Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Friday, September 26, 2008 by Agence France Presse
Popular Anger Puts Fat Cat CEOs on the Run
NEW YORK — An angry US public and Congress are pushing to snip
the rip cord on golden parachutes used by fat cat CEOs to escape Wall
Street's mayhem.
Democrats in Congress -- set to resume emergency talks Friday with their Republican counterparts on a 700-billion-dollar (478-billion-euro) bailout for the financial industry -- insisted that any agreed package include restrictions on executive pay.
They caught the mood of a nation sickened at watching the titans of finance walk away from Wall Street disasters not only unscathed, but enriched. "The wealthiest people, those... in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all," read a petition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which by Thursday, after three days, had 32,600 signatures.
The petition, organized by independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, attacked what it described as the Treasury's attempt to let bungling executives "continue to make exorbitant salaries and bonuses."
Those gigantic pay checks, bonuses, and Midas-like farewells encapsulate what the public sees as Wall Street's greed-is-good philosophy.
For example, the CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, received total compensation of 71.9 million dollars in 2007, including stock, bonuses and other pay, according to a survey published by Forbes magazine.
Martin Sullivan, the chief executive of AIG, who left the insurance giant before it was rescued this month by the federal government, received 14 million dollars, a survey in USA Today said. He also quit with a severance package worth 47 million dollars.
Even punishment for those at the center of the chaos comes with a gold lining.
When the government took over collapsed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ousted bosses Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron were not allowed 12.59 million dollars worth in severance payments.
Yet they still got out the door with 9.43 million dollars in retirement benefits.
Public anger at such figures underlies skepticism about the entire government rescue.
"We'll never see that money again," said Mathew May, a 24-year-old economics student attending a small demonstration near the New York Stock Exchange. "They deregulated the markets and ran wild. Now we're bailing them out."
Arun Gupta, an editor of alternative New York newspaper The Indypendent, said there was "socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."
"Think about it," Gupta wrote in an email that quickly circulated to thousands of activists and inspired the New York street protest. "They said providing healthcare for nine million children, perhaps costing six billion dollars a year, was too expensive, but there's evidently no sum of money large enough that will sate the Wall Street pigs."
And left-wingers are not the only ones speaking out.
Newt Gingrich, the fiercely conservative former speaker in the House of Representatives, wrote in the National Review that the bailouts, likely to top a trillion dollars, smack of "crony capitalism."
"Doesn't that mean that we're using the taxpayers' money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money?" he asked.
Forbes, the magazine for and about the rich, also said enough was enough.
"The compensation schemes for Wall Street CEOs should be capped to a small fixed amount," wrote national editor Robert Lenzner.
"The rest should be dependent on performance in a way that does not reward taking greater risk than is prudent. If CEOs don't perform, they should get nothing."
One worker in the New York finance sector, who asked not to be named, said his colleagues were as angry as the general public.
"A lot of people are very upset that managers in their own companies and captains of industry in other areas made some really, really bad decisions," he said.
"The most insulting thing is the golden parachutes where these jackals from Fannie and Freddie, having destroyed the company, walked away with millions.... It all comes down to greed."
Democrats in Congress -- set to resume emergency talks Friday with their Republican counterparts on a 700-billion-dollar (478-billion-euro) bailout for the financial industry -- insisted that any agreed package include restrictions on executive pay.
They caught the mood of a nation sickened at watching the titans of finance walk away from Wall Street disasters not only unscathed, but enriched. "The wealthiest people, those... in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all," read a petition to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, which by Thursday, after three days, had 32,600 signatures.
The petition, organized by independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, attacked what it described as the Treasury's attempt to let bungling executives "continue to make exorbitant salaries and bonuses."
Those gigantic pay checks, bonuses, and Midas-like farewells encapsulate what the public sees as Wall Street's greed-is-good philosophy.
For example, the CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, received total compensation of 71.9 million dollars in 2007, including stock, bonuses and other pay, according to a survey published by Forbes magazine.
Martin Sullivan, the chief executive of AIG, who left the insurance giant before it was rescued this month by the federal government, received 14 million dollars, a survey in USA Today said. He also quit with a severance package worth 47 million dollars.
Even punishment for those at the center of the chaos comes with a gold lining.
When the government took over collapsed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ousted bosses Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron were not allowed 12.59 million dollars worth in severance payments.
Yet they still got out the door with 9.43 million dollars in retirement benefits.
Public anger at such figures underlies skepticism about the entire government rescue.
"We'll never see that money again," said Mathew May, a 24-year-old economics student attending a small demonstration near the New York Stock Exchange. "They deregulated the markets and ran wild. Now we're bailing them out."
Arun Gupta, an editor of alternative New York newspaper The Indypendent, said there was "socialism for the rich and dog-eat-dog capitalism for the rest of us."
"Think about it," Gupta wrote in an email that quickly circulated to thousands of activists and inspired the New York street protest. "They said providing healthcare for nine million children, perhaps costing six billion dollars a year, was too expensive, but there's evidently no sum of money large enough that will sate the Wall Street pigs."
And left-wingers are not the only ones speaking out.
Newt Gingrich, the fiercely conservative former speaker in the House of Representatives, wrote in the National Review that the bailouts, likely to top a trillion dollars, smack of "crony capitalism."
"Doesn't that mean that we're using the taxpayers' money to hire people to save their friends with even more taxpayer money?" he asked.
Forbes, the magazine for and about the rich, also said enough was enough.
"The compensation schemes for Wall Street CEOs should be capped to a small fixed amount," wrote national editor Robert Lenzner.
"The rest should be dependent on performance in a way that does not reward taking greater risk than is prudent. If CEOs don't perform, they should get nothing."
One worker in the New York finance sector, who asked not to be named, said his colleagues were as angry as the general public.
"A lot of people are very upset that managers in their own companies and captains of industry in other areas made some really, really bad decisions," he said.
"The most insulting thing is the golden parachutes where these jackals from Fannie and Freddie, having destroyed the company, walked away with millions.... It all comes down to greed."
Copyright © AFP 2008
Posted in Bailout
42 Comments so far
Show AllSome will rob you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen.
Does anyone know where one could find a list of the holdings of the Fountain Pen Gang? (Frank, Dodd, Gregg, Blunt, Schumer, Baucus, Rangel, Emanuel, Pelosi, Reid) How much of each stock do the deal makers own? Is there a conflict of interest?
This song by Woody Guthrie still applies to what is going on.
Pretty Boy Floyd
If you'll gather 'round me, children,
A story I will tell
'Bout Pretty Boy Floyd, an outlaw,
Oklahoma knew him well.
It was in the town of Shawnee,
A Saturday afternoon,
His wife beside him in his wagon
As into town they rode.
There a deputy sheriff approached him
In a manner rather rude,
Vulgar words of anger,
An' his wife she overheard.
Pretty Boy grabbed a log chain,
And the deputy grabbed his gun;
In the fight that followed
He laid that deputy down.
Then he took to the trees and timber
To live a life of shame;
Every crime in Oklahoma
Was added to his name.
But a many a starving farmer
The same old story told
How the outlaw paid their mortgage
And saved their little homes.
Others tell you 'bout a stranger
That come to beg a meal,
Underneath his napkin
Left a thousand dollar bill.
It was in Oklahoma City,
It was on a Christmas Day,
There was a whole car load of groceries
Come with a note to say:
Well, you say that I'm an outlaw,
You say that I'm a thief.
Here's a Christmas dinner
For the families on relief.
Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.
And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won't never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.
Tune is here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5079826221491185233&ei=iY_fSOyrIYvurALgp5i_Cg&q=pretty+boy+flo...
I've seen three ideas which of course the politicians are not discussing. One, a small tax on each stock transaction (say .25 percent), which would raise 100 billion a year. Secondly, a new federal entity that takes over distressed mortgages from qualifying homeowners, rewrites the terms to ease the pressure. Thirdly, revive the glass steagall act. On the contrary, the feds are creating even larger monster banking / insurance / trading entities.
I hope this public anger convinces some folks to ditch the Democratic party - they are leading the movement to hastilly give Busn our money.
Tanstaafl.
Clinton was eleted in 1992 and had a Democratic Congress but in 1994, the Republicans took over Congress and were in charge until 2006 with a Republican president. So in the last 12 years, the Republicans have had complete control and still to some extent have control because the Democrats can't get a bill through unless there are enough votes by the Republicans to override Bush when he veto's a bill. Most of the time the Republicans block it before it gets to Bush or he veto's it and it can't pass. The Republicans have had a field day and this matter with the bailout started with Phil Gramm (R) while in Congress taking the deregulations off banking.
Of course, the Democrats could have done a lot more and the reason they were elected in 2006 was because people were upset with all the crap that was going on. They are a big disappointment in the fact no impeachment charges were brought against the two crooks that have done great harm to this country. Now we are suppose to bail out the fat cats just like that. Bush screws up everything he touches. Maybe, he can take some of the millions he has in some other country stored away and pay off the 700 billion. He and all his rich friends. We are being conned big time the more I think about it. What a bunch of A--holes!
Ok, let's say that the credit markets are starting to freeze up, and that puts the whole economy at risk of a depression. Why are we giving the $700billion of new liquidity to the same greedy bastards who got us into this mess in the first place? There are a number of smaller, regional banks who have not leveraged their loan portfolios to the point of absurdity. They've been responsible businesspeople. Let's give them the money. The economy will continue to grow with money being available to Main St. The Wall Street thugs can go ahead and fail. 80% of new job growth comes from Main St small businesses anyway. Giving more money to corporate America and their Wall St thugs isn't going to help the economy. Give the money to Main St.
I think I saw Fuld in Pathmark tearing out coupons from the Price Saver.
Joe
The epitome of corruption! Obscene!!!
John F. Butterfield
I'm only 62 so I have only 50 years of personally seeing calss warfare.
I can remember back to elementary school when I suggested to my mother that it might be nice if the father of some poor children in my calss got a raise at work. My mother's response was that if the parents of poor families got more money it would all be spent on cigarettes and booze, not on their children.
While I agree that the Wall Street Goons should not be given a dime, here is something else to throw in this pot and stew about: The first Presidential Debate was suppose to be about the ECONOMY, not National Security. It was changed about three weeks ago, and the economy was moved to the last debate. Apparently the McCain camp must not have gotten the memo, if his performance tonight was any indication.
So how better to cover your tracks then allow a meltdown to occur, then have your buddies in the House throw a monkey wrench into any solution until you can get there. You ask for the cancellation of the debate for which you are not prepared, but when your opponent says "no" and the organizers say "no", you get into a snit and appear anyway, totally unprepared for National Security, and then jump the questions on the bailout into an economic attack on your opponent rather than address the moderator's actual questions. You hope that no one will notice that you are nervous, angry at not getting your way in canceling the debate, unprepared to discuss national security issues (on which you should have needed no prep anyway if you are the expert you claim)showing a lack of complete understanding of some of the actual issues involved, and you have made yourself look like a fool by interfering in a process where by accounts from both parties you did more harm than good.
Now add to this, that while all this posturing by McCain was going on, the markets did not nose dive and the next bank - WaMu - failed but was immediately bought up by Chase, and the market seemed to stabilize without a lot of governmental guarantees because the CEO's realized that if they let each other sink, then they all sink and lose those golden parachutes. McCain and the Republicans mis-played their hand, and they showed their cards for the final debate on the economy, because now Obama knows where they will attack, and he will be ready and waiting! Now that, Mr. McCain, is called strategy!
Dafoe
This is the American Dream as it has been drummed into us, get rich, like the 10 commandments there are no qualifications. The Mob, the Mafia are just manifestations of the Amurican Dream, look at the movies and TV programs that idolize them. The right wing christian mob by example reiterate that American Dream. Caveat Emptor. The Bush fambly have purued that with intense focus, let nothing stand in their way. Look what these "people" have done to this country, aided and abetted by the GOP and Congress, you voted them in, how many times? Corrupt to the nth degree from city hall to the White house. We used to joke about the far east and its baksheesh(spelling) that greased the palm to get things you want, it has been rooted here for a century or more. What to do? Don't bail the bastards out for a start and throw out the GOP and the Dems in every office, let voting for federal offices be overseen and governed by the federal guvmint, get back into regulating business and industry to benefit the nation try socialism or communism or be social democrats but go for "good' guvernment. But then again I think ther will be a red alert before the November election and we can all attend the funeral of america waving our flags and cheering on the troops.
There are three things that motivate these people in Congress and Wall Street and that is greed, fear and sex. In there thirst for more and more money, they will try to scare us out of our money there by screwing us even further.
You want to get really sick, on Lou Dobbs a few minutes ago ,they reported that the CEO of Wamu who took over on Sept 7,recieved 13 million dollars in severance for three weeks of work. Isn`t that great and they want us to bail them out.
What should be done to these guys is throw them overboard on the great barrier reef and let the sharks take care of the garbage
suckerbeagle
www.votenader.org
Americans are rising up? This deal will go through. It was a done deal from the start. And CEOs will continue to strip away all the wealth created by the worker-ants because it's The American Way.
The financial terrorism of cronyism needs to be more mainstream. In a recession-level economy like ours where Bush has done his best to kill the middle class, this 700+Billion bailout is a bigger act of terrorism against America than bombing a foreign embassy.
"The most insulting thing is the golden parachutes where these jackals from Fannie and Freddie, having destroyed the company, walked away with millions.... It all comes down to greed."
This article fails to demonstrate how they are "on the run", if anything, it points to the opposite.
Perhaps he means that they are on the run, with their millions in hand, to Tahiti or the South of France, or Cancun, or where rich bastards go to lay in the sun and laugh at the working class.
Spot-on correct.
It was Bill Clinton who gave us the Republican sponsored "Nafta" that sold out
our industrial base to China.
Full Disclosure of Bill Clinton's assets and the source of all his income,
including the Red Chinese...His recieving all this money is no different
than the Bank Bailout..
Mordechai:
Got a good chuckle at your mention of Jake Guzik.Of course the difference between organized crime members and the scum involved in the current crisis is-most gangsters eventually wind up in prison.
Haven't heard any politicians calling even for the return of the mega millions skimmed-let alone serious jail time for the worst offenders.Let's hope that the righteous anger of Americans endures,it can't get much worse.
That's because the people to arrest would be the politicians themselves who either presided over the "deregulation" or sat idly and silent while the firestorm brewed.
What the CEO's did was, while egregiously immoral, LEGAL while they were doing it.
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
The "fat cats," or, should we say, really f**king obese f**king lyin thievin bastard cats, aren't on the run - they apparently are holed-up in one of Cheney's reality-proof undisclosed locations.
What total pussies this criminal "financial industry" cartel is - not a one dares to show his/her f**king face, give an interview, make a statement, or even drop by Congress to explain how they went from human being to ruthless inhumane money-monger.
What could it serve the masters to show their faces to the rabble?!
How about a general strike? Works in Europe.
Um, I would, but I gotta eat at McDonalds and Wendy's a few times next week, no soup kitchen for this uppidity man, and pay for the cable bill, and buy a few video games, and make my offering to the gods of petrol, and keep this rust bucket of mine as it's hopeless getting laid without a car and drink some beers and burn a pack of smokes a day and take a vacation some time soon and support corporate christmas and do some clothes shopping at the mall. Plus I gotta give 30% of my work hours to these murderous criminals. Any other ideas?
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
How about a general breaking out of the long barrel hardware and having the courage to do what Thomas Jefferson knew we'd have to do to remove their corporate boot(s) from our working class throat(s)
Sounds like there are a lot of bitter voters out there.
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
It's always the righteous outrage of the public that has fueled change. It's just exactly what Eisenhower said about peace when he said governments had better let them have it. So it is with this bailout. If there is no serious accountability and handcuffs on these financial institutions restricting what they can and cannot do then congressmen and senators are likely to find a hornet's nest (Ralph Nader's words) waiting them when they return to their districts.
A panting, bloated and obese 600 pound Wall Street thug dressed in an Armani suit and Corsini shoes can run for about 10 yards maximum. But that's all they'll need to run because after 10 yards the MSM (picture Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Charles Gibson, Anderson Cooper) will tell the American lemmings that congress "has risen to the difficult fiscal challenge threatening the nation and rescued it from possible disaster." The panting, bloated, obese 600 pound Wall Street thug can stop running, take off his sweat stained suit and shoes, burn them, take a shower, put on another Armani suit and Corsino shoes and resume finishing off the United States with his green eye shade which previously was never known as a lethal weapon.
These bastards need a prize, like the Nobel Prize or the Oscar, for the biggest, nastiest, MoFo'ing thief alive. Call it The Jake "Greasy Thumb" Guzik Prize.
Jlocke123: it's not quite that way. The dems held power for 40 years, in the middle of the century. The republicans held it for the first part and the last part of it. In that time, the republicans caused the great depression, and were kicked out of power for the next 40 years.
It took the democrats, using the principles of FDR, to rebuild the country and create a serious middle class. It took the republicans 28 years to completely destroy that.
If some sanity doesn't return, especcially in the field of economics, and undo the insanity of Reagan's policies, it won't matter who is in charge. The more that the rich get more and more tax breaks, lower rates, and subsidies, while the rest of us lose everything, the worse things will get.
While I don't trust democrats, I absolutely hate republicans. I recognize a class war when I see it, and I've been seeing it for the last 28 years. Time for us to fire back, and I'm glad to see the American public saying NO for a change.
I say take the money for ANY bail out from those who have profitted from our screwing the rich and ultra rich. They have the money, they stole it, and there is no reason why we should have to bail THEM out. They aren't doing a damned thing for the rest of us, I say let THEM pay for their own bail out. Maybe then they will learn something for a change. But I doubt it.
"The dems held power for 40 years in the middle of the century."
Wow!! Where did you learn math or history?
20th Century Administrative periods by party:
1901-1913--Republican......12 Years
1913-1921--Democrat.........8 Years
1921-1933--Republican......12 Years
1933-1953--Democrat........20 Years
1953-1961--Republican.......8 Years
1961-1969--Democrat.........8 Years
1969-1977--Republican.......8 Yeras
1977-1981--Democrat.........4 Years
1981-1993--Republican......12 Years
1993-2001--Democrat.........8 Years
I suppose you could call the years 1925-1975 "the middle of the century." So,
Republican--1925-1933..8 + 1953-1961..8 + 1969-1975..7 years = 23 years.
Democrat--1933-1953...20 + 1961-1969...8 = 28 Years.
So when you do the math, the Republicans ruled for 23 and the Denocrats 28 (rounding gives number greater than 50) of those years. Clearly, you don't know what you're saying, as much of your other historical allusions are also incorrect.
Let's see, if we round up at the beginning and end of D presidencies, we can get statistics which dispute that R's have been in charge of creating depressions. IC
Funny that we've let them flip back and forth so much, ay?
You'd think we'd learn.
Vote for direct democracy. There's a petition being taken to establish National Referendum at ni4d.org
rocyahsoul@yahoo.com
www.lamegame.name
Daniel Vincent Kelley
Until Bush, the worst damage and biggest wars occurred during Democrats power. Look what Wilson and FDR did.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/fdr-1.html
Carter, Brzezinski and Volcker hammered us, interest rates to 18% which destroyed our economy, we helped the Ayatollahs take power, destabilized Afghanistan that gave us Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and then Volcker went on to push for the Monetary Control Act of 1980 that allowed the Fed to monetize 3rd world debt and thus bail out the banks that loaned them money at variable interest rates which Volckers interest rate hikes caused them to default on. It also set the stage for the S&L crisis which required another huge bailout. The Dems set the fuse, the Republicans light it.
Even under Clinton, it seemed fine at the time, but looking back we recall he gutted welfare, falsified CPI to reduce SS payments and COLA's, burst the dot.com bubble on the way out, repealed Glass Steagall, signed on to WTO, NAFTA and MFN for China which allowed an exodus of jobs to China and Mexico, all things that set up Bush's terms of terror and the financial terrorism today.
History, will damn Democrats. Bush and the Republicans today are just a different kind of Democrat, just dumber and meaner. They all march to the same drummer now anyways. But we are the End of History, so history will not damn them both, what will be recorded is just more myths.
You people better wake up and stop this party loyalty nonsense. Both parties are corrupt.
If all you want to talk about is the presidency, which is what your numbers are about, you are correct. Add up the years that Congress was controlled by one or the other party. The presidency is NOT the RULER, or at least wasn't until W came along and took all the power all the time. So your premise is half hearted at best. The presidency is one part of a three tier gov't. Perhaps you should relearn the basics of civics. Until this idiot of a president, congress actually held more power than the president. As it should be, and as it was originally planned.
While I don't hate Republicans, other than that there are a lot of good points here. Especially about restoring regulations put in place under FDR.
"While I don't hate Republicans"
I hate republicans. (Mean) while...
I smell a new tacky game show in the works...lets play FOLLOW THE MONEY!
I'd say anything that brings the American people together and reminds them who really has the power is a good thing.
So, what does it look like the angry public is going to do, vote for the party that has run America for half of the last century, or vote for the party that has run America for the other half of the last century? Golly, I can’t wait to find out!
jlocke, you just defined political insanity.
Americans seem to be uniting and rising up about the Wall Street situation. This may be a positive outcome.
Some elements explored in the articles:
"Wall Street drama: Deliver the $700 billion or the economy's dead"
Sept. 24, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75325
"Wall Street's special offer – but you must act now!"
Sept. 23, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75216
"Let's bail out the greedy, the crooks, the suckers"
Sept. 22, 2008
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75078