CNN political analyst Roland Martin ripped President Obama from the left on Wednesday’s Newsroom, after the White House announced that they were going to cut the pay of top executives at corporations which took taxpayer money from the federal government for bailouts: “It’s about damn time. The White House, frankly, has been slow in actually making this happen.”
Near the end of the 3 pm Eastern hour, anchor Rick Sanchez broke the news about the Obama administration’s decision to “put the kaputs on some of these big-timers with some of these Wall Street firms like AIG, and they are apparently going to ask them to take a cut in annual salaries of their 25 highest paid executives by an average...of 90% from last year.” Sanchez brought on Martin to comment on this breaking news, and the analyst’s reaction was unequivocally critical of the administration’s inaction in going after executive pay.
SANCHEZ: Roland- man, 90%, that’s a lot of dough.
ROLAND MARTIN: It’s a lot of money, but also it’s about damn time. The White House, frankly, has been slow in actually making this happen. They have been making all these pronouncements, talking about- oh, you guys should watch it, but there’s been all bark and no bite....The bottom line is this here- these companies have been reporting strong earnings because they have been cutting staff, they have putting cutting expenses- they have not been growing revenue. So when the Dow hit 10,000 last week on the strength of those reports, it was because of the cuts they were making, so the people who have been laid off, the folks losing their jobs- they are the ones paying the price while these fat cats are sitting and getting our money and you’re sitting here saying you’re getting these astronomical bonuses, awarding more money in bonuses in 2009 than they were awarding two and three years ago? Nonsense! It’s about time the White House finally stepped up and said, we are going to go after you guys because this is ridiculous.
Sanchez actually followed up by asking Martin a question from right: “What do you say to the people who say- you know what, a deal is a deal. We had a contract. If I sign a contract with you, Roland Martin, that says that this year you have to pay me a certain amount, don’t you have to pay me a certain amount, no matter what?” The CNN analyst brushed this argument aside: “Okay, okay. Here’s also the deal. You guys also were in business, you made some bad decisions, then you should go out of business. See, that’s the deal. They don’t want to go out of business. We had to bail them out.” The anchor asked for a clarification: “So what you’re saying is if we hadn’t come in and saved their butts to begin with, they wouldn’t have had these bonuses or any other bonuses, so the argument is null and void?” Martin answered, “No! They wouldn’t.”
Martin continued his criticism of Obama from the left as the segment closed, even as Sanchez cynically wondered if the President’s inaction had anything to do with his receiving donations from “Wall Street guys:”
SANCHEZ: Speaking of the President, by the way, I know you were quite critical of him there moments ago, saying that this is something he should have done a long time ago. He’s-MARTIN: Why have a pay czar, Rick, if you’re not going to move? We- this is now October. We have been hearing about bonuses since February over and over and over, so why do you wait now? Let’s just be real here, Rick.
SANCHEZ: Well, well, I’ll tell you- well, let me just toss a possibility out there for you, all right? And it's not just this president, but- by the way, since we’re going to name names, this president has taken about as much money from some of these Wall Street guys for his campaigns as just about any other politician out there-
MARTIN: Politicians take money.
SANCHEZ: Well, okay, fine. But do you go and punish yourself that way by going after the Wall Street guys, when these are the guys who basically fund your campaign?
MARTIN: I don’t care if they fund your campaigns. The bottom line is here- they got taxpayer money. You cannot sit here and say- oh, we’re going to keep laying off the American worker but I’m still going to get a big fat bonus. That’s how we do it.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I wonder if Roland will like
October 21, 2009 - 17:18 ET by kefkaI wonder if Roland will like it when the WH "suggests" that political commentators should only make a certain dollar amount. I'm sure Roland is personally fine though, he has the correct politics. He is completely on board with the program. You can't really put a dollar value on a pat on the head from the WH anyway can you?
your point doesn't make sense
October 21, 2009 - 17:45 ET by sajc05How much taxpayer money did rowland take after making risky investments with other peoples money? none, so he'll never have to worry about the WH asking him to take a pay cut.
as a taxpayer I'm dumbfounded that people here would defend the practice of the banks taking us to near financial ruin, saying "sorry, we made a mistake, can we have your money to make it better" then hand out bonuses like it christmas 24/7
You continue to miss the point
October 21, 2009 - 18:03 ET by hobieYou definitely don't understand transitive theory, just like Roland doesn't.
Newspapers and other old media are seeking bailouts Sajc05. They are seeking this bailout because they are failing financially. The federal government will determine that newspapers are too big to fail [same argument used on the banks] and deploy taxpayer capital to bailout these jokers.
Here is the math part; when that happens, Roland, as a highly compensated talking head, will see his compensation rationed.
That is the point.
Sajc05
October 21, 2009 - 18:12 ET by Candance MooreNow you know a big reason why conservatives did not want the bailout to happen at all. I'm dumbfounded that so many people went along with our government giving billions to the very investors who "took us to near financial ruin" in the first place.
You don't think that possibly the government is content with idiots working in our banks as long as Congress gets to boss them around? Instead of letting these banks fail or, at the very least replacing those idiots with competent people, we left them in charge and gave them bilions more to play with as long as they pretend to feel remorseful.
Get ready for this to be the pattern with healthcare, energy, and oh, wait for it, newspapers!
Considering that President Obama keeps buttering up CNN as "real news" unlike that fake stuff at Fox, I'm willing to bet you a bailout for CNN is mentioned within in the next three years.
Then when *your* industry starts to suffer, you can enjoy people screaming at you for creating financial ruin and offering bailouts you're not allowed to turn down.
Right, candance, and I find
October 21, 2009 - 18:34 ET by motherbeltRight, candance, and I find it both abhorrent that we even have an entity called a "pay czar" and frightening that people like sajc05 don't have a problem with it, and in fact seem to think it's appropriate!
correct, MB
October 21, 2009 - 18:41 ET by Candance MooreAnd if the only requirement is taxpayer funding, all the government has to do is offer subsidies....
How so?
October 21, 2009 - 18:21 ET by general companyI'm dumbfounded that people here would defend the practice of the banks taking us to near financial ruin
Explain how they did that, and why? Its a little more then , they made bad investments and their greedy. They had an accomplice
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
how did they do that?
October 22, 2009 - 09:03 ET by sajc05You don't know? they aggressively lobbied congress to repeal certain regulations like glass-steagal WHICH created banks that are "too big to fail" because it allowed the big investment banks to buy up all the smaller banks sucking up all the capital into one place.
Have you ever heard of credit default swaps, derivatives? these banks leveraged their assets 50/1 on risky securities all to make a quick buck off other peoples money... any of this ringing a bell?
but according to fox news it's all poor people's fault. go back to sleep.
I love how liberals throw around strawmen
October 22, 2009 - 09:24 ET by MightyMouthlike: "according to fox news it's all poor people's fault"
It's really rather simple: the fed made cheap money available and made most of it risk proof through fanny and freddie. On top of that the gooberment insisted that banks make loans they would not normally make. So naturally as the economy cycles the loans went bad when homeowners could not sell their homes at the inflated prices. And btw I think you'll find that most of this action occured on the two blue coasts where the majority of the lib scum live.
glass-steagal had nothing to do with it!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
you're partially right
October 22, 2009 - 11:19 ET by sajc05Free money had the a lot to do with it. the fed created an artificial bubble in the housing market.
the big banks took on the risk leveraging themselves 50/1 hoping that housing prices would never fall which was flawed thinking.
Glass steagal DEFINITELY had a lot to do with it. because once one of these banks that is leveraged way more than they should ever be allowed to fails it fails while holding most of the capital in the country. if they were not too big to fail then lehman bros collapse would not have had the impact on the entire financial system that it did.
Why did bush and obama tell us we need to bail out these guys or it will be apocalypse? because they became "too big to fail" what allowed them to become too big to fail? glass steagal repeal paved the way for that.
and i'm liberal because i don't like fox news? wrong. i'm an independent conservative that doesn't like getting my news from republican talking points.
Why stop with the rich?
October 22, 2009 - 13:36 ET by Great DebaterPres. Obama, don't stop with just taking money from "rich" executives at companies that received federal funds, let's also take back money from welfare recipients if they buy candy bars or lottery tickets. Let's take back money from the unemployed if they take their kids to a minor league baseball game. Finally, let's also take back money from social security recipients if they go on a vacation to visit the grandkids for Thanksgiving or Christmas.
That reminds me, Mr. President, you're getting $400K this year in federal funds, yet just this year, you've taken vacations to NYC and Martha's Vineyard.
I agree, if you take Taxpayer money you should
October 21, 2009 - 17:51 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonTake a drastic cut in pay and forego any and all bonuses.
In fact, why not roll your 401k pension plans into the Social Security system, and help make that semi funded for another year?
I think $1.00 per year is a good salary for senators and representatives until the budget is balanced and the debt, both on the books and the unfunded future indebtedness.
The scrawny bimbo from californicated can forego her private plane too. And leave OUR PLANE on the ground for useful purposes, like quick trips home for military members that need emergency leave for their families.
Lay off 50% of your DC office staff and cut the remaining members salaries by 50% and return that money to the treasury.
Sell off the fleets of limos, and buy yourself some tiny little fuel efficient cars you want to force the AMERICAN PEOPLE into.
No more taxpayer funded junkets for you, your families, or your friends.
No more 'gifts(bribes) from your rich friends with strong ties to our enemies.
http://gjresult.com
Ditto Willis
October 21, 2009 - 18:06 ET by cajun2Lets add a few. No more cars and pay raises for federal employees.
How about a hiring freeze for all Fed. gov. No more czars. And congress has to work a 5 day work week.
No more extravagant parties at the white house.
Donate your1.4 million nobel prize to the budget.
Single payer health care? Ok make it single option. Every American citizen gets the same coverage, that includes federal employees, congress and the white house. No private health care at all for anyone.
Even if my wishes came true, Im still pissed.
And so it begins
October 21, 2009 - 17:25 ET by jon_torlinWhen I saw that headline, I was saddened that it's come to this.
You reap what you sow, and it was shouted out from the highest mountains that this would happen if the businesses accepted any bailout money but fell on deaf ears.
Like jackals to a kill, the liberals rejoice, whether knowingly or not, it brings voice to the weak-minded and the foolish while giving control the new masters who swore an oath to protect them, but it was not an oath to the US Constitution, but to Communism.
-Jon
YOUR PAY IS NEXT
October 21, 2009 - 17:25 ET by ptsonIDIOTS! Who pays these wind bags? The ones on NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are paid by the bailed out GE (GE financial got tax payer funds) and they haven't taken a pay cut yet, have they? If we are going to bail-out the media, start by cutting these guys salaries. PS- Martin, if a contract is meaningless, so is EVERY law! Consider that before opening your fat face!
Headhunters are drooling
October 21, 2009 - 17:33 ET by justasimplepatriotCorporate recruiters are just thrilled that exellent bank and finance talent will be motivated to jump ship. The institutions you bailed out are about to lose the talent they need to recover.
I guarantee headhunters will cherry-pick and recruit ever one of the talented executives and leave the bozos to finish the job of destroying the companies. .......unless we pass a law chaining them to their desks......hmmmmmmmm
Envy and resentment prevail
October 21, 2009 - 17:42 ET by CO2MakerWe are so f***** if it comes to this, that the U.S. government is embarking on a Chavez-like campaign against capitalists.
If big financial institutions need to employ very good financial experts, then they should pay them appropriately in the market. That's means big money, folks.
But then, if--IF--big salaries are a bad thing, and if the financial houses need to pay big salaries, and if venal, opportunistic politicians and the swarm of nattering pundits throw up in their mouths at the prospects of these financial genii reaping very large bonuses, then put the bonuses in an escrow account that cannot be touched for, say, five years, and can be diminished if the performance of the companies decline during that time due to policies and practices implemented by the genii.
Three things can be accomplished: (1) the bonus money will remain available for borrowing, lending, etc.; (2) the genii will have incentives for developing policies that have a shelf life longer than one or two reporting quarters, and downside penalties for installing bad policies; and (3) a "Chavez ravine" of envy won't become the standard and norm for supervising financial houses.
There is talk of
October 21, 2009 - 17:45 ET by MidAmericaThere is talk of subsidies for the media so I assume if that happens there will be no more anchors, 'personalities', reporters or owners receiving big dollar salaries.
Wonder if Mr Martin will
October 21, 2009 - 17:48 ET by jkwtradingWonder if Mr Martin will ever exclaim it's "about time" we cut all payments to dead beat welfare rolls..a figure i am placing close to 5 trillion now.
cut the pay of everyone in government
October 21, 2009 - 17:49 ET by clhSlice at least 90% off the salaries and benefits of failures in Washington and then start axing the salaries of the millions of government employed parasites that suck our taxes up and then act like criminals by shaking down citizens that have the nerve to try and protect their business, their livelihoods or their freedom.
Cap them at $50k per year, give them an HSA into which to contribute and let them fund an IRA. AAnd if there is a deficit, take it out of their hides. It would take about 6 months to get snity into the budget process if these clowns actually paid for their failure.
what?
October 21, 2009 - 17:49 ET by sajc05as a capitalist i'm against failing companies getting bailed out. if they run themselves into the ground then let them do so, don't take my money to correct their bad business behavior. BUT they did take all of our money after messing up so how can they complain that they're not allowed to make outlandish money when the only reason they're in business today is because of government intervention?
You are missing the point
October 21, 2009 - 17:59 ET by hobieThere is not one mention of the highly compensated employees of the government bailed out institutions complaining about not being able to make outlandish money. Honorable people will not complain, they will simply bail. I don't work in this particular field, but having the government cap my compensation would be a 100% effective method for getting me to switch careers.
This is an article about two non-productive people gloating over the fact that the government is now dictating to these companies that they will lower the payscales.
These companies should have been allowed to fail. I completely agree with that. The morons in the federal government chose to throw our money at them. Very bad choice. All they did was stretch the rubberband more, ensuring that when the snap actually happens, it will hurt more.
"BUT they did take all of
October 21, 2009 - 18:00 ET by ckc1227"BUT they did take all of our money after messing up so how can they
complain that they're not allowed to make outlandish money when the
only reason they're in business today is because of government
intervention?"
Because getting a loan from someone doesn't mean the lender gets to run your business. If I get a business loan from Bank of America to start a business, does BOA get to tell me how much I can pay management?
If they can do this, then there's no reason why they can't tell student loan/grant recipients how, where, and when they work, and for how much. It also means when they start providing our health care that they basically have the right to run pretty much every aspect of our lives, which, naturally, is the goal to begin with.
Roland can't see the train coming right at him
October 21, 2009 - 17:52 ET by hobieSome other commenters have hit this right on the head. Let's see if Roland understands what is known as the transitive theory.
A company gets into financial trouble and seeks a government bailout. Later the government starts to ration pay to the highly compensated employees of that company. Newspapers and traditional media are in financial trouble and have actively sought government intervention / bailout.
Here is the tricky part Roland, you smart guy: Do you think the government will ration your pay after they bail out the dying enterprise that compensates you very highly?
This guy is an idiot; a moron who rejoices in a fire at a hated neighbors house only to later realize the houses are connected.
HOWEVER: I am now convinced that the only way out is through. The liberals and self-defeatists that run the federal government and the media provide the only way to let this disease truly run its course. No more fighting them, no more opposing them. Let them break the US, and let's bring it to a complete stop. Only after they cannibalize themselves can the productive begin the process of rebuilding.
letting it go through scares me
October 21, 2009 - 18:05 ET by jon_torlinthe problem with letting it go through will leave this country vulnerable and I mentioned jackals in my previous post, I wasn't talking about just this country. All the damage that is being done to this country has seriously weakened the US to the point that we would be ripe for a takeover and a terrorist attack would and could easily occur by a rogue nation like Iran. God knows I don't want that at all. If we could stop the damage today, we could recover in a few years. If we don't stop the damage today and wait till 2010, we won't recover.
These people are not hiding anymore. They are going full out, especially with their polling numbers plunging. We're going to suffer for it.....big time.
-Jon
Regardless of the reason
October 21, 2009 - 18:02 ET by MightyMouthRegardless of the reason why these companies took bail out money, it is fascisim (that's right I said it!) for the government to now control such business decisions as compensation!
This is disingenuous on so many levels not the least of which is breach of contract. We all heard this was a "loan" from the US LoanSharking Treasurey. Now I would love to see the "contract" that the companies and the loanshark signed that allows this intrusion!
And another thing: I have never been ashamed of my country until now! Because the US is now a bunch of Chicago thugs ready to bust some kneecaps! Discraceful Mr. "President"!
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
I may be wrong
October 21, 2009 - 18:06 ET by hobieBut I think the correct term is 'Corporatism'. The government doesn't directly want to run the industry or company, they just want to tell the directors how to do it.
Yep, you're wrong it's fascisim simple and plain.
October 21, 2009 - 18:08 ET by MightyMouth"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
Just curious, but what
October 21, 2009 - 18:08 ET by ckc1227Just curious, but what would happen if these folks say take a hike, we'll pay our people what we want?
My guess is...
October 21, 2009 - 18:12 ET by MightyMouthRahm the "ballerina" and a couple dozen New Black Panthers would be making a visit to the Board Room?
"The bureaucracy is growing to meet the needs of the growing bureaucracy"
ckc... I was going to
October 21, 2009 - 18:27 ET by bigtimerckc...
I was going to reply to you 'Inquiring minds want to know'....
In the meantime of me logging in I saw Mighty's reply....
Heck...that works for me...'bout sums it up.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
That is what it may take
October 21, 2009 - 18:40 ET by general companySeriously,,,,,folks are going to have to challenge these new ""laws/rules"".
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I have mixed feelings about this
October 21, 2009 - 18:30 ET by OmegajbOn one hand if these companies needed to be bailed out by taxpayer money and they haven't paid all back with interest then maybe the government has the right to demand pay limits. It is like loaning a company money and you have a stake in what happens.
If the company has paid all money back with interest the debt is over and the government has no business telling them they need to cut pay.
Now I have a real problem if the government is going to try to do this to companies that have never taken public money.
I say...
October 21, 2009 - 18:42 ET by FuzzlenutterI say we pay all TV commentators minimum wage. No more; no less. Hell, that's more than Dirty Sanchez and this other maggot Martin are worth...
Full range
October 21, 2009 - 18:48 ET by cajun2With removal of anti trust protection, health care companies will not be able to compete with gov. run health care. This basically destroys an entire industry. It is already happening. Cap and Trade and Gov. Health Care will destroy small business. That is why the white house is after the Chamber of Commerce. They may not have gotten bailouts, but the gov. will either ruin them or take over. The game is already playing.
It could be argued
October 21, 2009 - 18:56 ET by richb313It could be argued that since we are all paid in US Currency we are all on Government payrolls and thus the Government has a right to control all our salaries. It is a stupid argument but it could be argued.
Most of you are missing the point of the "Pay Commie-czar"
October 21, 2009 - 20:05 ET by R D HelmWax ecstatic while you can, but this isn't going to stop just with companies who received bailout money, and there will be two rather hideous "unintended" consequences to boot:
Personally, I believe the government is chasing off the talent on purpose, knowing full well what the result will be: Even more KAOS.
But that's just me.
-Dave
Our elected representatives have failed us.
Dave, true true true. And
October 21, 2009 - 20:10 ET by celatorDave, true true true. And add the interesting next step of the WH confidently knocking on any door they chose and announcing to whomever answers the door--"We've decided you make too much money. Give it back". You can bet it's in their playbook. Demonize private citizens and then go after them.
I'd have to research the history, but it seems to me that Mussolini did this sort of thing as well, wnen he took over Italian industries back in the '30s.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
celator,
October 21, 2009 - 20:30 ET by R D HelmThis is one of the ways lefty totalitarian governments take over private economies.
They drive enough private entities out of business, then step in and take over what is left when the time is right.
The other method they use is to just seize them outright.
Hell, the feds already have 90% of the mortgage industry, and will soon drive the remaining private lenders out of business, and don't even get me started on the car companies.
If I were Ford, I would be quaking in my loafers.
Obama's Marxist/communist coup is being pulled off without so much as a hiccup. By the time most of the fat-ass couch potatoes in this country catch on to what is really happening, it will be too late.
-Dave
Our elected representatives have failed us.
This is basically their
October 22, 2009 - 02:35 ET by humanzeeThis is basically their pink slip. All these execs are gonna take their "retirement package" and are gonna leave. Obama will install his "Postmaster Generals" in there.
Re Postmasters
October 22, 2009 - 10:38 ET by slickwillie2001The incompetent management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the model for the future of the government-controlled financial industry. It'll be where politicians go to 'retire' and make a fortune. Recovery of the financial sector is not in the Bamster's scheme for our unfortunate country.
Speaking
October 22, 2009 - 09:38 ET by jessieHSpeaking of ridiculous, I noticed that the govt., in these hard times, haven't even hinted about freezing the salaries of the congressmen, senators, or the white house. I think we need to cut their salaries, too. After all, they are part of the problem. Salaries for life is totally ridiculous. There is the real problem with our budget. They need to be on the same playing field as the people who made this country great, the American People. Put them on the same plans they push us into. Make them pay taxes. Make them go on social security. Salaries for life is a disgrace to this country.
Maybe we should push for bailouts
October 22, 2009 - 12:04 ET by katiejanein the sports and movie industry. Then the government could cut the salaries of athletes and actors so people could afford take their families to games and movies again. Think of the savings - no more multi-million dollar contracts for men paying a child's game, no more 2 digit million dollar per film deals.
Re Glass-Steagall
October 22, 2009 - 13:27 ET by slickwillie2001Glass-Steagall is a red herring. The act had been slowly eaten away since passage in 1933 and there wasn't much left of it. Bill Clinton repealed the last aspects of it in November 1999, and he did it with great fanfare re his 'deregulation' policies. He was in no way forced into it.
Banks which were deregulated by the repeal in 1999 were not the organizations that failed and caused this recession, it was the investment banks. In fact some of the failed investment banks were bailed out by commercial banks in 2008 and 2009 and were able to do so because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Smaller commercial banks that have failed since have failed because of the real estate collapse that prior events caused.
The failure happened because of loose money promoted by Congress via CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and FHA. President George W. Bush tried again and again to reform those institutions but was blocked by democratics at every turn. If you force a mortgager to lend money to people that can't pay it back, don't be surprised when they don't pay it back.