Grown Ups Talking

If I hear one more word about how it is UnAmerican to cap executive salaries my head is going to explode. I am talking about, of course, President Obama’s new rules to limit executive compensation at the financial institutions that took government bailout money.

As you know, one of my pet peeves is the claim that America is a free market. It is not. It may be the closest thing the world has to a free market, but it is not the Real McCoy. If it was, we would have let dozens of big banks – and hundreds of little ones – fail. But we did not.

No, the great free market cheerleader, Cowboy Bush, rushed to rescue the banks, which was probably a good move. Then yesterday, President Obama placed rules around executive compensation for any company that took taxpayer money to prop up their bank.

That too is a good move. Until the company pays the taxpayers back, they have to be responsible with their money.

The big outcry over the cap – including all the jabber coming from Fox Watchers (my friends and relatives that watch Fox News and somehow think the reporters and commentators have something valid to offer) – is that these financial institutions will not be able to retain competent managers if they cannot use golden handcuffs. In other words, if the banks don’t offer huge pay and perk packages, these captains of the banking industry will walk away from their jobs.

That argument falls flat on its face. If these guys were so competent in the first place, then why did their banks nose dive as soon as the economy got shaky, and insist on a government handout to survive. You say it’s the economy? Well, not exactly – big banks like the Royal Bank of Canada and little banks like Kearny Federal Savings and Loan – are doing just fine. That’s probably because some banks had competent managers.

Let’s face it, paying someone a lot of money was never a true measure of competence – it was just a measure of bold deal making and aggressive negotiations. And that’s what got banks into trouble in the first place.

If the bigwigs don’t like the salary cap, let them leave; within 5 minutes of their departure, 100 more bank executives will be lined up to take their place. After all, that’s how the free market works. – Chianti

All hail the conquering warriors – weekend, Monday night, and some Thursday warriors that is. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal both ran front page stories on the Super Bowl this morning. I suppose the World Cup champions get the same kind of royal treatment.

Don’t me wrong. I watched most of the game, and enjoyed it, even after Springsteen performed at half time. I understand the nuances, and appreciated how Pittsburgh Steeler’s linebacker James Harrison faked a blitz, fell back into the pocket, snagged Kurt Warner’s short pass, and ran it back for the longest touchdown in Super Bowl history. I know that Santonio Holmes’s end zone catch will be forever linked with Franco Harris’s 1972 Immaculate Reception. I get it.

But I think the nation, and perhaps the world judging by the front-page status the game received by two international newspapers, is more enamored with victory than with football. The world loves a winner.

As put so succinctly by Sean Connery’s character John Mason in the movie “The Rock,” after Nicholas Cage’s character insists that he is doing his “best,” Mason spits back: “Your best! Loser always whine about their ‘best!’ Winner go home and f#*k the prom queen.”

And so it goes, winners and their macho sycophants are measured in victories. Not by the effort and pure grit expended by someone that overcomes a lack of talent with pure determination; not by the time spent with an ailing friend or loved one in place of schmoozing with clients; not by making the decision to stay home to read a book to your kids and tuck them in, rather than work late for the 20th time this month.

Well, I guess I just define winners a little differently, and I am unapologetic about believing that nice guys very often finish first in life – it’s just that those types of winners never make front-page news. – Chianti

Yes, well, the Republicans really are weasels.

Obama presents his stimulus package, none of them vote for it, but in the knowledge that it’s going to pass no matter what they do. This way they have it both ways. “We can make our mealy-mouthed complaints about how ’socialist’ it all is, and this will go on our record,” they seem to be saying. But meanwhile Something Gets Done.

It probably won’t be great for everyone, therefore the Rs can point to Obama and say,"See? We told you so!” If it actually did not pass then their constituents would be up in arms that the government is not doing anything.

So they win because Something Is Happening, but they get to whine about it for the next 8 years.

And I, Pomerol, say, “What a bunch of weasels."—Pomerol;

Pomerol makes an excellent point about how the Republicans in Congress are having their cake and eating it too. The scoundrels don’t vote for the stimulus package, so constituents can’t accuse them of supporting big government. Meanwhile, they know the package will pass, so they don’t risk the ire of citizens hoping for some relief now.

Despicable indeed, but politics as usual.

My sense is, however, that the stimulus package will be viewed as a positive move, especially if it is linked to the beginning of some sort of recovery, no matter how small. That means opponents that run against these Republicans in the coming years will be able to shout from the roof tops that these lawmakers didn’t have the foresight, guts or brains to vote for the stimulus package.

Imagine what people said about lawmakers who voted against The New Deal. Then again, I’m sure no one remembers them. –Chianti.

After eight long years of Cowboy Bush’s self-aggrandising claims that he was a “uniter” we may actually have someone in the White House that unites the nation.

Yesterday, President Obama was said to “woo” Republicans ahead of the House vote on the stimulus bill – which is now up to $900 billion.

To do that, Obama went to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers, which is an unusual move for a president. This trip to Congress seems to indicate that he is the roll-up-your-shirt-sleeves kind of guy he professed to be during the campaign. He is a do-er and a uniter, in Bush parlance.

This reminds me of an old boss I had, one that I appreciate more as I get older. Super smart, funny, great with people, a real straight shooter that ran a division of a Fortune 200 media company where I used to work.

When a pipe burst in the old New York building that we called our office (causing one of our back rooms to flood), he was the first one into the water, socks and shoes off, pants rolled up, giving orders to the underlings about calling the facilities department and forming an assembly line to clear out the stock room which contained the books, reprints, magazine back issues, and other things we sold.

He was a do-er, not afraid that doing real work would tarnish his lofty Group Vice President and Publisher title. In a nutshell, he had intelligence, confidence, and the respect of the people that worked for him – a mix that is hard to beat.

From up here in the cheap seats, I’d say Obama has that same mix of qualities, which means that the stimulus bill may be passed in record time. If that’s the case, it will put unemployed people back to work, and bring financial relief to others. That would be a great way to kick off the new year – with hope. – Chianti