A Pay Czar

[heyheybooboo]

One of the key failures of the Bush administration was their inability to designate The Man-In-Charge (or The Woman-), pretty much for anything. Bush may have put a face out there (a front man) but that person typically had little power.

Find good people and let them do their thing. It's a smart organizational move by the administration because the ultimate decision-making rests with the Czar - the one person responsible under the laws of Congress and guidelines set by the Secretary to get things done without (too much) political interference.

It's also a good political move because it isolates the higher-ups.

This new guy seems very competent - get out of his way and let him do his work. When our tax dollars are repaid (with interest) they may return to their greedy ways (inasmuch as the shareholders will allow them).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I can't wait for vB

The question is what will come first: An end to human greed or the switchover to vB?

It's a tough call.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: spidey07
So we need a special position to make sure people don't make more than the "correct amount"? This crap is getting way out of hand. And apparently it's starting to look like the idea of limiting compensation is more punitive then originally thought. Just how much more power is the government trying to take?

------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html

"The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter."

"Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter."

Strikes as 'political theatre'.

I was gonna also call it 'overkill' and suggest the SEC, which already gets the financial data from these companies be charged with this compliance effort. However, after reading the article looks like nobody understands the competing and over-laooing requirements, and they are vague (see remarks about 2008 bonuses).

So, before deciding who gets to run compliance the first dang place to start was organizing and clarifying the rules. Instead, we put 'the cart before the horse' for political grandstanding purposes.

The part about "Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner' reeks of the lack of "due process". Terrorists are treated better as regards due process. No appeals or review of unilateral decisions by appointed (unelected) beaurocrats is a scary thought. We're creating mini-dictators, and most don't notice or care because they've been indoctrinated to hate the boogeyman corporations.

Fern

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Fern
<snip>

The part about "Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner' reeks of the lack of "due process". Terrorists are treated better as regards due process. No appeals or review of unilateral decisions by appointed (unelected) beaurocrats is a scary thought. We're creating mini-dictators, and most don't notice or care because they've been indoctrinated to hate the boogeyman corporations.

Fern

That's what really bothered me the most. Coupled with Geitners belief that all compensation should be limited is downright scary.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is vB?

 

[daniel49]

he's gone czar crazy...check his Birth Certificate for USSR stamp.

 

[ProfJohn]

I heard that Obama now has as many czars as the Russians did, of course it took them 400 years to reach the number Obama reached in 5 months.

Some people in congress aren't to happy with this either, Byrd has been making some noise that Obama is upsetting the balance of power between the branches.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How come this thread is by Spidey and he is the third person to post?

The suck has reached critical mass and opened a temporal flux.

Happening for weeks. Forums are fuxed.

BTW, who is going to ensure THIS PAY CZAR is not being overpaid? Who will rule the ruler?!

What is vB?

New forums software, I presume. I think it stands for vaginal Bleeding, though how that is relevant to software, you got me.

 

[spidey07]

That's the thing with all these czars - all the power and no congressional approval or review needed.

 

[First]

It sucks not being in power I guess.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's the thing with all these czars - all the power and no congressional approval or review needed.

Ultimately, the word czar is meaningless and Congress has the same full power over them they do with any government official the President appoints. You are simply fixating on it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's the thing with all these czars - all the power and no congressional approval or review needed.

Ultimately, the word czar is meaningless and Congress has the same full power over them they do with any government official the President appoints. You are simply fixating on it.

Really? How so? These czars are just interpreting a bill no one in congress actually read. Please read the Constitution, I beg you.

 

[IronWing]

God bless the czar and keep the czar ... far from us. - Fiddler on the Roof

I'm with the folks objecting to these czar positions. If you read the laws dictating to the federal agencies what they shall, may, and shall not do, the laws are directed at the cabinet secretaries. Cabinet secretaries should be allowed to exercise their authorities and held accountable for doing so without the interference of non-confirmed politicos. Czar positions are too floaty-boaty, either given too much (unauthorized?) clout or are empty suits for secretaries to hide behind. Czar positions muddy the mostly clearish lines of authority laid out in law.

As to who should set salaries for executives of government-controlled corporations, the salaries should be set as specified in the charters of each corporation. The government should be allowed to exercise the voting power of its shares to influence these decisions but only within the context of the corporate charters, ie. electing board members to its liking. If the government accepted non-voting shares then too bad for us taxpayers and we should vote for better people next time.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How come this thread is by Spidey and he is the third person to post?

The suck has reached critical mass and opened a temporal flux.

Happening for weeks. Forums are fuxed.

BTW, who is going to ensure THIS PAY CZAR is not being overpaid? Who will rule the ruler?!

What is vB?

New forums software, I presume. I think it stands for vaginal Bleeding, though how that is relevant to software, you got me.

vBulletin, and it is indeed another forum software. Meet the new king, less glitchy but just as shitty as the old king.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's the thing with all these czars - all the power and no congressional approval or review needed.

Ultimately, the word czar is meaningless and Congress has the same full power over them they do with any government official the President appoints. You are simply fixating on it.

Robert Byrd seems to dislike the whole czar thing link

The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. They have even limited access to the president by his own cabinet members. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: spidey07
That's the thing with all these czars - all the power and no congressional approval or review needed.

Ultimately, the word czar is meaningless and Congress has the same full power over them they do with any government official the President appoints. You are simply fixating on it.

Robert Byrd seems to dislike the whole czar thing link

The rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials. They have even limited access to the president by his own cabinet members. As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

I would agree that it sounds like a problem, but only because Congress is letting it become one. Legally, the White House can't "accumulate power" they don't have in the first place. Calling what they're doing something fancy and appointing someone with a lofty title doesn't prevent Congress from exercising any oversight at all...yet for some reason it's a tactic that has totally flummoxed Congress during Bush's administration, and apparently during the current one as well.

 

[sandorski]

Who here criticized the Bonuses way back when?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Robor
What is getting out of hand is faux outrage threads from people like the OP.

You don't find this disturbing at all? It should be.

hahahahaaaaaaa

 

[Moonbeam]

The ants around my picnic table think I'm a giant philanthropic being.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: spidey07
So we need a special position to make sure people don't make more than the "correct amount"? This crap is getting way out of hand. And apparently it's starting to look like the idea of limiting compensation is more punitive then originally thought. Just how much more power is the government trying to take?

------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124416737421887739.html

"The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter."

"Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter."

Waste of time and money, especially since they keep changing the rules with the bailout money.

 

[Cuda1447]

Bigger government, more government positions, more of a governmental power grab. Whats next?

Does anyone here not see the trend? Since Obama took office, every single week, there has been something new and interesting to debate here. It just so happens everything we have debated has to do with less rights, less freedoms, more government involvement and interference. It will continue to occur as long as Obama is in office, imo. This sucks I wonder if people will be man enough to admit they made a mistake voting for this guy 4 years from now.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Robor
What is getting out of hand is faux outrage threads from people like the OP.

You don't find this disturbing at all? It should be.

What should be disturbing is the amount the Obama administration is increasing the size of the executive branch. How many Tsars/Czars are there now? Clearly Obama is set on he either knows how to run everything or he has an academic that can test out their socialized theories in real life. Has He or any of these academics run anything for profit? He is taking over companies, letting go CEO's, telling other CEO's what is acceptable compensation, driving out all intellectual talent (AIG yes there was some), telling companies what to produce. Who are these Czars accountable to? Really nobody. Now we are going to dictate pay? Where does it end?

The term "Faux outrage" is misdirection from a partisan, and it is a fraud. I thought dissent was a conerstone of liberalism? Or is it only when it is yours? I'm starting to just move on to the next comment when I see that term "Faux outrage." Seems lazy to me.

Seriously be honest. I was with Bush when he was crashing us in the wrong direction. Growing the executive branch by leaps and bounds. Then recinding the ban on hiring PAC people. And not nearly being as transparent as he promised he would. These are all red flags. Regardless of who is in power. I'm an American first not a partisan. We have people on the left and right who are playing partisan politics with total disregard for our nation.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Bigger government, more government positions, more of a governmental power grab. Whats next?

Does anyone here not see the trend? Since Obama took office, every single week, there has been something new and interesting to debate here. It just so happens everything we have debated has to do with less rights, less freedoms, more government involvement and interference. It will continue to occur as long as Obama is in office, imo. This sucks I wonder if people will be man enough to admit they made a mistake voting for this guy 4 years from now.

But..but.. change!!!!!

 

[Cogman]

The companies that the choice to take the bail out money or not. I think the government has every right to make whatever stipulations they deem necessary for those companies. Now, if this where a company that didn't take the bail-out money, then I would be upset.

If the companies didn't want the government to run there buisnesses, then they shouldn't have gotten into the crappy situation in the first place or taken the money offered. You can never make money with no strings attached.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: EXman

What should be disturbing is the amount the Obama administration is increasing the size of the executive branch.

The proper response to the biggest economic crisis in decades is do-nothing laissex-faire.

It's to let the systems collapse, and for Mad Max to save the nation.

The term "Faux outrage" is misdirection from a partisan, and it is a fraud.

Check the mirror. It's pointing out misdirection of faux outrage.

I thought dissent was a conerstone of liberalism? Or is it only when it is yours? I'm starting to just move on to the next comment when I see that term "Faux outrage."

You can lead a horse to water, but...

Seriously be honest. I was with Bush when he was crashing us in the wrong direction. Growing the executive branch by leaps and bounds. Then recinding the ban on hiring PAC people. And not nearly being as transparent as he promised he would. These are all red flags. Regardless of who is in power. I'm an American first not a partisan.

It takes something special to be 'with Bush' at all in 2008 as his chickens came home. I don't think that - his hardcore 20% base - is accurately described as not partisan.

I'm not saying you can't strongly support someone and be not partisan - you can, despite the cynics - but it's hard to say you could with that particular president by that point.

We have people on the left and right who are playing partisan politics with total disregard for our nation.

Sounds pretty uninformed and partisan (the 'middle' has partisans, too) to me to condemn everything Obama is doing as 'playing partisan politics with total disregard for our nation'.

Get back to me when HE sells out the public with policies to increase deregulation that create corruption and crisis.

There's room for criticizing Obama and suspecting problems with some things, but your commentary hardly looks like an antidote to partisan, like an informed post.