McCaskill on capping pay of CEOs who take TARP money: “These people are idiots”

posted at 7:30 pm on January 30, 2009 by Allahpundit

A stemwinder in support of her new bill, inspired by the news about lavish bonuses and multimillion-dollar corporate jets. Easy peasy: If you’ve run your bank well and don’t need a bailout, pay your chief exec whatever you like. If you haven’t and are now on your knees begging taxpayers for a lifeline, prepare to have your CEO capped at $400,000, the same salary The One gets as president. It won’t mean much in terms of savings but it does create an incentive to run a tight ship if you want another seven-figure payday in 2009. And of course it’s great politics, something the Democrats could use right now as the stimulus starts to fester. And don’t think that’s been lost on McCaskill:

I think that there have been some mistakes made. From my perspective there have been mistakes made on the stimulus bill. There has been such a starvation diet for some of these programs that the appropriators got a little over anxious in the House. They probably did some things they shouldn’t have…

We do need to look at the safety net side of the stimulus bill that can get into the economy quickly. But we can’t right every wrong in terms of programs we support in the stimulus bill. And the other thing is, whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down. And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I’m hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.

Two clips, one from the Senate floor and the other hammering the point home in populist terms (“common sense”) on MSNBC.




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How.Do.These.People.Get.Elected?

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:17 AM

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy. Wake up and smell the national ideological shift and either deal or whine.

Be careful what you wish for. Your inner Lefty may not like it.

Noelie on January 31, 2009 at 9:47 AM

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Evidenced by what?

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 9:54 AM

Did a guy who ran against corporatism just not get elected to the President with bigger wins than Bush in either 2000 or 2004?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM

our politicians are the real idiots

notagool on January 31, 2009 at 10:23 AM

more than idiots, our politicians are the greatest enemy the country faces.

no foreign power or terrorist group has done a fraction of the damage that Barney Franks and Chris Dodd have done in just the last few years. And they are HAPPY about it. They GLOAT about it.

notagool on January 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Did a guy who ran against corporatism just not get elected to the President with bigger wins than Bush in either 2000 or 2004?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Actually no.
What part of his electioneering shtick led you to believe that?

I recall a lot of..”Group Hug With The World”..”Recede the Sea Levels”..”Group Hug”..”Build a Road”…”Magic Cars For Everyone” “Group Hug”..”Stop Being A Racist…Just Stop It”
“You’ll Get A Check For $1000. If You Vote For Me”…”Group Hug”..”Let’s Take Some Of Their Money And Give It to You..Whadda Say?”..”Turn Down Your Thermostat And Inflate Your Tires”..”Group Hug”…”Stop Expecting So Much For Your Efforts And Start Expecting More To Sit On Your Ass And Bitch And Weep”..”Hey!, At Least I’m Not A Marxist”….”Group Hug”

Did I miss any?

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM

Did a guy who ran against corporatism just not get elected to the President with bigger wins than Bush in either 2000 or 2004?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Actually no.
What part of his electioneering shtick led you to that conclusion?

I remember a bunch of:

“Group Hug With The World”…”Want A Check For $1000?..Vote For Me”..”I’ll Heal The Earth…and Your Soul”…”Group Hug”..”Stop Being Such A Racist..Just Stop It”…”Magic Cars For Everyone”..”I Can Talk The Worlds Problems Away..No Really, I Can”..”Hey!..Lets Take Some Money From Those Guys And Give It To You..Whaddda Say?”…”Windmills Are Good..I Like Wind Mills”….”Group Hug”..”Stop Expecting More For Your Efforts And Start Expecting More For Sitting On Your Asses And Whining”..”Turn Down Your Thermostat and Inflate Your Tires”..”Hey, At Least I’m Not A Marxist”…”Did I Mention I’ll Send You A Check If You Vote For Me?”

Did I miss anything?

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM

I didn’t see a landslide indicating America rejected capitalism. Hussein won a squeaker, because 8-10% of the conservative base did not vote. If they had, Hussein would not be president.

The republican party didnt see fit to put up a good candidate. They made that mistake with Mr Dole too. Nice man, bad choice to run for president. Captain Amnesty was even worse.

dogsoldier on January 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM

She got elected because Jim Talent ran the worst campaign ever. He spent all his money accusing her milionaire husband of nursing home corruption and failed to point out how liberal she is. Now, they are talking about Talent running for Kit Bond’s seat. I hope if he gets the nomination, he gets a better media team.

Claire’s whole motivation, according to Missouri lore is that she is still trying to compensate for not getting picked as a cheerleader her senior year in high school. Rah Rah Team. Gooooooo Democrats. Maybe she can get Harry Reid to let her stand on his shoulders. Does Laura Ingrham still call her Aunt Bea?

flyoverland on January 31, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Just keep in mind that when we applaud the Democrats for doing this, we are applauding the very people responsible for the problem.

Maxx on January 31, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Did a guy who ran against corporatism just not get elected to the President with bigger wins than Bush in either 2000 or 2004?

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM

Actually, Bush had more votes in 2004 than Obama got. It’s not being played up much, but it’s true. So, no, on that part, and considering McCain was fairly anti corporatism, it’s hard to say the voters had a choice in the matter.

Besides, I think you’re giving the average voter too much credit. I don’t think most get that deep into economics.

Esthier on January 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Sorry for the double post..it didn’t appear after I posted it and I thought I screwed up..after 10 mins and it still not showing up, I reconstructed it.

Sorry..I feel dirty now.

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Bush received more votes than Obama in 2004. Obama got as many as he did because he ran unopposed.

volsense on January 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

I did notice that extra 93 thousand dollars per year per congressman
Allegedly to help cough cough
the poor slobs who voted these idiots into office..

jcila on January 31, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Esthier on January 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Patently false.
Obama popular vote 69,456,897
Bush 2004 popular vote 62,040,610

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Obama got as many as he did because he ran unopposed.

volsense on January 31, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Tell yourself whatever you need to.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Also Bush got 50,456,002 votes in 2000. What crazy logica circle are you jumping through to claim he received more votes than Obama did, unless you are counting 2000 and 2004 combined vs. Obama in 2008.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Obama popular vote 69,456,897
Bush 2004 popular vote 62,040,610

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 12:40 PM

The population in 2004 was about 295 mil, while in 2008 it was about 303mil.

I’m pretty sure that all of those extra people would have voted for Bush had he run in ’08, so you lose by about 1 mil. votes.

Hey!..just reasoning like a lib.

Itchee Dryback on January 31, 2009 at 1:11 PM

how about instead of limiting pay, and controlling corporations, DO NOT GIVE BAILOUTS duhhhhh how hard is this???

oh but that would reduce the amount of power that the government has over people….can’t have that now can we??

right4life on January 31, 2009 at 1:14 PM

A sign of the Apocalypse — a Democrat I agree with!! ;-)

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” — movie Network

I wonder if she got silence or a standing ovation… I waited to hear, but the video was cut off.

alice on January 31, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Cap top exec salaries at failing companies and you’re GUARANTEE that they WILL fail. Talented, experienced people who could come in and turn the company around won’t work for chickenfeed–which $400k IS, for top executives, especially in major cities.

But the goal of the leftist Democrats is NOT to turn companies around, or even to “save” the US economy. Their aim is to vilify the private sector to soften up the electorate for a takeover of banking and industry.

Bye American Republic, Hello social democracy similar to those in Europe, ALL of which punish productivity and banish individual liberty.

US of A was nice while it lasted. Atlases, prepare to shrug.

Nik on January 31, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

The people who condemn “corporatism” typically are intellectually incapable of understanding free markets. Someone once said you could explain Marxism (and by extension all “alternatives” to free markets) to a five-year old and they’d get it, to which the response was, yes because they are all that simplistic.

“What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That’s not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. “Jeeze, 230 pounds!” But you can’t pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters–all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs–think so too.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/791jsebl.asp?pg=1

venividivici on January 31, 2009 at 2:18 PM

B. Hussein also out spent McCain by 10 times.

Don’t think that did not have some small marginal effect of the outcome.

jukin on January 31, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Much/most of this catastrophe was cause by all the derivatives (hyper leveraged gambling) and no one made them do that.

MB4 on January 31, 2009 at 3:18 AM

Derivatives amplified the problem but they didn’t cause the problem.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2009 at 6:30 AM

Let’s just say that the derivatives and such turned a cat 1 or 2 into a cat 4.

MB4 on January 31, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Just to consider,

It was the commies of the SCOTUS that redefined what public use was.

Since that point your claim to your own property was decreased.

Sonosam on January 31, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Claire is a typical unqualified POL who got elected because of family connections (See Hillary, Caroline, Lovebama, etc.)

She coulsd not run a dog kennel, much less a serious business, yet she calls these successful business nen idiots.
She should look to the political experts who caused this mess, Clinton, Dood, Blarney,Nasty and of course good old Harry.

Amazed on January 31, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Because America has decided to reject corporatism as an economic strategy. Wake up and smell the national ideological shift and either deal or whine.

DeathToMediaHacks on January 31, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Considering that a pretty good chunk of Obama voters couldn’t tell you what “corporatism” is or could even pronounce the word, I don’t think so.

ddrintn on January 31, 2009 at 4:49 PM

American Power tracked-back with, “Claire McCaskill’s Idiots”:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/claire-mccaskills-idiots.html

Donald Douglas on January 31, 2009 at 5:02 PM

So the legal arrangement was that if they ran their companies into the ground they would get big bonuses? And then the more they could leach from the taxpayers (serf class) the more they would get?

MB4 on January 31, 2009 at 3:05 AM

No, the legal arrangement was in place before you ever had any reason to give a damn. Or pay attention.

Neither you, nor Obama, have a right to invalidate those contracts. But then, I guess you’d have no problem with it as long as it were only “rich people” getting screwed.

“Serf class?” Are you a Marxist?

spmat on January 31, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Envy is the fastest, most sure means to suicide.

spmat on January 31, 2009 at 8:24 PM

When Congress was grilling Oil execs about their profits, I wrote my Congressman and said maybe we ought to ask all people who make over $1million to come in and testify about their excess profits. Now O’s admin is going to limit execs to no more than what the Pres makes. Discriminatory if it doesn’t apply to all people in that salary range. Oh my!!

bout68 on February 1, 2009 at 12:51 AM

McCaskill is a crook from WAY back, sho was the State Auditor for Missouri and conducted MANY fake audits of illegal activity and has NOTHING to criticize ANYONE for being a crook.
Someone PLEASE ask McCaskill how she conducted an audit of Branson Missouri’s City Council’s illegal activities (which she cleared Branson of any wrongdoing) without interviewing anyone or collecting ANY evidence.

nelsonknows on February 1, 2009 at 1:45 AM

Right, because if you want to see fiscal responsibility; look to Congress…

And don’t ask about their $93,000 per member increase in expense accounts this year:
http://bloggingredneck.blogspot.com/2009/01/congress-gave-itself-93000-raise-to.html

gekkobear on February 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2