Easing into exec-pay limits
posted at 9:28 am on June 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The office of the Obama administration’s Pay Czar released the long-dreaded new regulations on executive compensation, and Wall Street breathed a sigh of relief. Kenneth Feinberg didn’t go nearly as far as some had feared, and except for strict limits on pay for seven specific TARP recipients, more or less left the status quo in place. That, however, is just the opening round:
Corporate executives breathed a sigh of relief Thursday after examining the fine print on broad new executive compensation rules and proposals put forth by the Obama administration.
While the White House’s new so-called special master for compensation, prominent Washington lawyer Kenneth R. Feinberg, has been given unprecedented powers to set pay at seven of the most troubled firms, the plan that was laid out Wednesday largely maintains the status quo for compensation practices at all other publicly traded companies, including hundreds that are receiving taxpayer assistance. In addition, the administration got rid of a previously announced $500,000 salary cap at financial firms that in the future take the kind of exceptional assistance that firms such as Citigroup and Bank of America have received.
“Our people kind of thought it was a non-event,” one executive of a large bank said. “There’s nothing in there that’s radical. It’s not like the horrible and unethical action from Congress where they were putting artificial caps on pay or trying to steal back bonuses. . . . I don’t think there are worries about it on Wall Street.”
Feinberg and the Obama administration eliminated “gross-ups”, the practice of firms to reimburse their top execs for the state and federal tax on their incomes. Even some of the groups protesting the idea of a Pay Czar didn’t mind that change. Most people would agree that everyone should pay their own taxes, after all, and the practice of “gross-ups” is hard to defend.
Of course, one also has to remember that the most famous of gross-up recipients was Feinberg’s boss, Tim Geithner. He got reimbursed by the IMF for his federal taxes, which he never bothered to pay — not until he got picked by Obama to run Treasury. If Obama and his administration really found this practice objectionable, why did he pick Geithner to run Treasury in the first place?
Wall Street may feel relief now, but that doesn’t mean they should get complacent. Feinberg might be benign, but he also could be just getting started. It makes good political sense to ease into pay restrictions and to tighten the leash slowly. The issue will drop off of the media’s radar, but Feinberg and Obama can get the control they want over executive pay in due course. The federal government rarely fails to fully use power it seizes for itself, and the Obama administration has seized a lion’s share of it already. Benevolent czars were still czars, and all of them became despots.
Update: Business groups are wondering why Obama won’t limit executive pay at the unions:
Business groups are daring President Obama to impose pay caps on labor union bosses in light of indications the White House will limit how much corporate executives can be paid.
Mr. Obama has argued that “corporate greed” has contributed to the economic crisis and appointed a “compensation czar” to review executive pay for several companies receiving taxpayer bailout money. Now White House officials have told the press that legislation should be enacted to limit executive pay in private companies through nonbinding shareholder votes.
The Workforce Fairness Institute, which has lobbied heavily for the defeat of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would ease organization rules for unions, argues that labor officials have acted just as poorly as the “greedy corporate executives” who the president has blamed for the economic downturn. The group points to a 2008 Hudson Institute study that suggests unions have short-changed benefits for their rank and file in favor of generous executive compensation packages and to pad the coffers of their political allies, who are mostly Democrats, as evidence.
Add to this the whopping bailouts for unions in the way the government and its 31-year-old clerks handled the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, and they have a case. And hey, both unions and Wall Street execs were big contributors to Obama as well. I guess the latter group is just discovering which of the two are indispensable to Obama, and which can get thrown under the bus.









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: « Previous 1 2
Hussein accomplishes all of this with the blessings of the majorities of states like California, New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon. He doesn’t worry about the slow-mos in the fly-overs. His media cover him just like he wants them to, re-invigorating the agnostic masses whenever they need a fix.
This nation is lost, and it’s worse than you think. You can comment about Obama on HA all you want, but if you are part of the moral-less agnostics, you are not on the side of this nation. Didja hear that, Allah?
leftnomore on June 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM
As grabby as this story spins into – well – I just wonder if it even matters.
While it might seem that handing a vote to the various shareholders regarding exec compensation sounds relevant, in actual practice it will mean little in most all cases.
Looking at the non-tarp public companies this compensation control is possibly going to target. The major shareholders are already selecting the board members that set compensation packages. Once the board sends a package for a vote, it will be passed. If the board members themselves were actually making ‘horrible mistakes’ would not be there in the first place.
Lets take a peek at Microsoft. While many people hold shares in the company, Mr Gates has the most. No matter what options for ‘pay packages’ are placed on the table, Bill will vote and that will be that. Others like Oracle and google and dell, etc, … work in the same manner.
In general, shareholder voting for exec compensation is already being done. This entire exercise is just that, an exercise.
Freddy on June 12, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I think the best way to urge Democrats to oppose the proliferation of czars in the White House is to remind them that in a few years a Republican is going to be in office- holding the reigns of power and using the precedent set by Obama’s crazed, un-American method of rule.
Jay Mac on June 12, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Hey has obama , pelozi, reid , clinton oh hell
any of these MORONS
EVery heard of something called
COMMUNISM?
Yea that little pesky experiment which never worked..
so what makes them belive that communism will suddendly work now that the demorats are in power>???
veteranoutrage on June 12, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2