Obama Caps Executive Pay
President Obama capped executive pay at $500,000 as a condition of firms accepting significant government bailout money. Most opinion makers seem to be OK with this. On The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, Rod Dreher describes it as Obama saving capitalism from capitalists. He compares today's out-of-touch executives to the Russian tsar and tsaress who felt in their bones that autocracy was just and right and normal. The arrogance of today's executives might not cost them their lives as it did the tsar and his family, but Dreher predict it's going to cause them a lot of trouble. It already is.
But some readers have a soft spot for those executives. They argue that capping pay as a condition of bailout money will prevent companies from retaining top talent. Reader "Phillip Hubbell" says "I don't really want to do business with companies with third tier leadership." Obviously, the existing leadership can't really be top tier now, given the financial mess these companies have made. "Phillip Hubbell" has that figured out. "I agree they should fire their current CEO's but who are they going to hire? Some community activist?"
Ignoring the implicit swipe at Barack Obama (who, come to think of it, would make an excellent CEO), "Phillip Hubbell" overlooks the fact that the new federal rules allow for deferred compensation. Companies can issue lavish stock options exercisable only after the companies are turned around, return to profitability, and repay the taxpayers. Talent that can do this is the kind of talent we want to attract. Talent that can't do that need not apply. The practice of CEOs taking home billions regardless of the performance of their companies ought to be stopped. Now, with the bailout, maybe it will, at least for the companies helping themselves to taxpayer money.
Sadly, this brouhaha is a distraction from the real problem. Wall Street bonuses of $18 billion in 2008 is a lot, but it's only a drop in the bucket compared to the trillion dollar mess the banks are in. The public needs to keep its eye on the ball. So does President Obama.
The Pope Strikes Out
The soap opera of the former Hitler Youth graduate and the Holocaust denying bishops is reaching a climax. So far, I've relied on The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reader "Bill Marvel" and his expertise in all things Vatican to keep me informed about the the plot twists of this saga. The latest events leave me scratching my head. Bill Marvel:
"But the Pope wants a public recanting as a condition of their acceptance back into the Church. He can do that; that's why he's the Pope. No recanting, no lifting of the excommunication."Recap: The bishops were excommunicated 20 years ago. Last week, the excommunication was revoked. Now I'm told that the excommunication isn't revoked yet. Or maybe it's back on. What is it? Are these guys excommunicated or not? And if so, for what? Is there any paperwork on this?
And what's this about the Pope having absolute, arbitrary power about this? A few days ago, "Bill Marvel" assured us that Holocaust denial was not grounds for excommunication. Now he says it is, if the Pope says it is. Does the Church have any rules or not? Is the Pope even claiming to follow them?
Even the US President, who has plenary power to pardon, usually claims to be following established Justice department guidelines for who is and isn't eligible for pardons. When he strays from those guidelines, all hell breaks loose. (See Bill Clinton / Marc Rich)
Maybe the Pope is more like the commissioner of major league baseball, who theoretically can do anything, anything, if he judges it to be in the best interest of the game. Of course, when Commissioner Bart Giamatti did just that, the owners fired his sorry *ss right quick. Is anyone in the Vatican listening?
No comments:
Post a Comment