"Pay Czar" Cuts Salaries of Employees of Private Companies

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    Finally, those Capitalist pigs will get what they deserve, eh comrades??



    Pay Czar's Move to Cut Salaries Raises Questions About Limits of Authority

    Under authority granted by Congress through legislation passed in February, Kenneth Feinberg has decided to order pay cuts for the top 25 earners at the firms that received the most aid from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package. Though the move raises legal questions, it may be tough for the firms to resist.


    feinberg_081507.jpg


    The Washington pay czar who's ordered steep pay cuts for executives at bailed-out firms could have practically unlimited power to regulate compensation at any company that gets federal funding, lawyers say -- even if his legal authority is sketchy.

    The move raises questions about whether the mandate will be limited to the seven firms Kenneth Feinberg is currently targeting -- and whether it could trickle down to smaller companies.

    "He has a lot of authority with respect to not just the seven but with respect to all TARP firms," said Stephen Bainbridge, law professor at UCLA. "It's an enormous expansion of federal power over corporations."

    Under authority granted by Congress through legislation passed in February, Feinberg has decided to order cuts for the top 25 earners at the firms that received the most aid from the $700 billion Wall Street rescue package. He's looking to cut salaries by 90 percent from last year's levels, and to cut total pay by half.

    The fact that Washington is again meddling with contracts -- following a stalled attempt by Congress in March to halt AIG bonuses -- has revived charges that the federal government is overstepping its bounds. Lawyers say Feinberg could be trampling on legally binding agreements.

    But Bainbridge and others said he nevertheless has an "informal" authority to get his way.

    "Certainly he has the ability to cajole even where he doesn't have the ability to directly regulate," he said.

    Since these companies owe money to the federal government, that gives the Obama administration political leverage -- to exercise its ownership stake, or to embarrass the executives in the press, or to target the companies in any number of other ways.

    The move by the Obama administration is for now limited to the seven top bailed-out companies and will not touch firms like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, which repaid the government.

    But President Obama on Wednesday announced plans to increase lending to small businesses and to give them greater access to the rescue fund, leaving some to question whether Feinberg might have authority to dictate executive pay at those firms as well.

    Executive compensation attorney Robert Sedgwick said it would be politically untenable for the administration to impose restrictions on small businesses that accept government aid.

    Mike Smida, who with his partner Bill MacLean is opening an athletic center in northeast Connecticut and received a small business government loan, said any salary restriction could have a prohibitive effect.

    "It would certainly cause hesitation," he said. But he added, "If they're talking Wall Street numbers, then we have nothing to worry about."

    But according to The Associated Press, the Federal Reserve is now proposing to police banks' pay policies -- even for those that didn't receive a bailout.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News judicial analyst, said the government is embarking down a slippery slope.

    "If bankers don't challenge this, if they supinely accept it out of fear of what the government will do if they do challenge ... then you have a nation of sheep," he said.

    For those that did receive a bailout, though, the administration may make it hard to resist making the pay cuts.

    "I think the politics are too brutal," Robert Profusek, a corporate governance lawyer at Jones Day, said. "It's hard to say no. They are unbelievably powerful."

    Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, said in an e-mail that the companies' debt allows the government to put "considerable pressure" on them.

    He said imposing restrictions after the fact, as opposed to on the front end of the financial aid offer, creates "serious legal issues" over a lack of authority. But he said the seven firms are unlikely to challenge the mandate.

    Feinberg has claimed broad authority to regulate executive pay and has already notched major victories.

    In early October, Citigroup decided to shed energy trader Andrew Hall and his business after Feinberg threatened to go after his $100 million bonus. It didn't matter that the pay was determined last year. Plus outgoing Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis also agreed this month to forego his 2009 pay.

    "I don't think that anybody will fail to comply," said Sedgwick. "Any move the government makes can be challenged in court, but I'm kind of doubtful."

    He said the fear by executives that their names will be dragged through the mud in the press is enough to ensure compliance.

    The Obama administration has already proved its ability and willingness to play hardball with political opponents -- including the health insurance industry and the Chamber of Commerce.

    Sedgwick, though, said he doesn't see the same legal complications here that arose when Congress tried to crack down on millions of dollars in AIG bonuses.

    Back then, critics said Congress was potentially in conflict with Article I of the U.S. Constitution -- particularly a section stating Congress cannot pass any "Bill of Attainder" -- an act of the legislature that singles out and punishes a group or individual without trial.

    In this case, Congress is not the entity making the call -- Feinberg is.
    Obama on Thursday said Feinberg struck a balance between standing up for taxpayers and ensuring financial stability with his plan.

    "This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for doing well. We believe in success," he said. "But it does offend our values when executives of big financial firms ... pay themselves huge bonuses even as they continue to rely on taxpayer assistance to stay afloat."

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also issued a written statement Thursday praising Feinberg.

    "We gave him the difficult task of cutting excessive pay, striking a balance between compensation and risk taking, and keeping strong management teams in place to help the companies recover -- all in the public interest," he said. "We all share an interest in seeing these companies return taxpayer dollars as soon as possible, and Ken today has helped bring that day a little bit closer."

    The seven affected companies under Feinberg's plan are American International Group, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

    Chrysler and GM reportedly said they were in discussions with Feinberg's office over the matter.

    The nonprofit group Public Citizen applauded the administration's move to limit pay at the bailed-out firms.

    "For the first time, the government appears to be set to take some meaningful action against business fat cats," the group said in a statement.

    Public Citizen urged Congress to go after windfall bonuses and profits on Wall Street, but some lawmakers just want the bailout to end.

    "The real issue here is that the Obama administration needs to develop an exit strategy to get the government out of the bailout business once and for all," House Minority Leader John Boehner said in a written statement.
     

    LEaSH

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    5,817
    119
    Indianapolis
    I have no problem with this.

    Those companies should have known by taking the money they were going to be treated like the prostitutes they already were.

    And they still aren't producing results. It's tempting to let them fall flat on their faces, but the resulting ripples would have hurt the entire economy. Too fat for everyone's own good.

    I'm a small time capitalist. The difference is that I play by the rules so that no government official will ever dictate what I pay myself. I'm small time - they wouldn't give me a bailout if I truly needed it.
     

    antsi

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 6, 2008
    1,427
    38
    IF a company is operating as a free market business, and sinks or swims on its own performance, then I say pay your people whatever you can afford.

    However, these companies aren't playing by those rules. They are saying, in effect, "We aren't a normal company in the business of making money. Rather, our primary function is to provide essential public services upon which everyone depends. If we can't pay our own way doing that, our work has to be paid for by the taxpayer."

    In short, they are claiming to be government agencies.

    So, what we have here is not the administration cutting the salaries of businessmen. We have an administration cutting the salaries of government bureaucrats. I'm okay with that.
     

    Dryden

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 5, 2009
    2,589
    36
    N.E. Indianapolis
    Let me add my perspective:

    A person with a high level of intelligence, runs a global company with thousands of employees, works seven days a week and 12 hour days.... has the government curtail his salary because it's excessive.

    Meanwhile, a highschool drop out that scores 20 points a game, plays three games a week for half a year makes $10 million.... and the government thinks nothing of it.:rolleyes:

    Yeah, a Pay Czar is just what this country needs. Over the next few months, just watch the business talent pool flee this country and migrate elsewhere.
    But at least will have some kids that can shoot a five foot jumper.... and sometimes make it.
    :rockwoot:
     

    LEaSH

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    5,817
    119
    Indianapolis
    Heck, I could run any one of these global companies right into the ground just as well as any of these highly intelligent ultra valued talented minds of business.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    Let me add my perspective:

    A person with a high level of intelligence, runs a global company with thousands of employees, works seven days a week and 12 hour days.... has the government curtail his salary because it's excessive.

    Meanwhile, a highschool drop out that scores 20 points a game, plays three games a week for half a year makes $10 million.... and the government thinks nothing of it.:rolleyes:

    Yeah, a Pay Czar is just what this country needs. Over the next few months, just watch the business talent pool flee this country and migrate elsewhere.
    But at least will have some kids that can shoot a five foot jumper.... and sometimes make it.
    :rockwoot:

    Instead of Who is John Galt and Where is Waldo, it will now be Where is John Galt.
     

    rich8483

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2009
    1,391
    36
    Crown Point - Lake County
    im so darn capitalist i think those companies should have never taken any bailout money in the first place. would have solved all the pay csars problems.

    and as far as being to big to fail or too big of a ripple effect, if compay A and B are competing and company A fails. company B will be hireing to pick up the slack. its not like bigillions quadzillions of people will lose their job like pelosi says.
     

    VERT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Jan 4, 2009
    9,820
    113
    Seymour
    im so darn capitalist i think those companies should have never taken any bailout money in the first place. would have solved all the pay csars problems.

    and as far as being to big to fail or too big of a ripple effect, if compay A and B are competing and company A fails. company B will be hireing to pick up the slack. its not like bigillions quadzillions of people will lose their job like pelosi says.

    Agreed, of course Company B will become a monopoly and Anti-Trust laws will break it up.
     

    Dryden

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 5, 2009
    2,589
    36
    N.E. Indianapolis
    Remember when the administration stated "We have no interest in running any of these bailed out companies." Riiiiiight.
    (they even said it with a straight face multiple times..... anyone in the media remember ANY of that???

    So, let's see.... banks, mortgage loan companies, auto companies, and now the entire health care industry. No, there's absolutely nothing to worry about here.... business as usual.:cool:
     

    LEaSH

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    5,817
    119
    Indianapolis
    We could have 'saved' big steel in this country. We could have let GM and Crysler go the way of the steel industry.
    Forign steel became better and better at a lessor price than domestically produced steel.

    It's a matter of putting these perspectives to future generations.

    Government ran schools won't allow it, it's up to each parent to educate the next americans. Not the socialists.

    The damage is done. It's important to know how it has come about. Eff the gov't cheese - I aint eating it.
     

    rich8483

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2009
    1,391
    36
    Crown Point - Lake County
    Agreed, of course Company B will become a monopoly and Anti-Trust laws will break it up.
    true, but i still believe (maybe unrealistically) that someone would come along (maybe even an employee of company B), see that company B has no competition (therefore usually higher prices) and think that they can open up company C for the American dream even without the anti trust laws.
     

    rich8483

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2009
    1,391
    36
    Crown Point - Lake County
    Agreed, of course Company B will become a monopoly and Anti-Trust laws will break it up.
    true, but i still believe (maybe unrealistically) that someone would come along (maybe even an employee of company B), see that company B has no competition (therefore usually higher prices) and think that they can open up company C for the American dream even without the anti trust laws.
     

    eatsnopaste

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    1,469
    38
    South Bend
    I'd really be amazed to see a great exodus of CEO's and VP's heading for foreign countries! I would hope that the people who are smart enough to make it to the positions that pay millions of dollars are also smart enough to know that this is the country (still) that allows that kind of opportunity more than any other country and that supplanting the native countries brain trust (language being the least of their problems) would be extremely difficult. Think a US ceo could make it in Japan? India? Ok maybe England, how about France? maybe, but very very difficult in the day to day dealings. I think the Banks are realizing how they screwed up by taking the money and will be doing everything in their power to pay it back ASAP.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    I'd really be amazed to see a great exodus of CEO's and VP's heading for foreign countries! I would hope that the people who are smart enough to make it to the positions that pay millions of dollars are also smart enough to know that this is the country (still) that allows that kind of opportunity more than any other country and that supplanting the native countries brain trust (language being the least of their problems) would be extremely difficult. Think a US ceo could make it in Japan? India? Ok maybe England, how about France? maybe, but very very difficult in the day to day dealings. I think the Banks are realizing how they screwed up by taking the money and will be doing everything in their power to pay it back ASAP.

    Ever think of the possibility of them just quitting? If I had a few mill in the bank at age 40+ with all my bills paid, I'd just quit. You can go to other countries and live much cheaper.
     

    Dryden

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 5, 2009
    2,589
    36
    N.E. Indianapolis
    Ever think of the possibility of them just quitting? If I had a few mill in the bank at age 40+ with all my bills paid, I'd just quit. You can go to other countries and live much cheaper.


    Most American millionares just go to Montana to retire.... it has great tax laws. (and, it's flatout beautiful too.)
     
    Top Bottom