Bonuses As A Way Of Life

The big complaint about the AIG bonuses was that they were supposedly rewarding failure. If the government hadn't stepped in, would anything have been said? No. It's a way of life that reaches far beyond top executives!

In a time of economic stress at all levels, how about signing bonuses for coaches at a time when university budgets are being cut to the bone, teachers are facing either pay cuts or job loss, and fewer students are being accepted? Take for example Washington State's basketball coach Tony Bennett jumping ship for the University of Virginia. His total package is around $1.7 million a year plus a $500,000 signing bonus! That would provide a lot of faculty pay and tuition for a lot of students! What's even more questionable is the fact he's an unproven entity considering the differences between a Washington State and a Virginia! Failure isn't even an issue here. It's for signing on with high hopes. Heck of a deal.

Even harder to swallow for a lot of students, I should think, is John Calipari's deal with Kentucky. His eight year deal will bring him some $31.65 million plus a $2.5 million signing bonus. Please don't tell me it's worth that kind of money because of what the program brings in for the school. If it was all that successful, why are the budgets being cut?

It goes even further. Let's go back to tax payer money. The Wall Steet Journal tells us of the practice of Congress giving sometimes substantial bonuses to aides - with tax payer dollars.

We're told that last year more than $9.1 million was awarded to over 22,000 staffers. These discretionary bonuses went to staff earning more than $100,000, as merit bonuses.

To repeat a theme I harp on often, Congress gives itself automatic pay raises and gives out staff bonuses. Coaches are receiving huge signing bonuses while their schools flounder. Meanwhile Social Security cost of living increases are going to be frozen for the next three years, if not longer.

Does anyone besides me see the hypocrisy in all this?

Let Me Be Frank, Barney!

Have you noticed that those who shout the loudest have the most to hide? Yep, Mr. Frank, I talking about you! You headed the committee which passed a bill giving Treasury Secretary Geitner broad control over salaries at bailout companies. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and it died.

Now you've taken it a step further with the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009" where you intend to penalize all employees of bailout companies by tying their pay to performance for as long us the bailout money remains unpaid. Retroactively yet!

Okay folks. It's time for another Dogwalk solution. No more automatic pay raises for Congress. Let's insist on a "pay for performance" scale for them. After all, it is tax payer money! Let's let the whole country rate each and every one of them, not just the people in their districts or states who might be swayed by pork.

How would Barney fare? Let's look at the mortgage mess which actually began back in the Carter administration when mortgage lenders were being accused of being racist. Pressured to make loans to minorities and those with bad credit, lenders began loosening their standards under threat of punishment by regulators. Government chartered mortgage lenders, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, encouraged this "sub prime" lending then bought up the questionable mortgages.

We all know what happened. The bubble burst but all the while Frank insisted Freddie and Fannie faced no financial crisis. Right. Also, all the while, he blamed the private sector for having gotten us into the mess. With a lot of arm twisting by the government.

Barney Frank is the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. A one time partner of Frank's was an executive at Fannie who helped develop many of the lending programs. During that time Frank blocked tough regulations on banking companies.

Okay. Frank has been in the House since 1981. He's had his fingers in a lot of pies and a go round with the House Ethics Committee over a sex scandal. Idaho's Larry Craig, not unfamiliar with such, led an attempt to have him expelled or censured over that episode. It failed but the House did vote 408 to 18 to reprimand him. Of course, as it goes in Washington, he won re-election several times over.

In the 28 years he's been in Congress I'm sure he has been on the right side of some issues. His constituents would probably give him a 10 on a scale of 10, but what would the public as a whole give him? If we can't have term limits why not hit them where it really hurts? In the pocketbook. I'm not a constituent, you see, and my rating would definitely be "sub prime"!

Obama - Messiah Or Dictator?

There is a difference between anger and worry. I've experienced too much of both lately as I watch the administration try to mend the financial crisis by trial and error.

Today, I'm halting the emotions at worry. Tomorrow it may well be back to full blown anger. I am extremely uncomfortable with the sanctions that are being heaped on corporations receiving bailout money without the ground rules being set at the get go.

Take for instance the exit of Rick Wagoner from GM. GM was to submit their reorganization plans by March 31. That's tomorrow. However, the "auto czar", who has no auto industry experience, decided it wasn't adequate. The President, on his own, told Wagoner if there was to be any chance for GM to get additional help he had to go. Did Obama have that right? Should he have that right?

Granted, the GM board should have removed Wagoner long ago. And yes, it's tax payer dollars being used to bail them out. But without preset rules and an arbitrary opinion from someone outside the industry, it makes Mr. Wagoner the scapegoat. For what? To make the administration look tough?

I listened to Obama say that for GM to go in a new direction it needed new leadership. Wagoner's number two took over. Is that new leadership?

Okay, there can be a lot of arguments for everything the administration is doing because of tax payer dollars. However, more and more it looks to be an attempt to change the way corporate America works and if so, you'll soon see us as a diminished nation even more than we already are.

The New York Times had a story which was even more frightening. They are considering regulating executive pay via regulation rather then legislation. This smacks of dictatorship.

Even worse, they are considering extending this practice to financial institutions not receiving bailout money and even to publicly traded companies.

Obama campaigned on regulation to give share holders a larger say in setting executive pay. Well, that's the responsibility of the board. If the shareholders don't like what the board is doing they can vote them out. The hitch here is the shareholders have to exercise their right and vote their proxy's if they can't attend the annual meetings.

Just like politics. You have to vote to have a say. The responsibility, in that respect, falls on the shareholders, not the executives.

"What about corporate greed?" you may ask. There is far too much of it to be sure. But if what the administration is attempting doesn't shape them up nothing will. They will just move off shore.

Speaking of greed, how about the greed for power? To have the ultimate authority to reshape an entire country into a vision not necessarily sanctioned by the people? To dictate what CEO's can and cannot do while giving Unions a pass? By doing an end run around Congress?

Think about it. We criticized the Bush administration mightily for all Bush's signing statements stating he was going to ignore parts of passed legislation. We criticized Bush for ignoring the Constitution on many occasions. We criticize the Christian Conservatives for trying to hijack the government so they can force their agenda on those of us who don't agree with it.

I'm worried. Oh, yes I am. I see our President running around the country and the world as head cheerleader while in truth the team is making up the rules as they go. Who's our cheerleader and how can we win? Without a say, we can't.

Pitch Forks and Forked Tongues

For awhile now I've been suggesting the recipients of the "bailout bonuses" aren't necessarily the bad guys. This morning on Meet the Press David Gregory repeatedly asked Timothy Geitner, why, if he knew of the bonus plan at it's inception when he was still with the Fed, did he not object rather than feigning anger so far after the fact. Geitner never answered the question. No surprise there. Never stray from the administration's talking points.

As distasteful as the whole AIG mess has been, it is but the tip of the iceberg and shows what a bunch of hypocrites we have holding the reins. According to Newsweek , five major TARP recipients made campaign contributions to members of committees overseeing the TARP program since the administration came to power. You know, the ones in front of the cameras expressing their outrage.

Two of those receiving the contributions are House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and GOP Whip Eric Cantor. This is the first real sign of bipartisanship I've seen!

The rationale is that this money doesn't actually come from the company, but rather it's employees. This is how it works. The company has a political action committee (PAC) to which the employees are strongly advised to contribute. Therefore it is employee money. The problem, as I see it, is the employee has no say as to where the money goes. To me that makes it, technically, a corporate contribution of employee funds.

Hoyer's office said accepting such contributions is legal and "policy". Pelosi and Frank have said they won't take money from TARP recipients but, the article goes on, House fundraisers have said that "down the road" they will resume accepting them. Right. As soon as it's back under the radar!

This is not how I envisioned the pay back would work. I would have thought the money would go back into the treasury coffer; not campaign coffers! It indicates to me we do indeed have the best Congress money can buy!

Reality Check

I've got to tell you, I'm not sure I can continue these weekly updates. It's an emotional roller coaster as much as is Bacchus's condition. The difference is he doesn't know it!

Tuesday we had taken a longer walk then usual. One of his favorite neighbors came out to see him and they greeted each other as would anyone who's been cooped up for the long winter months. I had no sooner shut off the camera when Bacchus keeled over, legs flailing and gasping for breath. I thought that would be it. George and I knelt beside him and he quickly calmed down. I kept him quiet while George called Hub and asked that he bring the van around.

By the time he arrived Bacchus was standing and we were scratching ribs and ears. We stood chatting for a few minutes after Hub arrived then I put Bacchus in the van. He peered out the window and his expression said, "Why am I in here? I want to be out with you guys!" That fast he seemed back to normal. What we don't know for sure is how much it took out of him.

I talked with our vet and his cardiologist and they explained what had likely happened. It drove home the point that he has a very weak heart. Not only does he have to deal with the enlargement, the arrhythmia rears it's head and gives the system fits.

He came out of this episode and seems pretty much himself. The fluctuations in his eating and willingness to take pills continue but he's happy and bouncing around like he has good sense.

A friend of mine suggested writing these weekly updates is cathartic. It is if those of you I'm doing it for realize it isn't always going to be a cheery "he's holding his own". The truth of the matter is we don't know. He gained back five of the pounds he lost. That's good. He had this episode. That's bad. It's day to day. It's rough.

So I'll end on that note. Another week. The neighbor's grand kids are playing next door. He's having a good time barking at them. It's what he does. Que sera sera.