Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Unanswered Question Watch: What On Earth Was Obama Talking About On Executive Compensation and the Bailout Bill?

September 25, 2008 12:50 PM

Yesterday I asked just what policy proposal Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., could possibly have been talking about when he said, "the American people should not be spending one dime to reward the same Wall Street CEOs whose greed and irresponsibility got us into this mess."

What does that mean? Zero compensation for these executives? A firewall between the government aid and salaries/bonuses for executives?

It's an issue because Democrats on Capitol Hill say such a proposal doesn't make any sense.

So, it's a day later and still no answer from Camp Obama as to what he meant.

- jpt

UPDATE: The Obama campaign responds with the following:

"The answer is the same type of oversight and authority to limit CEO compensation that was put into the Fannie/Freddie legislation this summer, and which Democratic lawmakers are currently working on in the context of the bailout package.

"*  The legislation passed in July gave the Fannie/Freddie regulator the authority to review CEO compensation packages. Specifically, Sec. 1114 allowed the director to 'prohibit or limit' any payments to CEOs that were 'contingent on the termination' of their affiliation (HR 3221).

"*  On Sept. 9, Obama wrote a letter to Paulson and Lockhart (Fannie/Freddie regulator), urging them to use this provision to eliminate the golden parachute payments to the outgoing CEOs of Fannie and Freddie (full text of the letter is below).  (On the same day, McCain/Palin wrote an op-ed in the WSJ praising the administration’s Fannie/Freddie plan, while not even mentioning the CEO comp issue).

"*  Now, Democratic lawmakers are working on provisions that would limit executive compensation in important ways. When Obama says we should not be spending any taxpayer money to reward CEOs, he is referring to ensuring that these types of provisions are in the final bill to avoid unjust enrichment.

"*  If you look at Sec. 17 of Sen. Dodd’s draft legislation, it includes a) authority to the secretary to limit excessive compensation packages; b) a clawback provision for performance-based compensation in circumstances of earnings restatements; and c) limits on golden parachutes.

"*  If you look at Sec. 9 of Rep. Frank’s draft legislation, it includes similar provisions, including a prohibition on severance payments."

The Obama campaign concludes: "Obama is closely working with congressional leaders to determine the exact parameters of these provisions. But he has clearly and consistently articulated the principle that such restrictions must be included to ensure that the taxpayer resources being put on the line do not go to unjustly enrich CEOs and management of these institutions."

None of that, by the way, is ensuring that "not one dime" goes to greedy CEOs. "Unjust enrichment" is a totally different thing.

September 25, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (88)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jake - Could you do an "UNANSWERED QUESTION" clock for the blog so you can time how long it took each campaign to get back to your unanswered questions? It took Obama's camp 24hrs ish to get back to you and you're still awaiting an answer on the Ted Stevens question. It'd be nice to see a running tally - to which you can add time for future unanswered questions from both campaigns.

Posted by: kyle | Sep 26, 2008 12:06:41 PM

Oops...I should have more closely read your words: you stated "goes to" -- which is even more different than Obama's "reward."

Posted by: Nixon's the One | Sep 26, 2008 7:53:18 AM

C'mon Jake--you're smarter than that! Obama specifically said "reward"--not "give" as you have erroneously stated in your closing paragraph. Try pondering for a while on the difference between these two verbs and get back with me on it.

Posted by: Nixon's the One | Sep 26, 2008 7:46:43 AM

Maybe this is just the natural correction that was always coming...Maybe the Repubs are just claiming a severe problem to reward their friends one last time. If this is so dire, why did GWB invite the candidateds and true to plot, the thing fell apart? Maybe this is just a very severe case of politics and smearing... after all, if the action is monstrous enough, who would EVER believe it is done by peoiple in trusted positions? This makes no sense , given the narrative leading up to this situation, unless it is a set-up somehow. Maybe the Democrats had better not support this initiative. It is beginning to really reek of phoney.

Posted by: Curtis | Sep 26, 2008 1:50:53 AM

Maybe the CEOs should stand in corner for a two hour special on TV and receive no compensation for driving Wall Street and main street into the ditch. Maybe Bush should too for waiting 38 days before an election instead of taking care of this years ago. McCain just hugged Bush a second time on this disgraceful grandstanding for what? So he can score a few brownie points.

Posted by: Mark | Sep 25, 2008 7:20:21 PM

Roger Miller

Barack Obama will heal the planet. He is the One and the movement is spreading. He will be POTUS and McCain and the republican neanderthals will be sent back to their caves.

Look at the polls.

Posted by: obama ascension | Sep 25, 2008 5:56:02 PM

As Dorothy Parker woud say...
What fresh hell today?

Posted by: i am so I can!!!! | Sep 25, 2008 5:08:08 PM

Because he really has no clue? His advisors need more time to think of something? He wants to figure out another way to blame McCain?--or Hillary? He's going to give back the money he got from them? He just wants to see what everone else says first?

Posted by: RL in Illinois | Sep 25, 2008 4:18:28 PM

Ryan C:

I agree with you. These right wingers are ignorant and easily fooled. Now our country is being looted by GOP crooks.

Thanks right wingers! No go back to your home school.

Posted by: McHooverville | Sep 25, 2008 3:59:06 PM

"I don't understand why there has to be debates when the candidates say what they mean in their campaigning."

Ladies and gentleman I give you John McCain's base, the willfully ignorant voter.

We seriously need to improve education in this country before the easily led herd of right wingers drives us off a cliff.

Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 25, 2008 3:33:39 PM

No, what the Congressional Delegation was afraid of was that McCain would do to the hold-outs exactly the same thing that he has been threatening to do regarding "pork" earmark requests:

"I will make them famous....you will know their names and I will make them famous...."

No one wants to be the ones blamed for an agreement not being reached.

With House members up every two years, every Presidential year is also a HOUSE ELECTION year.....................

Posted by: SandyB | Sep 25, 2008 2:54:31 PM

LP says: What do you consider to be 'free'?
===

I consider "not one dime" to be free.

Posted by: MayBee | Sep 25, 2008 2:38:59 PM

When obama opens his mouth with out his team taking 2 days to make up a scripted message, he always has to put his foot in his mouth for not making sense, then spends the next 5 days explaining away and making excuses for what he said.

Obama is worthless and Cares only about himself, his image and getting votes.

Obama has proven that over many times.

Posted by: seah | Sep 25, 2008 2:38:33 PM

Force the executives to go to humiliating credit counseling sessions. If its good enough for ordinary people, its good enough for them.

Then, hold their arms behind their backs while the rest of us smack the *7&^% out of them.

Posted by: Mike | Sep 25, 2008 2:31:36 PM

I don't understand why there has to be debates when the candidates say what they mean in their campaigning. I believe its a waste of time. Obama took three days training for this debate and he doesn't care about the country just about himself. Why did he need training. McCain doesn't need training. If elected will Obama need training again? Or will Biden be running the country while Obama stands in back of him. It was rumored that Biden might step down. I really don't think he wants the job of VP.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Sep 25, 2008 2:28:24 PM

Since the CEO's are the cause of Lehman's downfall plus make out of control salaries for themselves the government should have them pay back one million dollars each out of their own money and I am sure they have several millions of dollars in the bank. What plan does the government have for bailing them out and is the the government going to raise the taxpayer's to cover the cost of the bail out. Biden and Ron Paul both said we should not bail them out. If we bail them out what happens next and if we don't bail them out will we have a repeat of 1929? According to the news house republican's have not signed to a bail out. And what happened to Obama. He looked like he was reading a script posted to the wall. McCain was speaking in front of an audience.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Sep 25, 2008 2:21:37 PM

Obama was fine with Jim Johnson getting 25 million golden parachute.

Jim Johnson is still on the Obama campaign.

Jim Johnson would head Obama's transition.

Posted by: Jeff | Sep 25, 2008 2:19:24 PM

Seems pretty clear to me. He's talking about things like the $2.5 billion "bankruptcy bonus" that the folks at Lehman have set aside for themselves. Who on earth has ever heard of executives rewarding themselves for bankrupting their company. Carly Fiorina came close when she got a $42 million golden parachute after forcing down HP's stock prices and laying off 20,000 employees.

The Lehman boys make her look like a piker.

Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | Sep 25, 2008 2:16:01 PM

It has been almost twenty minutes with no answer from Camp Tapper. He hasn't even copied the other ABC post on Biden, so he can't really be busy. Obama mentioned "dime" in his statement about executive compnesation. Was that a backdoor attempt through a coinage reference to play the race card via currency? There is a white President on the dime. Or is Obama knocking Roosevelt's injuries? FDR's people don't want him to talk about that.

Posted by: ricky | Sep 25, 2008 2:13:21 PM

Spock is right. Paulson is a sell out. I cannot believe RINO's like McCain are surrendering the Reagan Revolution to Nancy SFValues Pelosi and BFFrank.

Posted by: Bill D. Fence | Sep 25, 2008 2:04:08 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS