In July of this year, the House of Representatives passed the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009, introduced by Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). The act amends select sections of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by requiring:
- an annual non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes. This measure is called "Say on Pay".
- compensation committees comprised of independent directors
- increased disclosure and regulation of incentive-based compensation programs for financial institutions.
interesting if the Congress was forced to abide by the rules that it devises for others (and us all) . That is:
1) Require an annual vote of shareholders (ie American voters) before Congress itself receives a pay raise. For good measure make this binding, not non-binding. Give the American public a "Say" on Congressional "Pay" and see what the answer is. What'da say Barney Frank?
2) Have an independent commission evaluate the earmark spending in Congress and how that contributes to indirectly compensating Congress and their families. Have you ever seen a member of Congress leave Congress poorer than when he/she entered?
3) Consider that when Congress can propose and pass laws that use the tax code, the regulatory system, and other government arms, appendages, and programs to in-fact "tailor" legislation in order to reward supporters, punish opposition, and to provide wide and narrow incentives to promote their political stripes that the end of such manipulations is that the public loses. We are supposed to be governed narrowly and evenly in a manner that treats us all as equally as possible. That we are not so treated is the root of the "corruption" that has cancerously taken over our political process at high levels. Examples are everywhere but consider one. A recent health care bill in the Senate would exempt Nevada (coincidentally Senate Leader Harry Reid's home state) from certain health care costs. A formula was chosen (in order to feign 'fairness') that also similarly just affects 2 or 3 other states. But why should the Congress write legislation that picks winners and losers so blatantly. That is a recipe for nefarious practices. Why not write simple legislation that affects ALL 50 states the SAME? Too bad Congress doesn't watch itself with the same zeal with which it watches everybody else.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 23
There is a saying invented for the express purpose of describing when government regulates financial institutions, something about a fox ... and a chickenhouse. Why not let the chckens have a say in how much if anything the fox gets paid? Might decrease his appetite in general through the year if he knew his "salary" would decline by at least the number of pounds of chicken feed he purloined during the previous year.
Now, about excluding some states? And one is Harry Reid's state? Okay, now let's recap. Congress will not participate in whatever they're cooking up for the rest of us. And now a few of the more influential folks have excluded their states too? Isn't it time for everyone to wake up and smell the coffee?
I like your ideas here Ken.
I wish the people now in charge - no not jsut now - would get the idea that our government is for ALL the people and treats ALL fairly and equally. Setting up programs that only benefit one special interest group is wrong in my opinion. It punishes everyone for the problems or success of few.
There needs to be a revisit to the purpose of the 10th amendment. Different States have different needs. i.e. an agragcultural state has different needs from a state whos primary function is manufacturing. A state with heavy population has much different needs than a state with little population.
The Central government must be reigned in. Our Representives in Congress of both houses need to be reminded of who they work for and not their political party.
After allowing a progressive income tax system (which I do for the sake of this discussion), the other unending ways that the government discriminates are the source of the corruption and "government-chosen winners/losers" that we see at every turn. Those discriminations need to be addressed and eliminated to the maximum extent possible.
Another factor would be maybe your congressman would have to meet with his people or they will easily vote him out. When you "represent" 1-5 million people, you cannot really represent many of them.
You see, that's my complaint about this post and all the others like it. Congress passed this legislation because of ARROGANT, PUBLIC CORRUPTION on the part of the AIG CEO, and others like him. They begged us for money to stay out of bankruptcy... and then took it home for THEMSELVES! And you guys want Congress to stay out of their compensation business? HELL NO!!! Not so long as it's MY money they're paying themselves.
What is the point? The CEO of AIG took our money, he's Corrupt.
The Congress takes our Money but they are not Corrupt because the CEO of AIG did it.
Your reasoning lacks a certian air of intelligence.
Col George is right, you exercise bad logic. There is no Constitutional Authority for Congress to require private companies to handle their own compensation issues in any particular way. A case can possibly be made for those companies receiving bailout funds but certainly not just any (and every) private company as is the goal of the latest Barney Frank excursion into the land of tyrannical government.