opt out..."

"...regulator will require it in any circumstance.

“Furthermore, former Secretary Paulson told SIGTARP that, if necessary, the government would make clear to the nine executives that they had no choice but to take the money,” the IG report documents.

And on it goes, repeating the same kinds of phrases a few more times. 

Not anything close to passively accepting a friendly gift, much less pursuing the money.

And yet, now, the goverment (with a new administration) is taking it to the next step - using its power and control to interfere even more with the businesses.

Sure, a few of them were in trouble.  They should have been "allowed" to "fail" - to declare bankruptcy so as to restructure their debts.  And the rest should have been left alone, to carry on following good, profitaable business practices.

Oct 22, 2009 09:51 AM
Mary Thomas BH,MB,HB, PV, Estates LA+
Remax Estates Properties - Los Angeles, CA
Mary C. Thomas Your Agent around the Globe

David, thanks for clarifying that the Government forced these funds on the Institutions..This is all part of the major push for Socialism..

We need to keep the public aware and VOTE THEM OUT IN 2010..Keep praying that this adminstration will have a change of heart and do God'will and not their own for AMerica.

Oct 22, 2009 11:00 AM