The other day, I caught a snippet of a news program about the huge bonuses Wall Street was paying itself with our money. Some titan of financial industry was bleating that these payouts were necessary so that they could hold on to the people who were going to turn their companies around. If they didn't, they would go elsewhere. Where is that, do you suppose? To the other bailed-out firm down the street, maybe?
We've heard this silliness espoused before, of course. Before the meltdown, the bonuses were meant to reward those who helped create those big profits. But even as these monoliths were sinking into insolvency, packets of cash and other perks were being handed out willy-nilly. For what, exactly? For helping sink the global economy?
It is interesting that these guys seem to think that they, more than anyone else, are deserving of special treatment. They do have a point. As early as December 2008, questions regarding how the banking industry was using the bailout funds were being ignored. Not only that, many bank officials were flat-out refusing to say what they were doing with the money. Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the congressional committee charged with overseeing the bailout, decried the fact that the money was handed over, no strings attached. Taxpayers should be able to find out how their money is being spent, she said. Have we found out any more, nearly a year later? No.
Others, not so well acquainted with the glam lifestyle, would surely be appreciative of just a smidge of the Wall Street firms' special status. Automakers, also recipients of taxpayer-funded "help", required their union workers to take a sharp cut in pay. Do you think they are now in line for bonuses? I don't. Their bosses, however, are currently in negotiations with the Obama administration over their out-sized pay packages. In September, congress finally voted for an extension of unemployment insurance, though they had threatened not to. Why? Too expensive! Alas, they did not see their way clear to grant extensions in states with lower levels of "joblessness" and some magic number of long-term unemployed. Well, there aren't many high-flying financial district jobs in Utah, North Dakota and Nebraska, apparently.
In my opinion, none of these people employed at the bailed-out firms should get a bonus until every penny is paid back to the U.S. Treasury, with interest. My reasoning is this: Since the recipients' companies are now partly owned by the government, they are all now federal employees. Public employees don't get bonuses and stock options (well, at least not legally). It's as simple and fair as that. Oh, and they also don't pay lobbyists to interfere with the democratic process. I'd be willing to bet that just that last restriction would cause the treasury to be inundated with repaid bailout funds in short order.
We've heard this silliness espoused before, of course. Before the meltdown, the bonuses were meant to reward those who helped create those big profits. But even as these monoliths were sinking into insolvency, packets of cash and other perks were being handed out willy-nilly. For what, exactly? For helping sink the global economy?
It is interesting that these guys seem to think that they, more than anyone else, are deserving of special treatment. They do have a point. As early as December 2008, questions regarding how the banking industry was using the bailout funds were being ignored. Not only that, many bank officials were flat-out refusing to say what they were doing with the money. Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the congressional committee charged with overseeing the bailout, decried the fact that the money was handed over, no strings attached. Taxpayers should be able to find out how their money is being spent, she said. Have we found out any more, nearly a year later? No.
Others, not so well acquainted with the glam lifestyle, would surely be appreciative of just a smidge of the Wall Street firms' special status. Automakers, also recipients of taxpayer-funded "help", required their union workers to take a sharp cut in pay. Do you think they are now in line for bonuses? I don't. Their bosses, however, are currently in negotiations with the Obama administration over their out-sized pay packages. In September, congress finally voted for an extension of unemployment insurance, though they had threatened not to. Why? Too expensive! Alas, they did not see their way clear to grant extensions in states with lower levels of "joblessness" and some magic number of long-term unemployed. Well, there aren't many high-flying financial district jobs in Utah, North Dakota and Nebraska, apparently.
In my opinion, none of these people employed at the bailed-out firms should get a bonus until every penny is paid back to the U.S. Treasury, with interest. My reasoning is this: Since the recipients' companies are now partly owned by the government, they are all now federal employees. Public employees don't get bonuses and stock options (well, at least not legally). It's as simple and fair as that. Oh, and they also don't pay lobbyists to interfere with the democratic process. I'd be willing to bet that just that last restriction would cause the treasury to be inundated with repaid bailout funds in short order.
