Is it true that it was Tim Geithner himself that removed the salary caps for CEOs from the bill?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Tell me it isn't true.

If it is true, what kind of creature is that Geithner? Tax cheat, favors the crooks, anything else I should know?

[Thrill]

1. First time I've heard that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. Me too. Someone mentioned it to me so I was hoping someone knew nt

[soccermomforobama]

2. Not sure but I think something like cap on exec pay should be in

a Treasury bill not the stimulus package.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. What makes you say that? nt

[soccermomforobama]

7. cap on exec pay does not stimulate the economy

most of the talk about capping exec pay is tied to those who took TARP money. I just think that a measure like capping exec pay is better served coming from the Treasury and their attempts to get control of Wall Street.

[w4rma]

8. It should be a law, not a departmental rule. (nt)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

9. Thanks. Why not have a cap tho?

People don't want their money to go to bail out if the CEOs are making more money than God. That's the general concensus. The whole thing about paying mega-millions to CEOs is a relatively new development. Slowly, over time, the salaries of the CEOs became larger and larger and larger to absurdium.

[firedupdem]

4. I don't think anything regarding the banks is in the stimulus bill. n/t

[Avalux]

6. There was no such thing in the stim. Someone gave you erroneous info. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Here you go

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303288.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104488.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104488.html

[Avalux]

12. Thanks. I am confused now though -

if the provision is in the bill, then Geitner didn't remove it. Or am I still missing something? :shrug:

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Me too, my friend. I'm quite confused! nt

[firedupdem]

11. See this information....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8195939

[Avalux]

14. Well, it seems 'someone' stuck the cap in the bill.

Which would mean Geitner didn't take it out...who is responsible for adding it then?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. I know it'd been suggested back with the Bush bailout, and then it was suggested by Obama....

and the bank CEOs protested and said they would not stand for it.

[DFLforever]

18. Senator Dodd

[Avalux]

19. Thanks - good for him!

I am happy to hear this is in the bill. What a nice surprise.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

I can visualize this - Dems afraid of not getting campaign money from corps for doing this

There has GOT to be campaign reform ASAP!

[Pirate Smile]

15. McCaskill said her Amendment got pulled because it cost too much (and wasn't stimulative).

She said the Treasury makes over $18 billion (I think) in taxes on those bonuses which shows just how huge the number of them must be. That meant that if her cap was included in the Bill, it would count as $18 billion of spending (because of the lost taxes).

I'm sure they know that these provisions are very popular and can easily pass on their own.

They would rather include $18 billion worth of real spending or more stimulative tax cuts.

edit to add - I never heard anything about Geithner removing anything.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. I think it got pulled because corps donate money to campaigns....

that has got to stop. That's what keeps politicians beholden to CEOs.

[Pirate Smile]

22. I heard an interview with Claire where she specifically said that the amount in lost

revenue would count as spending in the bill.

I had never thought of it before but once she explained it, it made perfect sense.

There doesn't always have to be some nefarious purpose.

They dropped many good spending programs that seemed very stimulative in their quest to decrease the total $$$ of the bill. Programs which would have actually created jobs.

I like Claire's cap but it wasn't a job creator.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. They said that? I think that's so much bunk! That's like the trickle down theory LOL! nt

[Pirate Smile]

27. Which part?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. Oh! The part that CEO salaries alone fill the tax coffers of the U.S.

I've heard that argument. I've also heard the argument that CEOs won't work unless they're paid a lot of money. The protestors in this thing tho have been the bank CEOs. They don't like having to limit their pay down to what? Like 5% of what they usually make? Or less?

[Doctor_Horrible]

26. she also tweeted this a couple of hours ago...

Disappointed that exec comp language isn't stronger, at least it's in there.Got 90% of my accountability amendments.More audits, good thing.

[ProSense]

20. The caps haven't been pulled.

here

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. I just read it all over the Internet, from Wash Post, to Huffington Post, to everywhere

I'm utterly confused. :(

[ProSense]

23. WaPo originally stated that they met resistance, but today's article clearly states they're in

Stimulus Bill Has Tight Restrictions on Executive Pay

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I so hope you're right! nt

[LiberalFighter]

29. Geithner is not a member of Congress therefore he can't pull anything from a bill.

[asphalt.jungle]

30. he and rahm are the new boogeymen

apparently everything can be blamed on them.