

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that
the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing
from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner,
the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of
AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in
management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.
I
suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire
corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the
line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to
reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out
Wall Street.
For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere.
What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous
loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management
and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now
being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of
America.
If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses
other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion
bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still
large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly
their executives around the world in company jets, award them
extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts.
Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his
taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.
Why
stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors
of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money.
Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of
agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military
contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on
taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health,
sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly,
so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.
All
told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on
government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money
right now. So ... off with their heads.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that
the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing
from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner,
the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of
AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in
management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.
I
suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire
corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the
line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to
reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out
Wall Street.
For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere.
What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous
loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management
and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now
being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of
America.
If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses
other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion
bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still
large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly
their executives around the world in company jets, award them
extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts.
Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his
taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.
Why
stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors
of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money.
Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of
agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military
contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on
taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health,
sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly,
so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.
All
told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on
government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money
right now. So ... off with their heads.
Tim Geithner said on Sunday's Face the Nation that
the Treasury might fire the heads of big banks that depend on financing
from the federal government, just as it summarily deposed Rick Wagoner,
the former CEO of General Motors -- and before Wagoner, the heads of
AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. "Where that requires a change in
management and the board, then we will do that," said Geithner.
I
suppose it's comforting to know our government stands ready to fire
corporate executives and directors whenever taxpayer money is on the
line. But I suspect Geithner's new tough line is mostly designed to
reassure a public that's lost all faith in the wisdom of bailing out
Wall Street.
For the sake of the argument, assume he's sincere.
What criterion will an axe-wielding Geithner be using? If precipitous
loss of shareholder value is enough to "require a change in management
and the board," presumably every CEO and director of every big bank now
being bailed out should be fired, starting with Ken Lewis of Bank of
America.
If the criterion is diversion of taxpayer money to uses
other than Congress intended when it first authorized the $700 billion
bailout, the list of soon-to-be-fired CEOs is a bit shorter but still
large. Surely it includes all the bailed-out banks that continue to fly
their executives around the world in company jets, award them
extraordinary pay packages, and run junkets at fancy resorts.
Citigroup's Vikram Pandit (who collected $38.2 million for his
taxpayer-subsidized services in 2008) comes immediately to mind.
Why
stop there? Perhaps Geithner intends to fire executives and directors
of any company that's dependent on taxpayers and is now losing money.
Just think of the corporate house-cleaning this will mean. Hundreds of
agribusiness executives are now at risk as are scores of military
contractors. Hell, the whole pharmaceutical industry depends on
taxpayer support (research subsidized by National Institutes of Health,
sales subsidized through Medicare and Medicaid), and it's doing badly,
so their executives and directors will be gone soon, too.
All
told, about one out of every five large American companies depends on
government contracts, and a majority of these firms are losing money
right now. So ... off with their heads.