There is a lot of talk about Golden Parachutes these days in reference to the government's proposed bailout of the Wall Street Investment firms.
John McCain and others have suggested that to bailout these failed company bonuses should not go to the CEO's that put the companies into Chapter 11. I must wholeheartedly agree. I think what these men make is obscene to begin with and that is without the bonuses and golden parachutes.
Bonuses and golden parachutes are two different things. Bonuses are for doing well and usually given in some relationship to how well the company is doing. It is clear the CEO's did not do well so any bonus or stock dividend should be immediately nixed. But Golden Parachutes are severance packages negotiated at the time of hiring to cushion their transition to another company or retirement to the Bahamas to be close to their off-shore money. They are unfortunately a contractual obligation between the company and its chief executive officers. (yes, there are probably numerous employees in the upper ranks of the flow chart that qualify for this cushy landing.) Can these contracts be broken? Aren't they legally binding documents?
I have not read the fine print in any of these contracts. I sincerely doubt that the head hunters (highly rewarded people that find positions for these elites of industry) which procured these jobs originally for them allowed such language to be put in place. So can we, the US government as new owners, dump the CEO's out of the plane without that parachute? Somehow I doubt it and I think McCain knows that and he is just playing lip service to this concept to hoodwink us commoners that know nothing of such lofty matters.
At least in the Great Depression of the 1930's the CEO's had the grace to commit suicide by jumping out of their penthouse office windows. Without parachutes, golden or otherwise. But they haven't yet. Darn. Nor have we allowed these firms to go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy which would allow a renegotiation of all debts and contracts. Through mediation people holding contracts and bills would be asked to take a certain amount less - say 10 cents on the dollar.
But no, in the infinite wisdom of our government that never learns from its mistakes (see the savings and loan rescue of the previous Bush), to avoid a recession which would dearly hurt us little people we are going to bail them out before they sink (I think maybe that bailout is the name given to a Golden Parachute for an entire company) and bring down the world economy.
The truth is either way we (back to the little people here) are in deep dodo as we say. Because the price of this bailout in conjunction with the price we are paying for a war based on lies means any tax cuts or incentives to keep spending, any rescue from foreclosures on fraudulent mortgages, any hopes of universal health care, repair and replacement of our aging infrastructure system, or a comprehensive incentive plan for an ever greener country are down the drain regardless of who gets elected president.
So the bottom line here. Is that the GW Bush that has ruined the US economy (not to mention our faith in government) for the last eight years gets to do it for the foreseeable future.
I don't know why people are surprised at these developments when our leader is not only an inarticulate boob but subscribes to the ideology of cronyism, nepotism, and total lack of regulation. Good ol' Boys done large in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteYes, I totally agree. And guess what good ole boy was part of the savings and loan melt down? John McCain. Besides he did not have a solution then that prevented this from reoccurring so I don't trust him for a solution today.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, if the UK situation is any precedent, the failed "fat cats" have to be bought off with large bowls of cream. We pay if we keep 'em, and we pay if we get rid of 'em.
ReplyDeleteAnd McCain ust knw this perfectly well. After all, he's a buddy of a lot of them.
Of course he does. He is just once again trying to deceive the voters of the United States.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which I watched his announcement to table campaigning until the financial crisis is solved. I think he is sick. I think this going back to Washington has a lot to do with seeking in to see his doctors at Walter Reed.
One query which nobody seems to quite know the answer to.Supposing McCain were to topple off his perch- terminally dead- before the election, what happens? Does Palin become Republican candidate? Do they have to run a hasty Convention, assuming there's time, to pick somebody else? Or what?
ReplyDeleteThis one I know the answer to. When I first began blogging here about politics it was to explain the primary process to my UK friends (and a few from Australia). The primary process is not democratic (small t).
ReplyDeleteIt replaces the party bosses getting into a smoke filled room and coming up with a candidate. So if McCain drops dead tomorrow (not a long shot by any reach of the imagination) the party bosses get together and pick someone for his spot. Chances are slim it would be Palin given her lack of experience. And they would most likely tend to go with one of the people that ran against McCain and garnered some votes like Romney or Huckabee.
Interestingly enough the electoral college is also about unexpected events. If an elected president dies before taking office the electoral college is free to vote for someone else. They vote I think the 8th of January just a couple days before swearing in.
Note they could also change their vote if the president elect was caught with his pants down with an underage boy. Or if it was discovered he had committed treason.
And I do not believe they are bound to vote for his VP but could vote for someone the party bosses substituted at the last minute. Or for the party that was defeated though I think you find that could result in rioting in the streets.
Thanks, Jacqui... So we just have to hope, then....
ReplyDeleteInteresting comment here from a British reporter:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/09/mindboggling_contempt_for_bush.html
Interesting link, John. I was just looking at Time's Really Clear Politics page and noticing that Bush was still given an approval rating of 31%. To me this just serves to invalidate the nature of polls and how effective they are at predicting the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteHell, even his own party is deserting him and currently McCain is going against the Bailout bill for totally political reasons as a sure way to distance himself from the president and get out of the debate Tonight.