advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO REALLY BE THIS MINDLESSLY STUPID?

By
Neal Boortz
@ February 2, 2009 8:40 AM Permalink | Comments (79) | TrackBacks (0)

Really, that's a serious question. Now I know that some people suffer tragedies related to mental disease and brain injuries .. but beyond physical disasters like these .. just how stupid can a human being be? I'm not talking "ignorant" here. I'm talking brain-dead stupid. I'm talking about Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was, by the way, a national co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign.

McCaskill is riding the wealth-envy bandwagon right now. Last week she had some unkind things to say about executives on Wall Street. That's fine. There are certainly some Wall Street executives who have earned some unkind remarks. But McCaskill goes beyond merely pandering to the wealth envy crowd. She has a suggestion. She wants to put a limit on the executive compensation that can be paid by any company that is receiving bailout funds. That limit should be equal to Barack Obama's salary; $400,000 a year.

OK ... let's try to noodle this thing through a bit. Let's say that congress passes a law which caps executive compensation at $400,000 a year for any company receiving bailout funds. Now these companies are in trouble. There have shareholders and employees who are looking to corporate leadership to save their jobs and their investments by turning their companies around and putting them on a path to profitability. The chief executives of these companies are going to have to be experienced and knowledgeable innovators. They will be making decisions that are difficult to the extreme. People with these executive skills are in high demand. There are headhunting firms out there who earn hundreds of thousands of dollars from just one company find just the right person with the right combination of experience and executive talent to lead. People with this talent don't go cheap ... and they certainly don't go for $400,000 a year.

So McCaskill gets her executive compensation limit ... and what happens? Qualified executives run like hell for the companies that aren't receiving bailout money. Why go through the anguish of working under close government control and interference while trying to turn around a company in dire trouble for $400,000 a year, when you can take a job with a company that it doing just fine outside of all of this government interference for three times that much?

McCaskill's brilliant idea is to tell the companies receiving bailout money that they won't be allowed to hire the best executive talent out there. And this woman is a U.S. Senator. God help us all.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: IS IT POSSIBLE TO REALLY BE THIS MINDLESSLY STUPID?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/19921

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Take Back Our Government!

Herman Cain is putting together a movement to take back our government. Do something now! Join the Hermanator's Intelligent Thinkers Movement, HITM! , and take part in the political revolution of 2009! "When they feel the heat, they will see the light!"

Belinda Skelton, Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Borderline
    Is it just me or is this approaching Communism? Government has no place telling companies what to do with their money. Bailout or not, you pay for the services rendered. This obese piece of Cow excrement needs to take her liberal agenda and go home to stupid town and keep her comments to herself and the stupid people in the state that she represents.
    By Phil @ 02/03/09 07:33:38 AMreport abuse
  • $400,000? PresBo Compensation?
    The first thing that jumped out at me regarding Sen. McCaskill's nonsensical comparison of corp CEO salaries and that of the POTUS, WHAT ABOUT THE BLEEPING PERKS! 24 hour bodyguard service, 2d to none in the world! A rent free palace with total domestic/wait/cook staff! Free reign over whatever assets are necessary to provide conveiance to wherever in the world, whenever! But, I am sure the Obamas will freely pay the freight to make certain that their precious daughters need not suffer the indignities imposed upon the rank and file of D>C> school children in D.C. public schools.

    $400,000?

    How about $400 million!
    By Jeff J Wright @ 02/02/09 11:00:39 PMreport abuse
  • You'll get what you pay for
    Should we max out the compensation at 400K yr for these executives just as we do our President? If we do, we'll get more of the same. Unqualified,
    inexperienced and incapable of effective leadership when this country needs it most. We're already challenged enough with Barack and his Obamuppets in charge.
    By Steve Boston @ 02/02/09 09:54:06 PMreport abuse
  • stupid? hardly!
    to say that you would not find a qualified people leading bailout companies at 400k/yr is a joke.. lots of ceos are themselves driving companies after companies into bankruptcy and what did they get? more money when they got fired due to their clever contract..oh yeah.. get rewarded for being a failure! is that common sense at all??

    i am so tired with US overpaid ceos who do nothing but making stupid decisions after stupid decisions.. and neal boortz you are way off in this matter..
    By Abe Linc @ 02/02/09 09:17:18 PMreport abuse
  • McCaskill
    McCaskill and Pelosi are the two DUMBEST white women in the US Goverment!
    By Phil @ 02/02/09 08:41:45 PMreport abuse
  • pay
    Considering the congress has lost billions every year they have no right/reason to tell other people how they can spend money. Why don't we run congress like ANY BUSINESS IN THE COUNTRY. If you bank account is negative......your paycheck will bounce!
    By Jero @ 02/02/09 08:40:47 PMreport abuse
  • Executive Pay
    What exactly does a senior executive bring to a company that deserves such bonuses? In my experience, these guys are not all that brilliant, and many times they are not either natural "leaders" as one might think. One need only to look at the morons from the three auto company's and their Congressional testimony to come away realizing these guys are not the burning bulbs that some would have you believe. It makes perfect sense that a lot of these companies are woefully managed.

    BUT ... what these guys are good at, is networking other talent and access that benefit the company. While these guys are easy pickins when one views their decision making, they generally have the opportunities to privately lobby senior government persons, obtain credit beyond the risk indices, and make deals with unions.

    McCaskills has the wrong plan, and its coming from the wrong messenger, herself benefitting from her husband's lucrative business which receives most of their revenue from government. But if the government through this bailout becomes a major shareholder in a company, then there might have to be some adjustment to the executive pay, with incentives for performance. But ... most important ..

    There is no more inefficient and incompentent managers in western society than the US Congress, as demonstrated by Sen. McCaskill. If there is to be government oversight, including executive play plans, then it should be done by an appointed receivership who has background into the industry which receives the bailout.
    By BabyTank @ 02/02/09 05:34:29 PMreport abuse
  • Look on the bright side.
    If this is implemented it would also apply to Hollywood (they're getting a 'bailout' also). So that means that Spielberg et al would be limited to $400k per year. If it applied to all the liberal actors, it just might be worth it.
    By Joe Taxpayer @ 02/02/09 04:39:12 PMreport abuse
  • THIS WILL SURELY LEAD US
    ...to that deadly European-style socialism! That failed ideology that has never worked in ths history of --

    Oh, wait. What's that? You say the Euro is completely trouncing the Dollar in value?

    Oops, lol. In this thread: Flagrant disregard for what the entire point of the representative republic design of the US government was for; the shifting of ideologies and government workings to suit changing conditions.
    By Irony @ 02/02/09 03:35:51 PMreport abuse
  • Adding Political Hacks To The Mix
    If you think these companies that took money are in trouble now ... Just wait til the government's political hacks try to run the show!
    By Informer @ 02/02/09 03:02:34 PMreport abuse
  • taxpayer bailout
    I know limiting compensation will make the best and brightest look elsewhere, but these companies are losers now and will still be losers after they waste the money. These companies need to fail to allow others to take their place and hopefully learn from past mistakes. As a taxpayer, I don't think we should bailout any company, but if they take our money, we now have an interest in how it is spent. Cap the salaries until the bailout money is repaid with interest. A successful replacement CEO could contract themselves a huge bonus after successful turnaround and loan repayment.
    By Ron @ 02/02/09 02:49:45 PMreport abuse
  • McCaskill
    Sorry Neal, I think you got it wrong. While not totally off base, your point misses the reality in executive compensation. Timid ineffective boards of large companies, who are there to provide oversight, seldom do. They rationalize over compensation or worse let executives game the system. They are after all part of the good ole boy club, and love to say of we went out and bought the best highest paid talent we could find, damn if I know what happened to all the money... you know there a lot more smart people that will work for $400K and be effective. However, I would be quick to point out the president usually cashes in after he is gone and truly long term pay for performance is not bad...but it has to be real performance, not imaginery.
    By Ed @ 02/02/09 02:26:42 PMreport abuse
  • Good money after bad....
    So we bailout these companies with billions of dollars from the federal government and limit their executives pay. Good exec's run to companies with better compensation packages and the corporations that the taxpayers have so generously funded now go bankrupt for a second time as a result of "no" leadership. What do you think happens next? You guessed it! Fed steps in to save the failing corporations. Where have we seen that? The bailout was a bad idea. Leave it to a liberal to make a bad idea worse.
    By Nick H @ 02/02/09 02:18:38 PMreport abuse
  • Mindlessly Stupid
    The reason these brain-dead, self-important sarcophogi stay in office is the disease called Incumbancy.

    Consider: The Approval Rating of Congress was LOWER than that of President Bush. Yet, the VAST majority seeking re-election kept their seats.

    Why? Because when it comes down to pulling that lever on election day, voters are convinced it's "someone else's fault." It can't be THEIR congressman.

    We will never see an end to people like this until term limits are imposed on the Legislative Branch.

    Yeah. And when that happens smoke will come out of Obama's butt....

    The other butt......



    -
    By Tomás @ 02/02/09 01:53:12 PMreport abuse
  • $400,000 a year like the president?
    She really wants these companies to go bankrupt if she wants them to live like the president. They would have to purchase a mansion for the executive on some of the spendiest property in the country, a few helicopters, couple of the highest technology 747's to fly in, several armored limosines, hire large security group to follow him and his family everywhere, hire a bunch of advisors for him, etc. That surely would take up the bailout money they receive.
    By Dan Taxpayer @ 02/02/09 01:18:03 PMreport abuse
  • Embracement to MO
    McCaskill is an Embracement to the state of Missouri I understand that she is a democrat and that if she wants to secure her powerbase for her next election she needs to push for these stupid pieces of legislation through the senate or at least get people to think that she is trying to do some of these things, because there is a vast majority of population in the country that has to hate people who achieve great things.
    I can only hope that when her term is up, there is a better candidate on the ticket than Jim Talent who was the person who ran against her in 06.
    By Brad @ 02/02/09 01:09:57 PMreport abuse
  • How about?
    How about we demand that we limit Congressional pay until they start doing their job? You know: tax cuts, no pork projects, ethics-all that stuff that is taboo up there.
    By Mark @ 02/02/09 01:04:46 PMreport abuse
  • CALL IT WHAT IT IS ... FASCISM!
    Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Also a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation above the individual.
    By Scrappy @ 02/02/09 12:59:56 PMreport abuse
  • Executive Pay
    As one that was laid off in the financial sector because of bad decisions of these executives, I have mixed feelings on this topic. Many of these executives at these corporations (Not small business owners) maintain their pay and bonuses by laying off employees that had nothing to do with their poor decisions.
    When I make bad decisions in my life, I have to suffer those consequences. I can't run to the gov't to bail me out and still keep a high paying job.
    However, let's look into depth what the President's financial package includes.
    1) $400,000
    2) Rent free housing plus meals
    3) 100% top grade family insurance
    4) Limo service
    5) Free flights to anywhere in the world
    6) Body guard service
    7) Private school paid for
    8) Unlimited clothing allowance
    9) Guaranteed pension fund which is a lot more than social security
    These are just a few of the many perks. Let's not forget his treasure chest of non taxable election coffers that can be used for just about anything. (Ethics do not seem to be a hindrance to these democrats.)
    Yes, I understand the stress and pressure a President faces, but he did seek this job.
    By Peter G @ 02/02/09 12:47:24 PMreport abuse
  • Executive Compensation.
    I give her credit for thinking outside the box.

    No, for two reasons:

    1) The reasons you stated. You generally get what you pay for. If the compensation is less, the quality of executive will be less.

    2) More importantly, if this were to pass, expected to be spread to every publicly traded company in the US. This is not an item that would remain static.
    By Another Government Employee @ 02/02/09 12:46:50 PMreport abuse
  • NC JOHN, WEALTH ENVY PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO PISS ME OFF!
    Not Stupid... Smart
    Senator McCaskill is not stupid. In fact she's almost brilliant! She knows her primary job as a Senator is to get re-elected. She knows just what to say to do that. She knows well the mood of the American electorate.

    A large company will have a handful of employees and officers getting the large bonuses that many find offensive. They will also have tens of thousands of workers that receive no such executive benefits. Each person gets one vote in November. She can safely 'punish' the executives and not put her re-election at risk. She doesn't dare offend the masses.

    That's where we are now.
    By NC John @ 02/02/09 11:53:28 ... You can not "offend" the masses by simply stating "wealth envy" statements. You don't have to take it to the extreme by trying to pass such a "counter-productive" law. It sure as hell shows her "stupidity"!
    By Scrappy @ 02/02/09 12:29:37 PMreport abuse
  • McKaskill
    McCaskill ran on the platform that she was going to make Missouri the leader in embrionic stem cell research. Not just the leader in the US but the world. Does anyone here equate embrionic stem cell research with Missouri?
    By Bob @ 02/02/09 12:27:02 PMreport abuse
  • Big Package
    Will the compensation package include a private 747, an unlimited expense account, a mansion equivalent in size to the White House and a private army of security guards ?
    By Zeke @ 02/02/09 12:21:52 PMreport abuse
  • Mindlesly stupid
    I work with alot of people who would see nothing wrong.
    By Nancy @ 02/02/09 12:19:59 PMreport abuse
  • Executive Pay
    Don't limit CEO pay...give the President a raise...say, oh, somewhere around $5M/year.
    This way, we'll get some professionals wanting to run the show.
    By jerrysad @ 02/02/09 12:17:43 PMreport abuse
  • Outsourcing
    I am sure that there would be some foreign corporations who would be willing to outsource their executive jobs to these American professionals.
    By Sudnem @ 02/02/09 12:16:33 PMreport abuse
  • Hey Scott, The Government Thinks It's Their Job ... Not Me!
    What?
    Hey Scott, The idea behind the bailout was to help the companies, not totally bankrupt them.
    Astronaut: Show me in the US Constitution where it says that Citi, and Merrill has to be helped by taxpayers?
    By Scott @ 02/02/09 10:56:55 AM ... Hey Scott, I never said it is the taxpayer's responsibility ... the government did ... didn't they? I'm just saying it seems the government loaned the money to these companies to control them. Trying to control a salaries is a sure way these companies won't get the best people to run them. I think this will lead to a high probability of bankruptcy when they loaned them the money to help them. I'm against the bailout ... period!
    By The Astronaut @ 02/02/09 12:13:55 PMreport abuse
  • Makes sense to me
    Hey, the fewer government bailouts, the better. If you can afford to pay over $400,000/yr to any single employee.. you don't get a bailout. And only those willing to accept pay cuts like that get bailouts.

    Which means pretty much no bailouts at all. Works for me.
    By someguy @ 02/02/09 12:09:48 PMreport abuse
  • executive salaries
    Here's a thought,these congress critters want limits on executive compensation,no bonuses,etc. if the government is giving them money.This is essentially pay for performance.If we are going to hold for profit companies to this standard, shouldn't we also hold congress to this standard?I haven't worked out all the details because this is a new thought,but I think we should have the same standard for congress.Congress critters should work for $1 a year.They will earn performance based bonuses after that.Balance the budget,bonus.Lower taxes,bonus.You get the idea.
    By don @ 02/02/09 11:58:23 AMreport abuse
  • Not Stupid... Smart
    Senator McCaskill is not stupid. In fact she's almost brilliant! She knows her primary job as a Senator is to get re-elected. She knows just what to say to do that. She knows well the mood of the American electorate.

    A large company will have a handful of employees and officers getting the large bonuses that many find offensive. They will also have tens of thousands of workers that receive no such executive benefits. Each person gets one vote in November. She can safely 'punish' the executives and not put her re-election at risk. She doesn't dare offend the masses.

    That's where we are now.
    By NC John @ 02/02/09 11:53:28 AMreport abuse
  • Too Big Of A Restriction, Mitch
    As A Stockholder
    It is very reasonable (even responsible) to place some restrictions on the companies. If they do not like the restrictions, then they do not have to take the money. The pay limitation is valid. A CEO is just another employee (e.g. a clerk or stockboy). A much more valid consequence should be that the officers be fired. They failed at their job.
    By The Astronaut @ 02/02/09 09:32:23 AM ... Hey Astronaut, Making an emergency loan and placing such a mild restriction on it is never going to bankrupt a company. You are the only one saying it would bankrupt them.
    By Mitch @ 02/02/09 11:08:07 ... Hey Mitch, You're taking my comment out of text. My comment of, "The idea behind the bailout was to help the companies, not totally bankrupt them." ... means the governments loan is to help them get back on their feet, not to control salaries. Restricting salaries would hinder these companies into hiring better people. Controlling a companies salaries is too big of a "restriction!"
    By The Astronaut @ 02/02/09 11:52:20 AMreport abuse
  • @ John
    Dont blame all of St. louis. Some of us are smarter then the average rock. She is making herself well known so it shoul dbe easier to boot her out this time but we sure could use your help, come out of th ewood, get out of the hills into the cities and spread the word against her. I could just as easy move to mid MO and say im not part of the problem. Do something about it.
    By Patrick @ 02/02/09 11:50:09 AMreport abuse
  • CEO
    Restrictions placed on CEO's just feeds in to the big government machine, who is going to be responsible for making sure that the right people get the money they worked for?
    By anonymous @ 02/02/09 11:44:21 AMreport abuse
  • Outsourcing....
    "The individual who suggested "outsourcing" to lower the labor cost has obviously never tried it. The cost isn't the only thing that's lower - so's the quality.
    By John J Anonymous @ 02/02/09 10:05:35 AMreport abuse"

    Outsourcing is what I do. I supported other companies that do it. I spent time with plant managers/directors in Latin America. For IT, outsourcing decreases labor cost. It decreases quality as well because of attrition only and contracts written that allow 15 backups to manage systems with no experience in the business. For IT, it's worth the lower costs in labor or get someone to write the contract more in favor of keeping the experienced workers... whom also happen to be Indians.

    But make no mistake, there are SHARP individuals that will do the work for less pay and do it well. Even outside political correctness. I've seen it. Their only problem is that they aren't part of the "network" of CEO's in the U.S. When you have that network and part of the decision making, then your job is safe as a government job when your family is an elected official.

    CEO's do NOT want their boards to know this fact. But of course, the boards are made up of CEO's that selected the current CEO.

    It's not rocket science to see why some businesses are the way they are for better and for worse. You want MY tax dollars, you better do something about the CEO though including salary cap's, performance requirements, etc.
    By Samael @ 02/02/09 11:44:11 AMreport abuse
  • GAVIN, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT TO SEE
    @Scrappy

    I guess you prefer the Republicans' method:

    1. hire used-car salesman Henry paulson to scare people into throwing $700 billion into the banking system
    2. let them spend half of it before inviting to ask how they are spending it
    3. make the US taxpayer look like a sucker when the banks decline to explain
    4. have the gall to sit on the other $350 billion waiting to figure where to spend it after that crook Paulson, and Bush, swore the banks needed it immediately. Immediate is over, give it back before compounding the mistake.
    By Gavin Volaire @ 02/02/09 10:44:33 ... Gavin, I'm against giving them any money. I think businesses should sink or swim on their own ... mine does. Now it seems the government gave them money so they could control them. The whole fiasco is disturbing to me. And ... I'm not a Republican. If you like government control so much, move to Europe ... they would love you!
    By Scrappy @ 02/02/09 11:41:12 AMreport abuse
  • See Ben & Jerry's
    All one has to do is go back several years when Ben & Jerry decided to "retire" from their ice cream business...they decided to be "fair" that the CEO would make no more than 10 times the lowest paid production worker. well they searched and searched but could find no one with the needed executive experience to work for that small of a salary...they finally abandoned that silly requirement and found a chief executive. at a considerablely increase rate of pay!
    By Bret B @ 02/02/09 11:39:06 AMreport abuse
  • As A Stockholder
    It is very reasonable (even responsible) to place some restrictions on the companies. If they do not like the restrictions, then they do not have to take the money. The pay limitation is valid. A CEO is just another employee (e.g. a clerk or stockboy). A much more valid consequence should be that the officers be fired. They failed at their job.
    By The Astronaut @ 02/02/09 09:32:23 AM ... Hey Astronaut, Making an emergency loan and placing such a mild restriction on it is never going to bankrupt a company. You are the only one saying it would bankrupt them.
    By Mitch @ 02/02/09 11:08:07 AMreport abuse
  • St. Louis' Village Idiot
    Neal,

    Just a quick note to set the record straight about who votes for the Moron McCaskill. The largest part of her supporters come from the two blue dots on either end of I-70, St. Louis and Kansas City.

    With the addition of Springfield, you have a voter pool that almost equals the population of the rest of the state combined.

    So if you would, please don't paint those of us who live in "Flyover Missouri" and are tired of being force fed Democrat Dog-squeeze with the same brush as those knuckle heads in our urban areas.

    We only get to vote once and our pets, cartoon characters and Necro-American neighbors don't get to vote at all.

    Thanks for your time.
    By John @ 02/02/09 11:06:11 AMreport abuse
  • This is tax payer money funding those bonuses right?
    Look we shouldn't be bailing this companies out in the first place. It simply prolongs the agony of recession and blunts the darwinian process of survival of the strongest companies, and it does it at the expense of the tax payers. Unfortunately you can't put the crap back in the horse at this point and we have to live with this bailout. That being the case if we are going to spend taxpayer money to save these failing companies it should used to maximum efficiency (hah, what a laugh, tax payer money used efficiently). I don't think paying giant bonuses to managers that got these companies in to this mess in the first place is a very efficient use of tax payer money. Further if we are going to have the government hand out money to these clowns, then by all means government should set some terms on what is to be done with that money. I didn't read anywhere in this article that the government is going to cap compensation on companies NOT receiving bailout money, they are only talking about capping it on companies that ARE receiving it. For the life of me I can't understand why this is a problem. Neal seems to think these companies won't be able to attraact good managers under such a constraint. Well I say good, maybe they can go ahead and collapse and we can allow capitalism to weed out the heard as it would have done if the government weren't sticking their nose in to this mess in the first place. How high could the quality of the managers of a bailout company have been in the first place? If they were good managers they wouldn't have found themselves in this mess afterall.
    By johnniereb @ 02/02/09 11:00:31 AMreport abuse
  • What?
    Hey Scott, The idea behind the bailout was to help the companies, not totally bankrupt them.
    Astronaut: Show me in the US Constitution where it says that Citi, and Merrill has to be helped by taxpayers?
    By Scott @ 02/02/09 10:56:55 AMreport abuse
  • What should have happened...
    None of the bailouts should have happened in the first place. The US Government has a great way to handle all of this mess. It is called bankruptcy. This country needed a little chapter 7 and a lot of chapter 11.

    If all the companies that needed a bailout had to file bankruptcy it would have cascaded through the entire economy, but the debts that everyone owed would have been set to the market value and the companies would be able to start fresh. Executive pay would have been mute since it would have been handled in the filings. It would have hurt more in the near future, but in the long run the country would be stronger for it. We would already be recovering now had we let them fail and start over. Now we are just dumping money into a failed system. We are creating debt not wealth and our children are going to be paying for it.

    Second. Pay scales are motivators. Who is going to do more work for less pay? What is the point of working harder to get the same or less compensation?
    By Rob @ 02/02/09 10:53:53 AMreport abuse
  • Not Really A Bad Idea
    Not a bad idea Boortz. It was these higher paid executives that got their corporations into the situation of having to be "bailed out", so their leaving may open opportunities for other less compensated talent to take the leadership and bring fresh business ideas into the fold. What you call talent may be the root of the problem and cleaning house may be the answer…clean out some of those who advanced by the so called “Peter Principle.”
    By Jake @ 02/02/09 10:51:09 AMreport abuse
  • I'd like to see her try.
    You can't tell me businesses can't/won't find a way around it even if it happens. Its a pointless endeavour.

    I seem to recall a certain CEO receiving only 1$ a year as pay. He was compensated otherwise.
    By JR @ 02/02/09 10:48:17 AMreport abuse
  • bunch of Reblican apologists
    @Kevin

    McCaskill isn't talking about profitable companies.

    @Jim C

    You blame Democrats and fail to mention Republicans as if you cannot see the fact that they are more responsible for the banking bailout than Dems. But in your myopic view, all we need to do is fix those rotten Democrats, that about right? People like you are part of the problem.

    @Scrappy

    I guess you prefer the Republicans' method:

    1. hire used-car salesman Henry paulson to scare people into throwing $700 billion into the banking system
    2. let them spend half of it before inviting to ask how they are spending it
    3. make the US taxpayer look like a sucker when the banks decline to explain
    4. have the gall to sit on the other $350 billion waiting to figure where to spend it after that crook Paulson, and Bush, swore the banks needed it immediately. Immediate is over, give it back before compounding the mistake.
    By Gavin Volaire @ 02/02/09 10:44:33 AMreport abuse
  • I'm with the fans
    Neal, I just don't feel sorry for the CEOs getting government bailouts. You ought to be mad that this limit is NOT being put on the pork spending bill.

    It's not a mandate on all businesses, only the ones asking the taxpayer money fairy to visit them.
    By Rob @ 02/02/09 10:40:07 AMreport abuse
  • Finding the Loophole is Easy
    Just because the $400,000 cap is put in place does not mean the money will not be spent elsewhere. If the current executives cannot be paid enough they will not work enough. They will then go out and hire outside consultants and pay them to do the work that they are not allowed to get paid for. The money still gets spent, just not as efficiently as it might have been.
    By Martin @ 02/02/09 10:38:29 AMreport abuse
  • We must become ONE VOICE!
    This article clearly shows who is really in control. Our next step is to vocalize it.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/01/frugal-americans-hurt-economic-recovery/

    If those of us who are being frugal would display our distaste of government run amock by either contacting our so called "representatives" or by organizing a revolt of sorts. I know that once I get wind of an organized revolt I will plan my days off and attend.

    We must push the FairTax to the forefront of the dialog. We have to use similiar tactics that the wackos on the lest are using but to put a coherent and common sense message.

    The big BO won on the farse of tax cuts for 95% of Americans. Imaging getting the word out that ALL Americans will get 100% of their paycheck.

    No more politics as usual which seems to be BO's theme and political payback.
    By Big G @ 02/02/09 10:35:26 AMreport abuse
  • High Salary equates to intelligence?
    Neal, if high salaries get your so called "smart" people in these jobs, then why did these smart people bankrupt their companies? Maybe their salaries weren't high enough?
    By Dave @ 02/02/09 10:34:22 AMreport abuse
  • Where would they go?
    Hmm, resume says they were in charge of a company that failed so miserably that it had to be bailed out. Who would hire them for more than $400k per year?

    I suppose if someone does hire them, then that highlights that they are not hired for ability, but for being in a club. Good riddance to them.

    The smarts to run a business isn't so rarified that there is a shortage of those that can do the job.
    By Skyler @ 02/02/09 10:29:47 AMreport abuse
  • Good idea Chris
    There have certainly been precedents for "deferred" wage payments. Make them work harder.

    After all, look what the nation has been getting for only $400,000. If the President of the United States was paid more, maybe we could attract some real business men to run things instead of professional politicians.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 02/02/09 10:27:30 AMreport abuse
  • Claire Disgraceful
    This ---person--- is a disgrace to our fair State and many of us are mourning because she is in office. Yecch!
    By Laurie @ 02/02/09 10:24:27 AMreport abuse
  • Exec compensation
    Neal- you need to read "FROM GOOD TO GREAT".
    Exec compensation is NOT a factor in companies that become GREAT, despite the erroneous belief otherwise.
    You need to re-think your position.
    By Bill @ 02/02/09 10:21:06 AMreport abuse
  • Dems and Bailouts
    There is an old fable about a man and a horse who had a common enemy, a wolf. The man came to the horse and said, "If we team up, we can kill the wolf. Accept this bridle that will let me ride on your back, and I will help you hunt down the wolf and kill him." The horse agreed, and the man placed the bridle in the horse's mouth and climbed on the horse's back. Then the horse and man hunted down the wolf and killed him. After the wolf was dead, the horse said to the man, "Our enemy is dead. Remove your bridle and restore my freedom." To which the man said, "The hell you say! Giddyup, Dobbin." And the horse then served the man forever.

    Hopefully, some of you get the point...accept bailout money, and you accept the strings that go with it.
    By Paul Hamilton @ 02/02/09 10:16:33 AMreport abuse
  • The answer is YES.
    Yes, it is possible to be that mindlessly stupid. In fact 50% of the population has an IQ less than 100 ... and they can vote. Our founding fathers knew the average (or maybe that should be below average) person was not capable of making an informed decision at the ballot box. Stupid is as stupid does.
    By Eric @ 02/02/09 10:15:33 AMreport abuse
  • Stupid is as stupid does....
    If we can't find a CEO to take the job we can always get an illegal alien CEO from Mexico to run the company. I hear they work real hard for peanuts.
    By Patriot til' Death @ 02/02/09 10:09:41 AMreport abuse
  • Executive Compensation
    The executives who decided that their best course of action was to beg the government for bailout money should have the decency to "fall on their sword", and not accept payment for the job they failed to do.
    By John J Anonymous @ 02/02/09 10:08:07 AMreport abuse
  • Outsourcing
    The individual who suggested "outsourcing" to lower the labor cost has obviously never tried it. The cost isn't the only thing that's lower - so's the quality.
    By John J Anonymous @ 02/02/09 10:05:35 AMreport abuse
  • Limiting Executive Salaries to $400K
    Look at all the experience we got in our last election for this salary. What company would hire this man for $400K per year?
    By Walter @ 02/02/09 10:00:37 AMreport abuse
  • CEO Compensation
    What if someone as dumb as Obama and only worth $400,000 can't run the company?
    By God's Motive @ 02/02/09 09:57:54 AMreport abuse
  • Don't blame me...
    I voted for Jim Talent
    By not a missourian anymore @ 02/02/09 09:53:08 AMreport abuse
  • It is worth considering...
    ..as long as money is the only motivator for executives then we will have more disproportion. Why isn't talent at the 'bottom' as valuable and rewarded? Until those at the top of the food chain pay enough for those of us at the bottom to be able to make a living, not scratch out an existance, I imagine we will have this problem. I don't want their wealth; they can have it. I want a boss that is motivated by excellence, quality, personal pride in performance, and yes, a 'people over money' spirit. It seems a reasonable request. At the self identified 'elite' level, money comes in more ways than the 'paycheck'. Daschle's limo and driver comes to mind. The company said it was a 'gift'. Ok. How many 'perks' for secretaries, janitors, supervisors, were given to retain their 'talent'? It is just out of balance is my point. I think it is just a game to negotiate a ridiculous compensation package bigger than the other guy and not really about the money itself. He with the most money wins.
    By Robin @ 02/02/09 09:51:51 AMreport abuse
  • Mindlessly Stupid
    Yes, McCaskill's proposal would be a classic case of unintended consequences. Neal, you are exactly right - the high muckety-mucks would bolt for companies w/o the $400K limit. But . . . I have to ask, if these guys/gals are so talented, why are their companies having to seek a bailout in the first place? It seems to me that if they're worth that much (>$400K), then those companies shouldn't be in financial trouble. McCaskill's proposal sounds & feels nice ("let's punish those who ostensibly got us in this mess") but as with all the liberal agenda, it is fraught with dangerous pitfalls in a free market. It was Lawrence Peter who said, "Against logic, there is no armor like ignorance."
    By Chuck @ 02/02/09 09:43:06 AMreport abuse
  • Here is a better idea
    The take-from-those-who-produce-and-give-it-to-those-that-do-not policies of our politicians are destroying this country.
    Here is a simple way to defend our country: any individual that receives a government hand-out in any form (welfare, refundable tax-credit, etc) between January and November of any year loses the privilege of voting in any election held that year. Voting is a privilege and a responsibility. It is not a right. Only those that earn it should have it.
    By Rick @ 02/02/09 09:41:25 AMreport abuse
  • Some Consequence
    If this discourages these companies from receiving a welfare check, then maybe this poison pill not such a bad thing.
    By Scott @ 02/02/09 09:01:45 AM ... Hey Scott, The idea behind the bailout was to help the companies, not totally bankrupt them.
    By The Astronaut @ 02/02/09 09:32:23 AMreport abuse
  • Executive Compensation
    If the company is receiving bailout money from the government,our tax dollars, the executive's pay, including bonuses, should not be any hire than the highest paid executive in the government the President.
    If the executives don't like it than they should quit. I for one an tired of seeing my tax dollars being spent on the salaries and bonuses of people that should have been fired. Lets face it, if the average person screwed up one one billionth as bad we'd be out on our butts so quick it would make our heads spin.
    Boortz you don't have to worry about the executives running to companies that don't receive bailout money. Those companies will follow the fair market economic system and lower the amount of compensation they are paying, to keep their profits up and their shareholers and board happy.
    By Jeff @ 02/02/09 09:30:43 AMreport abuse
  • Claire
    PS - I wouldn't be so quick to call McCaskill a moron. She has been highly critical of the stimulus package and openly acknowledged that it's an oversized Democrat wish list. She's one of the people who might be able to trim it down to size.
    By MikeS @ 02/02/09 09:27:54 AMreport abuse
  • FASCISM?
    Shouldn't surprise anyone. This has always been the dream of anti-capitalist. To run all businesses. The Democrats will now use the excuse of the bailout money these companies took in order to gain control. If the Democrats want to run the everyday business operations of these companies ... the companies are doomed! I believe this is called fascism!
    By Scrappy @ 02/02/09 09:26:02 AMreport abuse
  • Comp
    I have to disagree with you here, Neal. As far as I'm concerned, we should be running *any* bailout like the Europeans do -- if you take the money, you have to fire half your board. That will ensure that we only get companies who are in desperate need.

    I wouldn't think you would be one to support this kind of open corporate welfare.
    By MikeS @ 02/02/09 09:23:44 AMreport abuse
  • Been in Corporate long? Outsourcing anyone?
    1st - Anyone that's been in corporate long enough and part of sourcing from other countries knows a certain fact. That fact is that there are sharp senior managers in Mexico, Central Americas, China, etc. that can make the same decisions from their desks that are made here in the states. And they'd do it for less than $400k. A Unix admin that manages a complex business system is losing their job to an Indian for 1/3 of the cost. Why not outsource these CEO's?

    2nd - Anyone in corporate knows that high salaries don't equal good decisions, hence why we're here. I've seen a business unit sold off because of a plethora of bad decisions. A VP submitting 15k in expenses monthly because he doesn't like video conferencing and thinks he MUST be in NY. Another VP that lives out of state and has free weekly airfare and a furnished apartment... including 2 days a week of non-productive travel. Another VP that over spent his sales meeting by 100k because he had no checks/balances nor accountability. And that's ONE business unit of a larger successful Fortune 500 company! Yeah, they were sold off, VP's laid off, and they found another sucker company to work for because of their "relationships."

    People that believe CEO's need to be compensated to what Boortz thinks haven't a clue. There is proof to back my statement here. That proof is Lee Iacocca.

    You can outsource a CEO just as quickly as an entire IT department for far less money and far less painful. Or you can pick your talent from a large talent pool as a result of this recession for less. Save your money and use carefully your power of choice.
    By Samael @ 02/02/09 09:21:31 AMreport abuse
  • On the other hand. . .
    A law like that might discourage any companies from taking taxpayer-siezed bailout money in the first place. Which would lead failing companies to restructure on their own or die, and profitable companies to succeed.

    Surely not what McCaskill had in mind, but it wouldn't be entirely bad.
    By Rob Evans @ 02/02/09 09:15:57 AMreport abuse
  • Dumb like a fox
    The Democrats are not stupid. They are using wealth envy to garner support for legislation that is to ensure the failure of the free market economy system. The stage is set for socialism. Government steps in with the takeover of the healthcare industry, the banking system, and the auto manufacturing industries (note recent legislation allowing states to set their own emission standards...clearly designed to bankrupt completely the auto manufacturing industry).

    With government in control of banking, healthcare and manufacturing... it spells the end of liberty and the demise of the land of the free. Will Americans wake up and smell the pile of horsesqueeze before it's too late? I doubt it.
    By Jim C @ 02/02/09 09:14:04 AMreport abuse
  • Barack Obama's salary; $400,000
    In Singapore they take the 5 top paid executives and average their salaries to determine the pay of their Chief Executive. Maybe we would get better presidential candidates if we did this!!
    By Jim @ 02/02/09 09:10:49 AMreport abuse
  • He who pays the fiddler...
    ... Calls the tune.

    Neal, why are you on this rant about executive pay? We're not talking about free citizens here. We're talking about BUMS ON THE PUBLIC DOLE.

    $400K is too much. It ought to be zero, until the day the dole is paid back and they can show a profit. After that, whatever deal they make with their stockholders is their own business. But as long as they're taking MY handout, they can by god sell their damned mansion if they're hungry.

    Any executive who is attracted to work at a failed bank on the basis of a salary is not worth attracting. These failures need an entrepreneur who is willing to risk something to gain greatly, not some glorified accountant looking for a salary.
    By Jon Baker @ 02/02/09 09:09:43 AMreport abuse
  • CEOs
    It drives me crazy when people lash out at Corporate executives and their salaries/bonuses. I admit, if a company is failing, then a tighter hold on the reins may be needed. But when a company is doing well and all is legal, then the amount an executive makes is between the board and that executive. Lets take a closer look. A man/woman takes the time to go to college for 4 or more years. Educating themselves, working hard to become a leader in industry. Then, finally lands the chance to be the head honcho, the one who makes all the decisions of day to day business. This person will make the company hundreds of millions or billions of dollars based solely on the direction they are steering the company. So 10 million is a bad bonus? This person makes the corporation 3 billion dollars with their decisions and expertise and then get a bonus of 10 million? Seems fair enough to me. If they fail, the chances of working at that level again are very remote.
    It is no different then a professional athlete getting a 50 million dollar contract renewal. With great performance, their jersey number and namesake will make the team franchise hundreds of millions in retail "stuff". I don't hear the crying with that.
    People need to keep this stuff in perspective. This is obviously a much larger playground then they are used to playing on.
    By Kevin @ 02/02/09 09:06:07 AMreport abuse
  • Senator McCaskill
    On behalf of all Missourian's who did not vote for Ms. McCaskill. I deeply apologize to the rest of the country, who may have formed an ill opinion of us in Missouri. Indeed, we are not ALL idiots. Just the liberals. Come on 2010, when we get the chance to reset the balance.
    By Duke Blankenship @ 02/02/09 09:03:56 AMreport abuse
  • I see it differently
    I see this differently. Sure, there will be some who decline to work at a company for $400k, but if I were one of those in-demand executives, I would say to the company, "I will work for $400k until we get the company turned around and profitable and no longer dependent on the government dole. Then, I will require a compensation that I would have received normally plus the amount that I forfeited by working for $400k." This would give people more incentive to get the company turned around quickly so they can stop receiving bailout money and get profitable.
    By Chris @ 02/02/09 09:03:23 AMreport abuse
  • Maybe it's not such a bad idea!
    'So McCaskill gets her executive compensation limit ... and what happens? Qualified executives run like hell for the companies that aren't receiving bailout money. Why go through the anguish of working under close government control and interference while trying to turn around a company in dire trouble for $400,000 a year, when you can take a job with a company that it doing just fine outside of all of this government interference for three times that much?'

    If this discourages these companies from receiving a welfare check, then maybe this poison pill not such a bad thing.
    By Scott @ 02/02/09 09:01:45 AMreport abuse
  • Executive Salaries
    Well they can go be consultants like Dashle did after he was dumped from the Senate at $1M/yr and not "know" even with the help of his CPA that car and driver provided was only a nice gesture from a friend.
    By Brian @ 02/02/09 08:50:04 AMreport abuse
  • McCaskill Family Businesses
    So, McCaskill wants to limit exec comp. What about her family's businesses which take advantage of taxpayer money? Take a look here for more:

    http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/16895

    Maybe she could limit her family's income as well. How about any business that receives gov't money have their income limited? Sickening.
    By S Kammerer @ 02/02/09 08:48:04 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement