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.

THE LATEST ON EXECUTIVE PAY

By
Neal Boortz
@ May 19, 2009 8:12 AM Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0)

Tax cheat Timothy Geithner has decided that the government should not impose caps on executive pay at companies receiving bailout funds. Thanks for finally clearing that one up for us, Tim. But he does believe that the government should set policies that would discourage financial companies from rewarding excessive risk-taking.

He says, "I think we can bring about broader reforms of compensation incentives in finance as a whole," not just at companies participating in TARP. "We'll make it much less likely that people get paid to take large amounts of short-term risk at the expense of their firm and the system as a whole."

Now, of course, we need to figure out who gets to define whether or not risk-taking is "excessive." I guess that would be the government. And a quick question for you ... where would our country be today if our history were not full of people who were willing to take "excessive risk" for a fantastic reward.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: THE LATEST ON EXECUTIVE PAY.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/31327

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.

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

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • There is already a penalty
    for excessive risk taking. You lose your ass.

    Unless somebody bails you out.
    By B Moe @ 05/19/09 08:56:57 PMreport abuse
  • coincidentially
    have you noticed that in a great deal of pics the socialist party has the american flag placed to the left side ..?
    By Steve...B @ 05/19/09 08:12:06 PMreport abuse
  • WTF? Geithner the tax cheat strikes again!
    I am aghast at the total, absolute and complete ineptitude of this dolt and the administration he is part of. This is a travesty of a Clown Act. This cannot even be compared to a Monkey having sexual relations with a football. This WTF moment is brought to you by a guy that's looking around and asking how and who is going to put a stop to this and how can I help!!
    By $mooth Operator @ 05/19/09 04:33:06 PMreport abuse
  • congress is all about short term gains
    Isn't this what our politicians are all about - short term gain? They pass spending and stimulus bills so they can get reelected now with no regard to the long term effect. Of course, they never take responsibility for the detrimental long term effects when they come to fruition(e.g. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd). It's always someone else's fault.
    By jmk @ 05/19/09 04:07:54 PMreport abuse
  • Excessive Risk?
    Excessive risk? Like when the benefits are puny, and the probability of failure high? Like lending money to people who would have to refinance every couple of years to keep from defaulting? Fannie Mae?
    By Smee McPhee @ 05/19/09 03:51:12 PMreport abuse
  • There goes GM
    http://www.reuters.com/article/mergersNews/idUSN1943363120090519
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/19/09 03:30:08 PMreport abuse
  • Excessive risk
    Is the government also going to determine if someone is taking excessive risk at the gaming tables also? What do Charles Barkley and John Daley have to say about that noise? Will this government monitoring of "excessive risk" also apply to the Japanese tourists that go to Las Vegas and gamble, or is it just for us stupid SOBs who live here in this country? Crap! That's right; I forgot. The Obamanation has already said we shouldn't go to Vegas. I apologize; go ahead and blame the publicity photo shoot of AF1 on me. Damn.
    By Robert @ 05/19/09 02:47:50 PMreport abuse
  • Isn't that why bonds and other funds have ratings?
    We don't need to government defining risk. That is what stock market fundamentals and bond rating agencies do.

    We don't need to the government deciding when businesses are taking too much risk. Bankruptcy takes care of that.

    I don't need someone hand holding me while I invest in a company. Its my responsibility to investigate what I'm buying, and decide whether I'm ready for that amount of risk.

    Welcome to free market capitalism.
    By Greg @ 05/19/09 01:42:54 PMreport abuse
  • Excessive risk for fantastic reward....
    I do agree with Neal that the board of directors should set executive compensation and that there should be great rewards for those willing to take on the risk. There is this little problem though that these executives are not actually taking on any risk themselves. They are getting fantastic rewards, but because of the way a corporation works, they face none of the consequences of when failure happens. Congress should put no limits on compensation, but should attach that and reward based on market performance, must also cost the executive should the market decline. In this way they will be wise investors and actually taking on whatever risks they acrue first hand.
    By jsday @ 05/19/09 12:52:57 PMreport abuse
  • excessive risk definition
    It cannot be defined with an evaluation of risk. That's way too much a matter of opinion. It will be defined by the amount of return of the investment. So a low risk investment that just happens to strike it rich will be taxed heavily.
    By joew @ 05/19/09 12:08:57 PMreport abuse
  • Wow
    Boy this guy looks like the Cheshire Cat, the Grinch, and the nerd that got picked on at school(but now has power), all rolled into one.
    By Mark @ 05/19/09 11:38:16 AMreport abuse
  • Executive compensation
    There should be a distinction between the rewards available and the supervision required when you risk your own money and when you risk other peoples money. There should be little incintive to risk other people's money, or risk tax payer's money. Take all the risk you want with your own money, but when you are risking other people's money you must be required to insure that the "other people" are aware of the level of risk. Then if the whole thing blows up, they knew the risk and took their chances, and I don't have to contribute to bailing them out.
    By Tom Horne @ 05/19/09 11:10:15 AMreport abuse
  • Risks?
    I am still dumbfounded that a known tax cheat is head of the IRS. I am flabbergasted that there was not a march on Washington with pitchforks, tar, and feathers! And since then... I have lost ALL confidence in the American people to defend their country and their own lives and well being. This country is no longer a country of laws it is a country of liars, thieves, and corrupt people from top to bottom. It deserves to be taken over by Mexico or some other country because Americans apparently do not understand or want freedom and law anymore. At least not enough of them to make a difference. Let the Mexicans or the Iranians have it. It is pretty much a worthless piece of dirt. And I can guarantee you that THEY will drill.
    By Ankharan @ 05/19/09 10:54:47 AMreport abuse
  • Bilderberg
    You're right there Ivan. Bilderberg has had a field day with these idiots. They have done such a good job, that the toothless rednecks that frequent this site have bought into the idea that Bilderberg doesn't even exist.
    By LiberalHater @ 05/19/09 10:32:55 AMreport abuse
  • So obvious
    got your talking points memo this morning Stan?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/19/09 10:22:28 AMreport abuse
  • The Latest on Executive Pay
    Suppose you buy a house and borrow money from a bank. Now, the bank owns your home. Would it be right for someone from the bank to come in to your home and tell you how your can or cannot decorate; or, tell you how to spend your paycheck so they can make sure the bank gets paid back? This is essentially what the government is doing to the banks and it is wrong.
    By Theresa Jones @ 05/19/09 10:01:03 AMreport abuse
  • Timmy G
    Can we start by capping pay for elected and appointed members of government? I mean a guy who wasn't worried about underpaying the IRS won't mind working for say...a maximum of $50k a year. That way, there would be less incentive to pass excessive legislation that punishes private citizens or business owners. You'd be busy working nights delivering pizzas(did it when my son was born, not bad...)or just plain working your butt off to do a good jiob and get the heck out of there! Lobbyists would be less inclined to hang out with you. Interns would ahh...nevermind.
    By Chuck @ 05/19/09 10:00:03 AMreport abuse
  • Neal is right
    George Bush took an excessive risk by not increasing airport security after learning a terrorist attack might occur via airplanes.
    By Stan Gable @ 05/19/09 09:23:45 AMreport abuse
  • whose risk?
    The "excessive" part comes from putting people other than yourselves (ie: the customer) at risk.

    Our laws regarding businesses exist so that when someone buys a bicycle, they are actually buying a bicycle, not a "maybe bicycle if the person at the top hasn't rolled the dice on a risky deal which makes it very likely that you won't actually get a bicycle after all"

    Otherwise it's just a simple fraud, someone saying "give me money, I'll give you a bicycle", when the truth is more like "give me money, I'll use that money to gamble, and if I win, I'll give you a bicycle"
    By someguy @ 05/19/09 09:22:34 AMreport abuse
  • Short Term Pain
    No one is too big to fail, stop bailing out!!!
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/19/09 09:00:22 AMreport abuse
  • I find it funny...
    that he came to this conclusion a day after he gets back to Washington after his meetings in Greece with the Bilderbergs. He was probably yelled at for allowing Obama to cap executive pay. The Bilderbergs own Obama.
    By Ivan @ 05/19/09 08:46:24 AMreport abuse
  • Risk taking...
    Maybe the most effective way of not rewarding executives for excessive risk taking is by not bailing out these Wall Street firms out! The free-market will determine who took excessive risks and they will be punished or their companies will cease to exist! Although, the Justice Department could do a whole lot better job of enforcing existing laws against fraud!
    By Michael @ 05/19/09 08:25:58 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement