Obama Misses Opportunity To Fix Wall Street

When the story broke last week that the Merrill Lynch rammed through executive bonuses in advance to merging with Bank of America, it set off a firestorm. Out of the $25 Billion that Merrill Lynch and Bank of America in TARP money last year, Merrill’s compensation committee voted to give nearly $4 billion in bonuses to executives.  Talk about rewarding failure. Your company has just been taken over, you took taxpayer money to survive and here, take some taxpayer money home with you. As further insult, the now merged Bank of America and Merril Lynch will get another $20B in TARP money this year.

Then the story hit that overall Wall Street bonuses were at the same level as they were in 2004, that is to say sizable, but at least 44% less than last year, coming in at $18.4 million.

So then President Obama gets revved up at calls the practice shameful.

I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses — the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004 — at a time when most of these institutions were teetering on collapse and they are asking for taxpayers to help sustain them, and when taxpayers find themselves in the difficult position that if they don’t provide help that the entire system could come down on top of our heads — that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

While it’s a good thing that Obama addressed the issue, sort of, he missed the mark. Wall street firms that didn’t take bailout money, that are not teetering on collapse can dole out bonuses all they want. It’s the bailout grabbing firms that shouldn’t be able to grant bonuses with taxpayer money. And maybe a little bit more than that, because while I understand that divisions within these financial conglomerates can have profit centers, and those workers should be compensated, the issue is that the corporate management that holds the conglomerate together failed catastrophically and lost the money that was generated to pay those profits.

Instead of strings attatched to the money these firms are getting we get this platitude from Obama:

There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses — now is not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them — and Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they’re receiving TARP money. We shouldn’t have to do that because they should know better. And we will continue to send that message loud and clear.

Loud and clear? How about some specifics there? Is it so hard to say that any financial institution that gets fed bail out money can’t give out bonuses? Can we require the sell off of assets to help pay for the bailout funds? Things like carpets, and corporate jets and artwork?

Meanwhile Senator Chris Dodd, who has his own probles with coziness to Wall Street is out there with statements such as these:

“I’m going to be urging — in fact not urging, demanding — that the Treasury Department figures out some way to get the money back,” Dodd said. “This is unacceptable.”

As the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Dodd was in a perfect place to put those strings on the bailout money in the first place. He didn’t. Now he wants to get the money back? How about the money going out now?

Obama said:

“Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion-dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they’re receiving TARP money,” the president continued. “We shouldn’t have to do that.”

No we shouldn’t. But it starts with the legislation crafted doesn’t it?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

  • Diane C: fool me once…..

    Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri:
    “We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer,” an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. “They don’t get it. These people are idiots. You can’t use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses.”

    THEY aren’t the idiots, Senator. With all due respect, Congress & the American people are the idiots…..

    McCaskill’s proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.

    NOW you want to impose limits?

    “We should have done it in the first place, but I don’t think any of us thought these guys were this stupid… “

    We didn’t think Congress was that stupid, either.

    ….but we’ve learned our lesson.”

    So did we, Senator.

  • anon

    never should have given them a dime to start with, Dodd should already be facing the music, along with Barney Frank, for their role in this.

    The only thing we should be discussing is the size of the tax cut it will take to get the economy rolling again.

    You can’t spend your way to prosperity.

  • turfgrrl

    anon: Tax cuts don’t spur economic activity, haven’t the last 8 years proven that handily?

  • anon

    Tax cuts actually do spur the economy. Creating more federal jobs and giving money to social welfare definitely do not.

  • turfgrrl

    anon: While the economics of tax cuts is a complicated issue, I’ll simplify it a bit, with the direct examination of the past 8 years of so-called tax cutting stimulus, every tax cut delivered out of the Bush administration was just moving money from one group of people to another.
    No new spending power was created, and thus the legacy of tax cuts under George W. Bush is the worst recession since WWII.

  • sono resident

    turfgrrl some people here are stuck in 1930 Hoover speak, they have their mantra—tax cuts—. Tax cuts when there’s a surplus, tax cuts when there’s a deficit.

  • anon

    “Every tax cut delivered out of the Bush administration was just moving money from one group of people to another.”

    using your same logic, how is BO’s plan different? The stimulus plan is nothing but moving money from one group of people to another, only ACORN isn’t going to do anything to create jobs, money for birth control isn’t going to create jobs, although it may reduce the number of future democrats.

    This stimulus plan is nothing but a collection of the democrats favorite pork projects. BO says no earmarks only because it’s nothing more than a huge collection of earmarks.

    I hope you’re happy with this because it’s your grandchildren who will be paying for it.

    Actually every tax cut delivered by Bush allowed people and businesses to keep the money that they earned to save, spend, or invest as they see fit. That’s the way it used to be in America but not anymore, Obama knows better than you. You role now is simply to earn it and turn it over to him.

  • anon

    ” While the economics of tax cuts is a complicated issue,”

    this article pretty much supports tax cuts and specifically references Bush tax cuts for bringing us out of recession.

  • sono resident

    1st, the recession of 2001 was incredibly minor, the decline in GDP during the period of the recession was less than .5%, this recession witnessed a 3.8% decline that would’ve been 5.1% if it weren’t for a 1.3% increase in inventories, which are simply excess merchandise counted as GDP. While, the Bush tax cuts helped in 2001, they also led to a $5 Trillion surplus vanishing and not counting the $1.2 Trillion deficit coming in the next FY, added another 4 Trillion to the debt. Sadly some people just don’t get it, this recession is markedly different than any other downturn since the Depression. The worst downturn since the Depression was the 1981-82 period, which was an induced recession. The Fed Reserve purposely increased interest rates to above 10% to choke off inflation. That worked. This downturn is a systemic breakdown of the financial system. The previous administration gave rebate checks to everyone, everyone simply saved it since in this type of a crisis the “thrift paradox” occurs. If you are going to preach Bush economics, than you need to know your info.. The past administration had deficit after deficit after deficit despite a variety of factors that led to a surplus in the late 90s. Earmarks–the worst kind of pork—exponentially increased. It was a Republican Senator and a Republican Governor who backed the Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere. The Republican Congress of 2000-2006 has absolutely no credibility when it comes to fiscal prudence. If $1 out of $4000 (200 million for contraceptives out of an 800 billion bill) were the ratio for wasted spending under Hastert/Lott/Frist we’d be in a lot better shape today than we are. All prominent economists, both left and right are calling for a major fiscal stimulus at the current time with substantial government spending. Do you really think that if we cut taxes that wouldn’t lead to a deficit? Moreover just like last time a good deal of the tax cut/rebate will be saved and not even enter into the national economy, meaning no GDP growth and a larger deficit.

  • Vet Park Junkie

    Hello? No one is lending any money. I’ve spoken to many in many lending institutions and… No one is lending any money. Banks are actively pushing lenders out of their portfolio. You have a revolving line of credit to smooth out your cash flows? Gone. Your customers are stretching out their payments? To bad, the bank won’t help. Lots, and I mean lots, of great companies are being treated like pariahs because the bank/lender aren’t lending to their customers or to each other, either.

    Banks are dumb? Wow, qu’elle surprise. First they under do their underwriting criteria, then they over do it. Too many people, checking the little box and moving stuff to the next with no understanding of what’s going on. With a good process, it might work. But guess what? It’s broken and will take years to retool a bank.

    Tax money to banks going into banker’s pockets? Shameful. I worry that too much money is going out to stuff that just won’t help the main problem. If credit isn’t unfrozen soon then those who aren’t in government already will be signing up at the WPA.

  • anon

    How do you figure tax cuts take money away from one group and gives it to another group. It is the exact opposite. Tax cuts let you keep more of your own money and doesn’t take your money and give it to others. Socialism and welfare are the ones who take money and redistribute wealth. It is this type of system that allows generations of families to remain on public assistance without any accountability.

  • anonymous

    While no one likes to hear it, Americans have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, hindering expansion of jobs. This 500 dollar tax rate is actually giving 500 dollars to people who didn’t even pay in 500 dollars in tax. Now is the time to allow people and corporations to keep as much of their earned income as possible and get the free loaders out of the system.

  • sono resident

    A lot of juice drinkers here. The % of people receiving public assistance is less than 5%. The Welfare Reform Act passed in the 1990s severely curtailed public assistance. Even before that the welfare queen driving the Cadillac was a myth. Likewise while we have high Corporate tax rates that might account for why so many corporations waste so much money, the effective tax rate is negligible. I always liked what Arnold Schwartzenegger said, I don’t mind paying a lot in taxes because it means I make a lot of money. The top 10% of income earners do pay an incredible amount of tax, but the net effect is they spend 10 days at the Maui Marriot instead of 14.

  • anon

    wow #13, jealousy is an ugly emotion, you should get a handle on that.

    Besides, there are provisions in the stimulus bill that repeal much of the Welfare Reform act. This will ensure the future supply of Democrat voters.

  • Anonymous

    #14–Very well said–you GET it.

  • sono resident

    jealous? reality, yes. The reality is that the people who pay high taxes have very high disposable income and many (not all) spend it and spend it and spend it, and would see minimal impact on their lifestyle if taxes go up incrementally. They have a perception that people that make less than them don’t work as hard, which is sometimes true but often not

  • Barnstorm

    #4

    If you think tax cuts actually DO spur the economy, you must also believe Reagan’s “trickle down” theories ought to kick in any day now.

    Giving the rich and huge corporations tax cuts only ensures the rich will get richer and NONE of that money will make it down to the lower levels. It will only go to some offshore tax shelter where the IRS can’t touch it.

    Do you not understand the GREED that has infected so much of the world and financial markets?

    And no, I’m not asking that the pendulum swing all the way in the other direction either. Socialism has it’s share of drawbacks as well, even though more people seem to benefit by it.

    In this country we’ve always managed to find a happy medium between both extremes. I have no doubt we will again.

  • OBAMA GIVE ME

    $100,000 stimulus cash in my hand, and I will kiss your butt in the middle of the Washington Mall, and call a press conference to film it.

    This is the mind set of a bit more than half the voters in the United States. I don’t see much kissing in the Mall coming up.

    Because we the folks are not going to see but 2% of that trillion buckarinos. I think the Dems want the Republicans to sign on to this bill because the need a FALL GUY if it fails. You see what they did to Bush, and the Republican Elephant has a long memory.

    If it works the Dems will take 100% of the credit, if it fails they will drop the blame on the Republicans who voted for it.

    In the end, it is a lose-lose situation for us the man in the street.

    We always get the shaft and the politicians always get the gold.

  • anonymous

    Let those who make money keep their money. Let those who don’t get off their ass and make their own. There used to be shame in taking handouts. Now people feel they are entitled to government support.

  • sono resident

    Like John Thain? Robert Rubin? and the other wall street investment bankers??? There seems to be a lot of ignorance about how much of the population is on the dole.

  • anonymous

    I like the flat tax. Although the upper middle class and wealthy end up supporting the rest of the population. A huge segment of the population gets more in services and aid than they pay for in taxes. Being on the dole doesn’t necessarily mean welfare. It just means you are not paying the amount of taxes equal to the value of the services you receive.

  • 1 of the SMD 3

    Speaking of taxes…………or failing to pay them…………..

    Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, expressed his remorse in a letter to the Finance Committee, saying he was “deeply embarrassed and disappointed” about what he said was an “unintentional” (yea right) failure to pay taxes that he owed. He recently filed amended returns for 2005-07 to report $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest.
    OK Tom, You got “caught”….How about the penalty’s??????????? Huh????? If it was an ordinary american citizen they would be in jail or billed for a LARGE penalty!! by the IRS.
    How come every politian obama is paying back has some kind of illegal past or commited some type of crime???????????

  • UPTICK RULE?

    This is the height of insanity and avarice isn’t it? But who is going to do anything about it? For example, we heard alot of Campaign Rhetoric about reinstating the Uptick Rule, but now we hear nothing. The SEC ACT OF 1934 established the rule to avoid the banksters and stock manipulators from prolonging the Depression – WHAT IS OBAMA’S SEC WAITING FOR? WHEN WILL THEY REINSTATE THE UPTICK RULE! PLEASE LISTEN TO YOUR BETTER ANGELS MR. O, STOP PROLONGING THE SHORT ABUSE OF GOOD STOCKS!

  • Pingback: Keeping Track of The Economic Score