This Is Shocking

Top employees leave financial firms ahead of pay cuts

Top Execs To Get $200K?

I know liberals think that's adequate compensation for running a multi-billion-dollar corporation, but my guess is that there will be lots of turnover at these companies if this order goes through. Then mediocre underlings will advance, not running the companies as well.

UPDATE: From PowerLine:

We are living through dark times. The administration's demagoguery will have far-reaching consequences. Presumably most of the executives affected by the cuts will leave their companies, while adequate replacements can hardly be hired at the rates the federal government is offering. And it isn't clear what ripple effects the government's high-handed decree will have. At Citibank or Bank of America, for example, will there be hundreds of employees paid more than the former top 25? Or will the pay cuts work their way down the chain? Any way you look at it, this decree will make it harder for the affected companies to regain profitability, the ostensible point of the TARP program...

One of the basic problems with the ever-increasing intrusion of the federal government into our economy is that questions that should be economic become political. What becomes most important is not providing the best product or service at the best price, but having the most pull in D.C. The Obama administration is feverishly engaged in rewarding its friends and punishing its opponents. That's a natural instinct for politicians, but having almost unlimited sway over the economy opens hitherto-unknown scope for political control and influence. Here, as in many other respects, we are sailing in uncharted waters.

We were told George W. Bush was the tyrant that was going to punish his political enemies. As usual, the boot in your face comes from the Left.

At least the guy deciding who should make what got to decide his own pay.

Hey, I Thought of This First!

Allahpundit has a post up about the Facebook page devoted to those who think the government stimulus should include forgiveness of student loans.

I seem to remember joking about this at the height of the stimulus debate. I have about $70k (yes, that's a small mortgage) that could use some Obama lovin'.

THe A.I.G. Tentacles Reach to the Top

From Chuck:
Obama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
The two biggest recipients? Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

Any wonder the White House is downplaying the AIG mess as "a distraction"? Or that POTUS is calling Republicans hypocrites for noting who received money from AIG? Seems like "hypocrite" does apply to someone...but not Republicans.

Good Stimulus Ad

Via The Other McCain

Misinformation of the Day

Irrational Envy at Echidne of the Snakes:

he conservative mind set is intrinsically infested with envy and resentment. Disdain for those in need, even those who are in need through no discernible fault of their own, is endemic to conservatism. That is why even before President Obama had released the broad outlines of his plans to stem massive homelessness, the Republicans and their media started nourishing the evil seed of envy in the minds of those susceptible to this form of irrationality.

It's a coffee-spewer, I know. How on earth the "soak the rich" clan can argue that conservatives are envious and resentful is anyone's guess. But what is missing is why anyone would resent paying their own mortgage and their neighbor's.

This isn't about disdain for one's neighbor. The resentment comes from people who scrimped and saved for years to buy a nice house, who are now paying, through their taxes, for those who played the (housing) market and lost. This isn't just about people who lost jobs or had medical problems and lost their homes. This is about 125% mortgages and interest only mortgages (something most of us used to call renting). It's about people wanting houses they couldn't afford when they moved in, then playing the system to stay in them.

There are plenty of people losing their homes because of job losses, and I know not one conservative who is gleeful about it. No one wants anyone to be homeless. But much the resentment is from people who sacrificed to make their own mortgages now realizing that they must pony up for those who did not.

Where are the liberals calling for "fairness" now? Is "fairness" only when discussing CEO salaries or successful talk show hosts?

And is every person or family who loses his/her house to foreclosure "homeless"? No more than every renter.

It's a harsh reality that when you can't afford something, you have to settle for something you can afford. That's not political ideology. It's life.

So Much for Transparency

From RIGHTWINGSPARKLE comes evidence of Democrats' determination to thwart the transparency we were promised by Teh One:

Democratic staffers released the final version of the stimulus bill at about 11 p.m. last night after delaying the release for hours to put it into a format which people cannot “search” on their home computers.

Instead of publishing the bill as a regular internet document -- which people can search by “key words” and otherwise, the Dems took hours to convert the final bill from the regular searchable format into “pdf” files, which can be read but not searched.

Three of the four .pdf files had no text embedded, just images of the text, which did not permit text searches of the bill. That move to conceal the bill’s provisions had not been remedied this morning at the time of publication of this article.

The bill contained literally hundreds of earmarks and abuses of power (Rightwingsparkle highlights just one), and it's obvious Democrats didn't want you to know what was in the bill before the vote. After all, thousands of people had e-mailed, called, and written their Congress critters asking them to vote "no" on this monstrosity. Think what would happen if people actually could find what was in the bill!

Democrat Definition of Bipartisanship

You gotta love the Democrats idea of bipartisanship.

First, it's amusing to see Republican leaders redefine words. Democratic leaders and the White House negotiated for days with several Republican senators, and made painful and unnecessary cuts just to earn their support. This, however, isn't "true" bipartisanship, presumably because the far-right is still unhappy.

Um, no, what makes the "stimulus" bill partisan is the ham-handed way House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid handled it. If Democrats were honest, they would admit that the financial crisis was used as an excuse to resurrect every Democrat pork project put on hold for the last few years, while Queen Nancy dismissed complaints about partisan way the bill was cobbled together as process arguments.

There was nothing painful about the cuts Democrats agreed to in reducing the price tag of this boondoggle to future generations. And if Democrats hadn't wanted to cut in one "painful" place, there were certainly literally billions of others.

Second, President Obama spent a considerable amount of time and energy engaging congressional Republicans directly, soliciting ideas, making changes, and hearing them out. To hear GOP leaders tell it now, Democrats deserve blame for not incorporating more failed right-wing ideas into the package. (Including hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts wasn't enough to satisfy Republican demands.) The goal, they insist, should be making the failed minority party happy, not rescuing the economy in a time of crisis.

Is this what this deranged fool is talking about when he says Obama engaged congressional Republicans? Was fearmongering and threatening part of "hearing them out"?

Contrary to what the delusional say, the goal of any stimulus package should be to stimulate the economy, not pay off Democrat minions and throw taxpayer money into black holes like the NEA (and no, "black hole" is not racist).

And third, it can't be stated enough that negotiating with people detached from reality is fundamentally impossible. Obama came to the table stating a simple truth: given the circumstances and exhausted options, the economy needs a government stimulus. He was prepared to have good-faith discussions over how much should be spent, where it should be invested, how quickly, etc.

No one in the Republican delegation argued that we didn't need a stimulus bill. The argument was over the scope and size of it. When Obama flippantly told Republicans "I won," he wasn't seriously soliciting their ideas. He was sending them a big FU. It was only once he realized that his plan was tanking that he actually decided negotiations were in order.

Democrats don't care about bipartisanship until they think it's necessary to getting what they want. In this case, a couple of "moderates" (read RINOs) are all they need. Republicans aren't crazy for thinking that stealing from our kids to pay for honeybee farmers today is a bad idea. One of the parties here might be insane, but it's not the Republicans.

Cutting Welfare for the Rich

Unlike what liberals usually call "corporate welfare," that is, tax breaks, the government bailout of various companies is welfare, and, therefore, placing restrictions on those receiving it seems right and proper to me.

As Maureen Dowd notes, it's been a rough two weeks for Teh One as he transitions for Messiah to mere POTUS. Lots of tax cheats. A pork-laden "stimulus" bill that lacks the votes to pass. And international crises aplenty.

It's enough, as Dowd says, to bring on a "My Pet Goat" moment. You know, the kind liberals have spent 7 1/2 years mocking. Except that one hasn't happened yet but is possible, as Vice President Joe Biden has said.

Having noted the stumbling and bumbling Obama administration's problems, I am glad to see them trying to put some restrictions on what our money gets used for by corporations. Now, if only he applied some of the same standards to Congress.

I Wish I Didn't Have to Pay Taxes

One of the things you hear a lot at moonbat sites is how you just don't want to pay your fair share if you think raising taxes is a bad thing. And it's not just that you think raising taxes on "the rich" is a bad thing. It's if you think voluntary taxes, such as gambling, are better than mandatory ones, you must be some rich bastard. And we all know that rich bastards don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. In other words, you must be Timothy Geithner.

Would it be OK if I stopped paying my taxes until Barack Obama names me to be his secretary of the treasury?

That is a deal I would like to get. That is the deal financial wizard Timothy Geithner got.

He didn’t pay all of his federal taxes for years. Then, after Obama decided to name him treasury secretary, Obama’s vetting team discovered Geithner’s little oversight.

Not paying your taxes is considered serious for some people. But not for Geithner, a Wall Street “wonder boy” — he is 47 — who is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and was instrumental in putting together the recent Wall Street bailout package.

You would think a guy like this would know about paying taxes, but no. Mistakes were made.

Geithner failed to pay the proper self-employment taxes for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004, even though he was sent documents telling him he had to do so.

But in 2006, Geithner got a document he couldn’t ignore. The IRS sent Geithner a notice saying he had not paid his taxes for 2003 and 2004, and Geithner paid up.

But he did not pay up for 2001 and 2002, even though he must have known that he skipped taxes for those years, too.

He didn’t pay those taxes until Barack Obama decided he wanted Geithner to head the treasury and Obama sent vetters to look into Geithner’s past.

Shockingly, you aren't hearing any complaints from the Left that Geithner, a.k.a., Rich Bastard Not Paying His Fair Share, skipped out on his taxes until Teh One called him to run the--*snort*--I.R.S.!

It really is too good to be true, and were Geithner a Republican, Jon Stewart would be making endless jokes at his expense. But this is, after all, the coronation of His Obamaness, and so all those pesky ethics rules kinda fly out the window.

Bush Bails Out Auto Industry

In yet another move to piss off Republicans, President Bush has decided to give the Big 3 a $17 billion Christmas gift. At least these are loans, as opposed to just giving 'em the money. But who really believes this will work better than a bankruptcy would?

Auto Bailout Dies

The $15 billion auto bailout died yesterday in the Senate.

Republicans, breaking sharply with President George W. Bush as his term draws to a close, refused to back federal aid for Detroit's beleaguered Big Three without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers would agree by the end of next year to wage cuts to bring their pay into line with U.S. plants of Japanese carmakers. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the automakers expires in 2011.

Some people are gleeful. Others are worried about potential fallout for Republicans. Still others are beginning to sour on bailouts and Barack.

The problem with the auto industry bailout is that it comes after the huge financial industry bailout, which hasn't stabilized Wall Street and has irritated taxpayers (what with fatcats thinking they still deserve bonuses and whatnot). As usual, John and Jane Doe will take it on the chin, either in lost jobs or reduced wages.

I hate to sound like a cynic, but this is the way it goes. CEOs keep their ginormous salaries and employees are asked to cut theirs. It happened in the airlines, when pilots and others were asked to take 50% paycuts but the bigwigs still got their bonuses. As one woman has said, it depends on if you want 50% of your pay or no percent.

Most Americans look at the U.S. auto industry and shrug. I have no loyalty to any particular brand of car, unlike my father or other men I've known. The first new car I bought was a 1989 Hyundai Excel and, unlike other people, I had no problems with it. In fact, I loved that car so much that we've bought several others. But I've also owned an assortment of American cars during the same time period, including a 1995 Buick LeSabre and the Ford Focus I now drive. I suspect most people drive the biggest car they can afford that performs the way they want. And when taxpayers hear that union workers for the Big 3 make far more money tightening bolts on cars than do their counterparts at the foreign car plants in the South, they have a hard time working up sympathy.

The United Auto Workers doesn't want to give up its advantage in compensation. But just like with the airlines, half is better than none.

UPDATE: I promised Mike at Iowa Liberal that I would denounce President Bush for supporting a bailout of the Big 3, just as I have Democrats. We have had an interesting discussion about what should happen with the auto industry on this thread at CSPT.

I reluctantly went along with the $700 billion financial bailout, largely because I wasn't sure what else we could/should do. Now, weeks later, it seems that we're going to have a breadline of industries wanting the taxpayers to bail them out of their bad business decisions.



But as Mike and I discussed, why is bankruptcy not on the table for the auto makers? Bankruptcy allows the business to restructure debt, renegotiate contracts and reexamine the business model to make it profitable, something that bailout after handout hasn't done for the car builders. I disagree with the hysteria that if the Big 3 go belly up, you aren't going to be able to get parts for your Chevy pick-up. There will be suppliers that pick up that business. That's not to say some people won't be hurt, but some of the writing is a Scream.

Why Aren't We...

Going after the lenders?

This discrimination is at the core of a number of lawsuits advocates have filed across the country over the last year. Several of the cases focus on a particularly devious practice: Without borrower knowledge, many mortgage brokers received a commission from the lender for persuading a borrower to accept a higher loan interest rate than what the bank was otherwise willing to offer. The lawsuits claim that such commissions were paid more often in loans to African-Americans and Latinos than in loans to whites, revealing, again, that lenders often charged borrowers of color more than their white counterparts. As these suits progress, and the groups suing gain access to lenders' and brokers' records—e-mails, internal memoranda, training materials, and other documents—we are likely to learn more about the practices of the lenders who are the defendants and about the industry in general.

Discriminating lenders were not the only problem with the housing market that courts should now address. Mortgage brokers rushed into poor communities with exotic subprime loans during the early part of this decade, because these communities were underserved by traditional banks. During the height of the market, nearly half of all subprime loans went through a broker, compared with only 28 percent of prime loans. Brokers also dominated loans made to borrowers of color: 64 percent of African-American borrowers used a broker, compared with only 38 percent of white borrowers.

The problem with this wasn't the mortgage brokers per se. It was that many prospective borrowers wrongly assumed that the brokers were working in the borrower's best interest. But in most states, mortgage brokers do not owe any duty to the borrower to find the best possible deal. Many brokers relied on borrowers' ignorance of the mortgage market to pursue higher commissions and other financial perks for themselves. In much of the country, there's no legal remedy for this. But a few states require that brokers avoid conflicts of interest and pursue the best deal for the borrower. These states include California, home to about one-quarter of the mortgages in the United States that are in some stage of foreclosure. The Department of Justice, the state attorney general, legal-services attorneys, volunteer lawyers, and law students should all be poring over California loan documents to smoke out the brokers who violated their legally mandated duties to their clients. If a significant number of loans in California alone could be altered, consistent with the borrowers' abilities to pay, either through litigation or its threat, the federal government wouldn't have to pay as much for a national bailout.

To date, none of the proposed homeowner-rescue plans acknowledges that a significant number of the homeowners who are in distress were the victims of predatory and illegal practices. Opponents of the plans currently on the table raise three serious objections: First, any massive loan rescue would be costly; second, borrowers in good standing might intentionally default on their mortgages to benefit from a bailout; and third, investors holding securities backed by subprime loans will balk at loan modifications that diminish their already depreciated investments and will sue to stop such efforts.

Going after the lawbreakers helps to address these concerns. It would not only lower the cost of the rescue plan by reducing the number of borrowers needing help, it would also direct assistance only to those people who were victims of illegal conduct and insulate the loan modifications from litigation by investors looking to preserve their investments. Investors won't challenge loan restructuring when the underlying loans were made on illegal terms. You don't lend your horse to Jesse James and then sue the stagecoach he robbed to get it back. Investors will have to redirect their fire from the borrowers to the brokers and lenders who did the fancy loan footwork—and perhaps the ratings agencies that blessed it.

There's been a lot of finger-pointing as to who is responsible for the subprime mortgage mess we're in. Democrats, specifically, deserve a very large helping of the blame, since it was their regulations that allowed and encouraged the sorts of lending practices that created this problem.

Borrowers, willing to believe in the Tooth Fairy, deserve another heaping helping of the blame. You can't believe that an interest-only loan is a good investment. I'm sorry, I don't believe that anyone is so ignorant as to not understand such loans on expensive homes are very risky. I think people took these types of loans knowing they would be kicked out in 3-5 years, but at least, they would get to live in a nice home until then.

But then there's the lenders, who were not merely compelled to offer loans to unqualified borrowers. They made the loans knowing they could shuffle them off to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and, eventually, the taxpayers. There was little or no risk in these situations, so why shouldn't the lenders make the most ridiculous loans possible? And just as the banks have used the bailout money to buy up other institutions, it's perfectly obvious that some businesses are not going to do the right thing now, just as they didn't do it before. Why aren't we pursuing criminal charges?