Political Punch

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

« Previous | Main | Next »

When Did John McCain Become More Liberal Than Barney Frank on Executive Compensation?

September 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Re-assigned temporarily from the Obama campaign to Capitol Hill this week to cover the debate over the Wall Street bailout bill (HERE'S our "Good Morning America" look at the negotiations, so far), I have been struck by the debate over whether or not there should be any limits on executive compensation for those who work for firms receiving U.S. government aid.

The position of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in his own words: "The senior executives of any firm that is bailed out by Treasury should not be making more than the highest paid government official."

I double-checked with the McCain-Palin campaign that McCain was referring to (a) federal government employees (as opposed to the well-compensated football coaches at state universities) and (b) salaries, not contract employees, such as the men and women from Blackwater.

I was told, yes, McCain was referring to the president, who makes $400,000 a year.

But this is not the position taken by the senior Democrats negotiating with the Bush administration on this bill.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, are pushing for three provisions for firms that receive government aid:

1) no golden parachutes;
2) a "claw back" provision so that any bonuses awarded based on fraudulent or incorrect earnings reports are returned; and
3) no rewards for excessively risky business behavior.

This means executives of these firms can continue to receive huge salaries and immense bonuses.

Why? Why are liberals like Frank behind only these modest steps that allow Wall Street execs to continue to draw huge salaries?

Four basic reasons:

1) Democrats on these committees say they recognize that, even if they were to enact salary and bonus limits, a shell game would result and executives would find ways to pay themselves a lot of money, regardless;
2) Democrats on these committees say that these executives have hard jobs;
3) Democrats on these committees say this problem isn't going to be solved by chasing experts out of the industry; and
4) there is no way the Bush administration would sign off on the kinds of compensation limits McCain is talking about. Even these modest steps are meeting with great resistance by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Does McCain not share these views of Barney Frank and the like?

The National Review's David Frum calls this "cheap demagoguery" by McCain.

To the contrary, it might be smart presidential politics. Obama's only articulated position on executive compensation is that there should be no golden parachutes; McCain wants to be seen as standing up for "the little guy," and his position has a certain emotional appeal.

And on that level, in the gut, many people personally might have no problem with the government confiscating these Wall Street executives' Lear jets and Hamptons mansions and selling them off, proceeds to go to the Treasury.

But in the real world, the McCain executive compensation position is a political non-starter and, therefore, an unserious proposal.

"I don't know who the conservatives are and who the liberals are," Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, just said during a congressional hearing.

I hear ya, Congressman Paul.

- jpt

September 24, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (44)

User Comments

Yes, lets reward these parasites with a huge compensation package. So they can retire to nurse their wounds. While the rest of us bleed to death.

Posted by: Ken | Sep 26, 2008 4:22:59 PM

How come no one is talking about the hugh donation obama took from the failing industry, or how barney frank and shumer were on the watch dog group to prevent this from happening? I heard barney telling Congress 5 years ago the there was no problem with the system and if there was he would not bail it out. I guess he didn't have enough time for him and he parasite pals to suck all the blood out of the people.

Posted by: Ron | Sep 26, 2008 9:40:22 AM

Marty,

I know, I missed the boat for the most part. But I still think it's a good bet.

I live in RI and we had a statewide credit union insurance company failure as well as a few credit unions in the 80's. The state taxpayers had to pick up the tab. We sold a lot of bonds and it took 20 years to pay it all off. Our economy had this anchor tied to it and we missed out on the 90's boom and we've been in a recession for about a year. It's a great microcosm for what's happening at the national level. I can see 20 years of stagflation ahead.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 8:37:02 PM

To Woody -

Why so late to the gold party? You should have bought gold and silver when Bush was selected in 2000. It has proven to be wise a investment.

Posted by: Marty | Sep 24, 2008 8:20:44 PM

McCain is sucking all the political profits out of this crisis he possibly can.

Panderer in Chief!

Posted by: cincyr | Sep 24, 2008 5:20:21 PM

"But what you propose seems quite reasonable even practical in the face of a crisis."

Whoa, reasonable AND practical on the same day! Note to self, play Powerball on the way home.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 4:30:57 PM

I can't believe how impulsive and inept McCain looks right now. How good would a candidate with real world financial experience look right now? A candidate with executive experience? A candidate with internation relations experience? Mitt Romney, we hardly knew ya.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 4:21:09 PM

Woody,

That suggestion was not mine(Dodd may have brought it up). I am hardly an expert on financial matters either.

But what you propose seems quite reasonable even practical in the face of a crisis.

Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 24, 2008 4:16:40 PM

So McCain now wants to rush back to DC to fix the mortgage mess.

3 days ago he was unsure if he would even show up to vote.

When he has missed the most votes of any Senator this session (an astounding 64%).

When his polls numbers are cratering.

Senator McCain might have been given benefit of the doubt. Candidate McCain has shown he deserves no benefit.

Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 24, 2008 4:05:33 PM

Ryan,

I'm no financial expert by any means, but based on everything I've read so far I think what you propose would be reasonable. Paulson thinks a partial bailout or measured approach would send shockwaves of fear running through international markets. He might be right, I don't know.

It's going to take months just to sort out who owns what, where all the worthless derivative products are and just how many bad mortgages are out there. Some financial commentators both liberal and conservative don't think it's as bad as it seems when you get down to the x's and o's. Unfortunately markets are still driven mostly by greed and fear so the x's and o's sometimes don't matter as much as they should.

If I could play Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee for a moment I would propose something like $100-200B to Fannie and Freddie to keep them afloat for a month or two, establish an RTC as soon as possible and immediately start sorting out the good from the bad. I would hope within 30 days we would have a much better definition of the magnitude of the problem and the overall cost. I would also keep all this other nonsense the Democrats are trying to tag on strictly off limits.

Finally, I would have the RTC sell all assets as soon as possible, even at a loss rather than waiting around for 20 years. I would also dissolve Fannie and Freddie, or at least take them out of the buying market. Let them die a slow death. That way mortgage sellers would either have to hold them or find a private entity to buy it. Accountability going forward.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 4:05:02 PM

McCain wants to postpone the Debate?
It is called Multi-tasking. The President does it everyday. If McHidding Again, wants to be LIKE a Persident, Multi-Task the Debate and talk about the Bill.
Why can't he at least pretend, to act as a Predident. Uggg.
He just isn't ready.
Even he admits, his vote shouldn't count.
Flip-Flopper

Posted by: historyforgotten | Sep 24, 2008 3:30:56 PM

At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details,” spokesman Bill Burton said.

Posted by: srivera | Sep 24, 2008 3:30:20 PM

How much of a shell game can the execs at the GSE,'s, Lehmans, and Merril Lynch while the FBI is investigating them for fraud? But if some of these are coming under government control, should they be reduced to the federal government salary structure? Also no bailout money should be going to executives, of course its impossible to ensure that. So the best you can do is try to make sure as little as possible goes to the execs.
Golden parachutes was in the 2005 Chuck Hagel bill McCain spoke out in favor of and the democrats didn't like it then so its not as if these posistions are new.

Posted by: Zaggs | Sep 24, 2008 3:25:49 PM

These guys are already millionaires many times over. Still, it's a good move by McCain, and average folks will appreciate the populist symbolism. The Democrats could have done the same, but McCain beat them to the punch. They can't be seen as following the McCain lead. It's not good politics.

Posted by: independent | Sep 24, 2008 3:08:19 PM

McCain postpones the Debate? NOW, he wants to sit down at the Senate?
I thought McCain said his vote should not matter anyways, during his speech.

Posted by: historyforgotten | Sep 24, 2008 3:04:49 PM

Woody,

Given that Paulson is saying $50B a month is what will be required, do you think it would be more prudent to approve a limited bailout for now (not a blank check) but have it scaled for the remainder of Bush's term?

That way the new administration could make adjustments.

Or do you think this is a one shot deal?

Posted by: Ryan C | Sep 24, 2008 2:53:44 PM

I noticed on a program, the other day. O'Reilly said he was proud to be a Capitolist. If Capitolism, caused the fall of our Economy, was he responsible too? Why didn't he choose Democracy, instead of Capitolism? Does he feel that Middle Eastern Capitolism is a good role? Doesn't Capitolism retain a Dictatorship? Hitler used Genicide to excuss his Capitolistic views. Hilter Hoarded the treasures, of those he killed. Capitolism is basically Greed. Killing for anothers property, tend to describe a Capitolist. Does O'Reilly wish there was a better term to describe himself? Just curious.

Posted by: historyforgotten | Sep 24, 2008 2:41:24 PM

Blip,

I think you went off the deep end there. First off, there haven't been any conservatives to vote for since Reagan. Even he wasn't a demagogue. He learned how to work with Tip O'Neil and was the last President to pass amnesty for illegals. He comprimised, what a concept. Same thing with Bill Clinton. He had such a strong desire to be beloved that he governed from the center and worked with that most evil enemy of the left Newt Gingrich. Hell, Clinton was a lot more fiscally conservative than W.

This mess was caused by some bad policy decisions, mostly by Carter and Clinton but backed up by W as well, in my opinion. And of course unchecked greed was the final ingredient.

There is no doubt that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Is it perfect? No. Sometimes it takes generations for people to achieve middle class status but it's worth the wait. I know, I've gone through the process. Is there more work to do? Absolutely, but these are exactly the times we should not panic and set ourselves back 50 years.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 2:08:49 PM

This ‘bailout’ is just another damned band-aid and will fail like all the rest have failed.
It’s time for americans to make some hard choices. Hopefully they will choose in favor of their children and grandchildren and pass on a healthy world.
We can’t begin to heal until we hit bottom. and we can’t hit bottom until we put down the damned shovel.
Thinking this bailout will fix anything or bring a lastinmg change is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself by the handle.

Posted by: HP Boston | Sep 24, 2008 1:54:58 PM

Instead of focusing on Wall Street executives' compensations, I have a humble suggestion.

Why not fund Fannie and Freddie (since they are now gov't. entities) and use them as the institution to bail out ailing mortgages. This way, mortgages can be retooled, and homeowners get to keep their homes. Once they start repaying back their mortgages, money will flow back in, and the taxpayer bailout will be aimed at the rightful target.

This way, the Treasury can then pick and choose which companies are worthy of the rest of the bailout money, and any profit from this goes back to the taxpayer. Of course there will be no golden parachutes! Instead, executives should be "rewarded" with prison sentences if found guilty of fraudulent practises.

Does this sound too simplistic?

Posted by: BJ | Sep 24, 2008 1:45:02 PM

You forgot a number....


#5. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are up to their necks in government sponsored corporations payola.

Posted by: Captain America | Sep 24, 2008 1:44:36 PM

Beckie... if, by make mincemeat, you mean recite memorized bits of GOP dogma... you are probably right.

She's like Michelle Bachman or Jean Schmidt. She recites lines from the little red book, and all the GOP dead-enders nod in unison.

Posted by: Blip | Sep 24, 2008 1:33:38 PM

"If we own the companies then we have every right to set a salary limit. If they are privately owned, then more power to them."

Mack, I thought you were a capitalist. Do we have salary limits today for US goverment employees or their contractors? No, we don't. Show me where in the US Code we as taxpayers can dictate salary limits for public or private employees.

Also, we taxpayers will not own any stake at all in the companies. We will assume all the bad investments made by the companies. A new Resolution Trust Corporation will be formed with one single revenue stream, the American taxpayer. AIG, Fannie and Freddie get to unload their dog poop on us but they will remain as they are in structure.

Do you expect to get a monthly shareholder statement from the US Treasury telling you how your shares of AIG, Fannie and Freddie are doing? You won't own any shares of those companies. You're simply backing up the RTC.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 1:29:48 PM

Don't pity Palin, David! She is just biden her time! She will make mince meat of the old-timer!

Posted by: Beckie | Sep 24, 2008 1:22:20 PM

"He insulted women by choosing a ditz as running mate."

The Governor of Alaska is a ditz? Which state are you the Governor of, genius?

Posted by: Mack | Sep 24, 2008 1:06:28 PM

"Taxpayers have absolutely no right to determine salaries. "

If we own the companies then we have every right to set a salary limit. If they are privately owned, then more power to them.

Posted by: Mack | Sep 24, 2008 1:04:51 PM

I, too am watching Biden and i think its over for mc cain. He insulted women by choosing a ditz as running mate. He comes across as out of touch and senile . time to clean house

Posted by: mattyB | Sep 24, 2008 1:04:23 PM

Is McCain proposing a "New Deal" style
salary system or a pro-sports salary cap? Where's that in our platform?

Posted by: Bill D. Fence | Sep 24, 2008 12:59:04 PM

"Woody, you should remember that taxpayers are bailing these failed companies out.

I think that taxpayers have every right to set limits on salaries.

It's like a welfare to work program for bajillionaires."

You're entitled to your opinion but salary limits are a Marxist concept. If you don't like the fact that taxpayers are bailing out these companies, then you have options. Complain to your Senator and Congressman. Vote the bums out. Start a recall petition. Personally I'm against the bailout. I say let the companies fail.

If these particular executives are found to be involved in criminal activity, then we should absolutely seize their assest a la Ken Lay and reclaim as much as we can. To use these cases as a means to set wage controls on select individuals going forward is obscene.

Taxpayers have absolutely no right to determine salaries. Do I have a right to determine where my tax dollars go? No. We live under a constitutional Republic. We elect representatives to do our bidding and trust they will do the right thing with our tax money, create just laws, etc. Just because I pay taxes doesn't mean I have the right to determine which ships the Navy should buy, what cheese we're going to give away or where Congress buys their pens. It doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 12:57:47 PM

Blip, when you say "welfare to work" are you proposing that the next time a failed mortgage giant like Freddie Mac pays McCain's campaign manager $15,000 a month he will be expected to do something for it?

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:54:32 PM

McCain's message is all over the map. He's flopping around like a fish in a boat and all Obama has to do is be quiet and find a way to shut Biden up and this thing is over.

So what do we have to look forward to? A dismal economy, strained military, Middle East problems, sky high gas and heating oil prices, and a President who believes America is inherently a bad country that needs to heal its soul. Oh, and a Democratic Congress eager to show the new President who the real boss is.

Jimmy Carter part deux, here we come!

All we need are some high inflation numbers and double digit mortgage rates. Don't worry, they're coming soon. Time to buy gold and ride out the storm for four years.

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 12:46:18 PM

Woody, you should remember that taxpayers are bailing these failed companies out.

I think that taxpayers have every right to set limits on salaries.

It's like a welfare to work program for bajillionaires.

Posted by: Blip | Sep 24, 2008 12:39:32 PM

Executives should get paid what the market will support in a free market society. If we're abandoning the free market system let's be out in the open about it. Setting limits on pay is certainly not regulation, it's flat out control of the market place. Here we go down the slippery slope!

Posted by: Woody | Sep 24, 2008 12:36:59 PM

He's just pandering.

He's falling behind so he is trying to campaign as an economic populist. What else is there to know.

Five months ago, he was embracing torture for Republicans.

Four months ago he was sucking up to anti-Catholic extremists.

Three months ago he was promising to cut taxes and de-regulate Wall Street.

Two months ago he was calling Obama an inexperienced celebrity.

One month ago, he was calling himself a "change" agent and declaring Obama an insider.

Three weeks ago he was asking for an end to negative campaigning.

Two weeks ago he released a barrage of lies against Obama.

One week ago he wanted to deregulate the Health Care industry to make it more like financial markets.

Today he is going to hang the CEOs from the highest tree.

This is what desperation looks like.

Expect his campaign to get really, really ugly in October. He's got his back to the wall. He's already abandoned his principles and embraced lying. He's got no place else to go so he is going to bet it all on the hope that desperate attacks will give him a chance in November.

Just make sure you are ready for it. And take it with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Blip | Sep 24, 2008 12:33:58 PM

Shouldn't the headline be: McCAIN TAKES WIDER STANCE THAN BARNEY FRANK IN PAY DISPUTE?"

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:33:04 PM

John McCain is practicing knee jerk politics. He makes these comments based on their sound byte quality rather than any actual policy application.

Posted by: Danny | Sep 24, 2008 12:29:16 PM

An earlier headline of this blog read: "WHILE ON TICKET THAT HAS OPTED OUT OF FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS, BIDEN SEEKS THEM FOR FAILED PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN." With only minor changes, this entry could read:
WHILE ON TICKET RUN BY PAST RECIPIENTS ON OBSCENELY INFLATED CORPORATE PAYOUTS OR BUY OFFS, McCAIN SEEKS THEM FOR FUTURE RESCUED COMPANIES.

See, no disconnect. While more consistent, I like the heartburn the current head will give to the religious right. McCain more liberal than Barney Frank. Priceless.

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:28:27 PM

This is getting elected liberalism, nothing long term. McGrandStanding

Posted by: Perspective | Sep 24, 2008 12:27:02 PM

I have lost all respect for Senator John McCain.

He will say or do anything to get elected.

Well who can blame him. At 72, it is his last shot at the WH.

Mr. McCain, let the lies continue and let the pandering continue.

Posted by: Dare Nigeria | Sep 24, 2008 12:18:52 PM

So, as I see it, according to John McCain, college football coaches should make more than the Vice-Chair of UBS, Phil Gramm? Will Phil be joining him at the press conference when they announce the pay cut?

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:14:13 PM

You mean Joe Biden who was in favor of dividing Iraq into three countries.

You mean Joe Biden the MBNA stooge.

You mean Joe Biden who got his 4 million dollar compound on the cheap from the credit card industry.

You mean Joe Biden who is so out of it thinks FDR was on tv in 1929.

Joe Biden who called Palin Lt Governor.


Joe Biden who lied and said he was shot at in iraq and plane forced down in afghanistan.


Joe Biden who told a reporter he had a higher iq, lied about his grades, lied about his scholorship.


Joe Biden is a pompous blowhard.

Joe Biden Mr 5 draft defernments.

Joe Biden is a joke. He is a bad joke.

Posted by: Jeff | Sep 24, 2008 12:05:20 PM

Based on his post below, David apparently thought Mr. Tapper was still covering the all important Biden beat instead of being sent to cover a minor issue like the economic meltdown.

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:04:47 PM

To paraphrse Jake Tapper in an earlier blog on Biden and campaign finance:
There is nothing illegal or immoral in John McCain campaigning on a limit to executive salaries. But for him to do so with an economic adviser who was given a $40+ million golden parachute by the company that fired her and a campaign manager who received over $2 million for apparently no work from failed mortgage giant Freedie aMac or an affiliated front group? There is a disconnect. That Jake does not mention.

Posted by: ricky | Sep 24, 2008 12:02:18 PM

I'm watching Biden right now and geez I pity Palin for next week. I'm sort of decided and he's making a VERY compelling case for Obama.

Posted by: David | Sep 24, 2008 12:00:51 PM

Post a comment