SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 14 2008, 01:01pm EDT
Contact:
Sarah Anderson, tel: 202 234 9382 x 227, saraha@igc.org
Analysis of Treasury Department Rules on Executive Compensation
WASHINGTON
The Treasury
Department today issued
rules
for
executive pay for firms participating in the government's financial
sector
bailout. These rules clarify some provisions of the bailout
legislation, but
reinforce the law's major shortcoming: the failure to set any specific
limit on
the pay of top executives at bailed-out companies.
The bill applies three different sets of executive compensation
criteria,
depending on whether 1) the government provides equity capital to the
institution, 2) provides direct assistance to a failing institution, or
3) purchases
troubled assets through auction. The strictest criteria apply to the
failing
institutions.
SUMMARY
OF EXECUTIVE PAY RULES
Capital Purchase Program | Programs For | Troubled Asset Auction |
Limits on pay: Treasury will ensure | No limits on pay | |
Clawback: Bonuses or other awards | No criteria on clawbacks. | |
Severance: Ban on "golden | Severance: Ban on all payments to | Severance: Ban on golden parachutes |
Cap on tax deductibility: | ||
DETAILED ANALYSIS
Major shortcoming: No set limits on
compensation
The key
rule on
executive compensation allows the Treasury Secretary to look the other
way if
bailed out firms continue to hand out massive paychecks to executives.
The rule
merely requires that the Treasury ensure that "incentive compensation
for
senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks
that threaten
the value of the financial institution." Neither the legislation nor
the
Treasury Department rules define what might constitute an "unnecessary
and
excessive risk."
"There is nothing in the Treasury Department's new rules that would
prevent a
nationalized bank's board of directors from approving a $20 million CEO
pay
package - unless the Treasury Secretary decides that reward poses an
excessive
risk to the institution," says IPS executive compensation expert Sarah
Anderson.
"Without clear limits on pay, the public is being asked to put their
trust in
Secretary Paulson, a man who made hundreds of millions of dollars as a
Wall
Street CEO, to decide what's 'excessive.'"
The Institute for Policy Studies has calculated that the nine major
banks being
bailed out by Treasury paid their CEOs a combined $289 million in 2007.
Nationalized banks | CEO in 2007 | total compensation in 2007 |
Merrill Lynch, | John Thain | 83,092,713 |
53,965,418 | ||
John Mack | 41,734,815 | |
J.P. Morgan Chase | James Dimon | 28,856,330 |
Bank of New York Mellon | Robert Kelly | 20,515,810 |
State Street | Ronald Logue | 19,551,400 |
Richard Kovacevich | 18,510,694 | |
Vikram Pandit* | 3,160,000 | |
Kenneth Lewis | 20,040,000 | |
total |
| 289,427,180 |
*
Pandit was
promoted to CEO in Dec. 2007, 8 months after joining Citigroup.
Source: Associated Press inter-active online
survey. Includes stock options grants.
A Bright Spot: Cap on tax deductibility strengthened
The
Treasury
rules expand the $500,000 cap on tax deductibility to all participating
firms. The
bailout legislation just applied that cap to firms that sell assets to
the
government through auction.
The current U.S.
tax code places a $1 million cap on tax deductibility for executive
compensation, but this provision has been meaningless in practice
because it
allows exceptions for "performance-based" pay. Most companies simply
limit top
executive salaries to around $1 million and then add on to that total
various
assortments of "performance-based" bonuses, stock awards, and other
long-term
compensation. The bailout legislation was designed to close this
loophole by
eliminating that exception for executives of bailed-out firms.
Additional Rules
Ban on "golden parachutes": The top five senior executive
officers will face
restrictions on severance payments if they leave the company that's
getting
bailout dollars. The strictest rule will apply to executives of
"failing
institutions," who cannot receive any type of payment upon leaving the
company.
Congress is right to ensure that executives who drove the country into
this
mess should not be allowed to walk away with massive payoffs.
Clawback: Executives of bailed-out firms who receive bonuses or
other
awards that later turn out to be based on "materially inaccurate"
financial
reports will need to give that money back. This rule applies only to
firms that
receive direct government assistance.
BROADER CRITIQUE OF THE BAILOUT BILL
For additional IPS analysis on the broader aspects of the bailout bill,
see: www.ips-dc.org.
These
materials include A
Sensible Plan for Recovery.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
In 47-52 Vote, Senate GOP Blocks Another Iran War Powers Resolution
"Trump’s war of choice in Iran is a moral tragedy and economic disaster playing out before our eyes. It is only making the United States and the world less safe," said Sen. Ed Markey.
Apr 15, 2026
Senate Republicans on Wednesday once again narrowly stymied a Democrat-led resolution aimed at reining in President Donald Trump's power to wage war against Iran.
Although the war launched by the US and Israel in late February has killed more than 1,700 civilians and sparked a global fuel crisis that has sent prices skyrocketing, that was not enough for 52 Republican senators—every one except libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—who voted to back the president even as the war further erodes his approval rating.
The Democratic caucus was similarly unified, with every member voting for the war powers resolution except the pro-Israel hawk Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
It was the fourth war powers resolution to fail in the Senate since Trump launched the war on February 28, The last measure in late March fell short by a nearly identical margin.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) called Democrats' continued attempts to check Trump's war powers "exhausting" in comments to reporters on Tuesday. "Doing a war powers resolution just undermines the president. I don’t believe [the Democrats] would do that if the president had a ‘D’ behind his name.”
After more than two weeks of delay, a similar bill will be brought to the floor in the House of Representatives on Thursday. Its sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said it has a good chance of passing.
But without a similar bill passing the Senate, it would remain a purely symbolic gesture, with no ability to limit Trump's power as he sends thousands more troops to the region immediately after saying the war was "close to over."
"Trump’s war of choice in Iran is a moral tragedy and economic disaster playing out before our eyes. It is only making the United States and the world less safe," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) after voting for the war powers resolution. “We have seen thousands of civilian deaths in Iran and Lebanon. More than 100 Iranian schoolgirls were killed by American weapons, and 13 American servicemembers were killed, and hundreds have been injured."
He added, "This dangerous, unnecessary, and expensive war has cost American taxpayers around $50 billion so far, with the Trump administration seeking hundreds of billions of dollars more as part of a $1.5 trillion military budget."
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), an Army National Guard veteran who sponsored the blocked resolution, suggested in her remarks before the vote that Republicans who opposed the resolution would be putting "Trump’s ego first" ahead of American interests and enabling more "chaos."
The two-week ceasefire agreement is set to expire on April 21. A week later, the war will hit the 60-day mark, after which troops must be withdrawn unless their deployment is approved by Congress, though the White House can request a 30-day extension by citing "national security" concerns.
According to Politico, some Republicans—even those who voted against the war powers resolution on Wednesday—have indicated that the 60-day mark may be a turning point for them.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is retiring after the next election, said that the administration "has got to start answering questions" about the war's trajectory, especially as it requests tens of billions of dollars in emergency funding.
Duckworth, on the other hand, said she has seen more than enough.
"After one half-assed day of so-called 'negotiations,' he’s whipsawed to his next idea: a dangerous, complex, partial military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz—once again launching a risky new front in this war at our service members’ expense… with no justification, explanation, or even ‘concept of a plan’ of how to get to an end-state," she said.
She added, "As our troops continue to sacrifice whatever is asked of them, we senators need to do the absolute minimum required of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Ruthlessly Corrupt’: Democrats Take Aim at Trump's ‘Plunder’ of US Taxpayers in New Bill
Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the bill would stop Trump from "trying to snatch up billions of taxpayer dollars to line his own pockets and settle personal scores."
Apr 15, 2026
Four Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday unveiled legislation aimed at ending what they described as President Donald Trump's "plunder" of US taxpayers.
The Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act—cosponsored by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Dave Min (D-Calif.)—was crafted in response to Trump's effort to get the federal Internal Revenue Service to hand him a $10 billion settlement for the 2020 leak of his tax records and his demand that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) pay him $230 million over its past criminal investigations of him.
Among other things, the bill would bar both the president and the vice president, as well as their immediate family members, from collecting settlement payments from the federal government while in office.
The proposed legislation would also prohibit both the president and the vice president from filing administrative claims for damages while in office, and would only allow presidents and vice presidents to "collect compensatory damages awarded by a federal court if the court appoints an independent counsel to represent the agency and makes all proceedings public."
The bill allows former presidents and vice presidents to collect damages from the federal government, but only if the agency being sued "appoints career expert staff to lead the agency’s review or adjudication of any administrative claim brought by the former president/VP, and no official appointed by any president/VP is involved in handling the claim."
Additionally, any settlement made to a former president or vice president must be made public within seven days.
Warren said that the legislation was necessary to stop Trump from "trying to snatch up billions of taxpayer dollars to line his own pockets and settle personal scores."
Raskin accused Trump of exploiting the power of his office to "loot billions of dollars from American taxpayers," an operation that he described as the "ongoing scandal of this ruthlessly corrupt administration."
"The ‘Ban Presidential Plunder of Taxpayer Funds Act’ will prevent the president from pursuing the emerging MAGA grift of suing the government as a ‘plaintiff’ on bogus grounds," Raskin added, "and then settling the suit as ‘defendant’ for big bucks, a collusive settlement scam they recently executed with the disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who waltzed off with more than a million dollars for a bogus claim already dismissed by a federal court."
Flynn settled with the DOJ last month in a case in which he accused the government of "improperly and politically" targeting him, after he was charged with making false statements to the FBI in 2017.
The Democrats' bill has earned the endorsements of government watchdogs Democracy Defenders Action, Common Cause, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
Debra Perlin, vice president of policy at CREW, praised the bill for establishing "common sense guardrails to protect against corrupt payouts to the president and the vice president during their terms in office and after they depart."
"Since returning to office, Donald Trump keeps finding troubling new ways to enrich himself at the taxpayers' expense," Perlin noted. "The president’s lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion is emblematic of a pattern of self-dealing and corruption that appears pervasive in his administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Taxing Billionaires Is Not Radical': Mamdani Joins Top Economists to Denounce 'Rigged' US Tax System
While most Americans are paying more in taxes this year, the wealthiest 1% are saving an average of $9,000 thanks to Trump's tax legislation.
Apr 15, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is using Tax Day to remind Americans that the nation's tax code is "rigged" to protect the superrich while making the case for a more equitable system.
In a Guardian op-ed co-written with Nobel laureate in economics Joseph Stiglitz and Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman, New York's democratic socialist mayor lamented that the world is living with greater wealth inequality than ever before, with just 0.0001% of the global population holding the equivalent of 16% of global wealth—more than the bottom half of humanity.
Mamdani and the economists attributed the global surge in inequality in large part to America's "regressive" tax system, which has grown dramatically more favorable to the wealthy over the past half-century.
As wealth concentrates, so does power — the power to influence elections, shape policy, tilt markets and define the terms of public debate.Taxing billionaires is not radical.What is radical is allowing a system where extreme wealth exists alongside widespread hardship.
[image or embed]
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@mayor.nyc.gov) April 15, 2026 at 11:05 AM
Compared to 1960, when the 400 richest Americans paid roughly half their incomes in taxes, they now pay about 24%—helped by a combination of lower marginal tax rates and loopholes that allow billionaires and corporations to shield their wealth and effectively pay a smaller share of their incomes than everyone else.
This inequality was further exacerbated by the massive GOP tax law signed by President Donald Trump last year, which a report by Americans for Tax Fairness found gave the wealthiest 1% of households an average tax break of $9,000.
While the Trump administration promised earlier this year that the average American family would receive a $1,000 tax refund from the legislation, Corey Husak, director of tax policy at the Center for American Progress, found that the average refund was just $346 higher than the previous year—and that even that figure was heavily inflated by the benefits accrued by the richest earners.
Meanwhile, those gains were more than wiped out by the added cost of Trump's tariffs and the dramatic cuts to the social safety net passed by Republicans, which have led to spiking health insurance costs and thrown millions off Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
"We can disagree about how progressive tax systems should be—the extent to which the rich should pay more tax, relative to their income, than the rest of us," Mamdani, Stiglitz, and Zucman wrote. "But there is no justification for a regressive system in which the superrich contribute less than the rest of us. This is how inequality is deepened and sustained."
The authors praised efforts in other countries to combat rising inequality. One initiative they highlighted was a 2% tax on the wealth of those with more than €100 million ($117 million), a proposal championed by Zucman. A version of the measure was passed last year by France's National Assembly but stalled in the Senate after being blocked by centrist and right-wing parties.
But the initiative still has momentum around the world. This weekend, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will meet with the leaders of several other nations, including Mexico, Colombia, and South Africa, to discuss adopting similar taxes.
Meanwhile, in the US, a proposed ballot initiative for a one-time 5% billionaire tax in California—aimed at recouping losses from Trump's Medicaid cuts—appears overwhelmingly popular, with around two-thirds support according to a poll last month, despite aggressive lobbying by billionaires to stop the measure.
Mamdani has pushed for a similar measure in New York City to help balance the city budget and fund universal childcare and affordable housing.
On Wednesday, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that she was backing a so-called "pied-à-terre tax," which applies a surcharge to anyone with a second home valued over $5 million in New York City. Mamdani's office has estimated that it will raise $500 million annually.
In early 2026, consumer prices and housing costs have soared far faster than wages can match. A January poll from KFF found that 82% of adults said their overall cost of living had increased over the past year, with around two-thirds saying they worried about affording healthcare for themselves and their families, and nearly a quarter saying they were worried about affording food and rent.
In response to this economic precarity, more than 62% of Americans said in a January YouGov survey that they felt billionaires are taxed too little, and more than half said that wealth inequality is a problem.
"The idea that billionaires should pay higher tax rates than working people is not radical," the authors of the Guardian op-ed said. "What is radical is allowing a system where extreme wealth exists alongside widespread hardship—and where those billionaires can in effect opt out of contributing to the society that made their success possible."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular