« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Is The White House Helping Bailed Out Banks Skirt Pay Caps? Depends What Channel You're Watching
On Saturday the Washington Post reported that the administration was doling out federal bailout money via "special purpose vehicles" to help banks skirt restrictions on the funds imposed by Congress -- including, naturally, limitations on executive pay. In a move a former Justice Department attorney equated to "money laundering," the story further specified that the White House had concluded that the conditions ought not to apply in "at least three out of five initiatives funded by the rescue package."
The story quoted Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams defending the strategy, and on Sunday senior Obama adviser David Axelrod, despite his reported distaste for Treasury's lenience on the banks, went on Fox News Sunday and towed the Treasury line when Chris Wallace brought up the report.
But a bit later the same morning on Face the Nation the policy seemed to have changed -- if you believed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's unequivocal denial to CBS's Bob Schieffer that any such plan compensation-restriction avoidance plan existed:
Transcripts after the jump:
Here's Axelrod on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Mr. Axelrod, we're running out of time, so I'm going to try to invoke the lightning round rules, with quick questions and quick answers.And Geithner on Face The Nation:First of all, there's a report that the Obama administration is structuring its new bailout initiatives to allow companies that participate to get around congressional limits on executive compensation.
When taxpayers are putting up most of the money and taking more of the risk, why would the Obama administration allow some of these executives to get even richer?
AXELROD: Chris, understand that we are -- we are very committed -- the president has a tough set of standards that we are refining to deal with this question of executive compensation. It's an issue he's talked about long before this crisis.
But here's the point. On some of these programs, we're asking financial companies to come in and help solve this problem by providing more lending, by buying up toxic assets and so on. We don't want to create disincentives and undermine the program.
So we have to look very closely at this, making sure that we're not rewarding people for irresponsibility, that people -- that firms that get extraordinary help aren't getting -- aren't giving out huge bonuses.
But we do need these financial companies to help -- who aren't in great distress to help lead us out of this and partner with taxpayers to get lending going again.
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you about one more thing. As Will Rogers once said, all I know about this is what I read in the newspapers. But the Washington Post has reported that even after all the outrage about the bonuses at AIG, that the Treasury Department is working out an arrangement now to set up new some sort of entity where they can funnel money to this entity and then it can give the money to these companies and banks that need help. And in doing that, it allows the banks and their executives to evade and go around limits that had been placed on executive compensation by the Congress. Is that right?GEITHNER: No, that's not true, Bob. Now, our obligation is to apply the laws that Congress just passed on executive comp, and we're going to do that.
Now, we're also going to make sure these programs are as effective as possible in making credit more available to businesses and families across the country. Now, the way the legislative process works is Congress legislates. We have an obligation then to design and put out regulations for applying that. We'll put those out in draft. The American people have the chance to evaluate those and assess and comment on those. We're working with Congress as we do this. And -- but again, our obligation is to apply those laws, and we're going to do that because it is very important to us that every dollar of assistance we provide doesn't -- goes to expand lending.
SCHIEFFER: But are you saying to me -- and we'll close with this -- that every limit that Congress has put on executive compensation, that you're going to see that that's enforced and that these -- there's not going to be a way to get around that?
GEITHNER: Absolutely, because we want the American taxpayers -- this is going to generate greater lending, not providing excess compensation.
It's unclear what's behind the seeming contradiction beyond the deepening concern on both sides of the debate that the administration's plans to restore health to the financial system will be altogether ineffectual. But neither side of the debate -- as Republican congressman Dana Rohrbacher's frenzied Twittering on the issue can attest -- sees those fears as an excuse to lavish any more multimillion dollar bonuses on zombie bank CEOs.

















Chaos in the White House. Why is starting to look so familiar.
April 6, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Cause you're flashin' back to how Hillary's whole campaign was run?
April 6, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first, we do deceive.
April 6, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeeb:
"... when first we practice to deceive." More poetic that way.
April 6, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"will be altogether ineffectual", well of course it will be.
as i have noted here many times.
obama wont seek out and apply the advice of real progressives on this preferring to line the pockets of wall street.
its to late now and once the people catch up to the deception it wont be fun.
and just like that the republicans so disgraced will be back in power...what a shame
April 6, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"towed the Treasury line when Chris Wallace brought up the report."
Towed the line? Did he tote it over his shoulder, or was he backing up and pulling it? It's TOED, folks. TOED the line. Sheesh. If you can't get a cliche right, what about important stuff?
April 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. It's like moving the goalposts.
If they had wanted to just jump over it, they'd have toad the line.
April 6, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. I am not all sympathetic to CEOs and think bunches of them should be in jail, but a careful reading of Geithner and Axelrod comments shows they may not be in disagreement.
Axelrod was saying those financial firms not in trouble, but ones we want to buy up toxic assets from those firms that are in trouble, could get U.S. aid to do so without being subject to the rules. Geithner is referring to those firms who screwed up and are in trouble who would be subject to the rules if we bail them out. We are talking two different categories of firms here.
This just confirms my opinion that these rules on bailouts were going to be problematic and not very effective. We need to change the tax codes for real change. Add several brackets beyound the top one on income over $250,000 and make capital gains, dividends and interest income subject to those higher rates as well. That is the most effective way to remedy the outrageous and growing economic inequality in this nation. Of course, changing labor laws in favor of unions is another way, but that's another discussion.
April 6, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your view seems very sensible. There are definitely forces at work which would love to spin this up into BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem is that Geithner's PPIP is a fraud. All talk about whether executives will get a bit more or less is a TOTAL DISTRACTION designed to cover up the deeper activity.
April 6, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This so-called report is not up to TPM standards. I agree with rwc. Read it carefully. Anything printed in the wapo should be read with a huge dose of skepticism.
April 6, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to Elana? She was really good.
April 6, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE'RE ALL CHUMPS NOW! This video from today has already gone viral over the internet.
William Black of PBS Moyers fame was back at it today. Thank God and perhaps someone in the administration will finally listen to him and others while showing Tiny Tim and Larry summers the door. Watch this interview from today.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/225897/Geithners-Stress-Test-%22A-Complete-Sham,%22-Former-Federal-Bank-Regulator-Says
Geithner"s Stress Test "A Complete Sham," Former Federal Bank Regulator Says
April 6, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real story from Sec. Geithner's interview was when he told the howler that all the money transfers were transparent and in the public domain (and apparently this bald faced lie was taken without comment.
April 7, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you try going here to request the information yourself.
April 7, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What contradiction?
Congress limited executive compensation using bailout funds.
When money is funneled another way, as in loans, or just as a giveaway, it is not "bailout money" and can therefore be used for executive compensation (bonuses/retention payments/salaries).
So the banks and financial companies are complying either way.
.
April 7, 2009 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a story. The new plan proposed by the Treasury is not TARP II or anything like it. It's not a plan that gives bailout money to troubled financial institutions at all. It's a plan to try to get the bad assets out of the hands of troubled institutions and spread around the market more generally so there's less risk of the losses on these assets causing a catastrophic chain reaction of institutional failures (which currently, thanks to the complex financial entanglements created by the derivatives markets, is a significant possibility).
There seems to be this misconception floating around that this latest plan represents the newest incarnation of TARP, but it's nothing like TARP. It's a program that offers a certain contribution of government backed loan money to healthy investors for the purchase at auction of a stake in the troubled assets. The plan doesn't involve any direct payment to failed institutions. It just provides a relatively risk free way for other healthy institutions to take some of those riskier assets off the hands of the problem institutions.
Why not just let those big institutions fail? Because if they fail, there would be a chain reaction of other institutions failing, due to credit default swaps being triggered.
April 7, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
saulgoodman: "It's a plan to try to get the bad assets out of the hands of troubled institutions and spread around the market more generally so there's less risk of the losses on these assets causing a catastrophic chain reaction of institutional failures"
Already we are hearing: "FT has learned that the major US banks, Citigroup (C), Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS) and JP Morgan (JPM) are all interested in buying toxic assets from one another, using the massive leverage provided by Tim Geithner's public private investment partnership."
http://creditcrunchedoutinuk.blogspot.com/2009/04/banks-plan-to-bid-up-each-others-toxic.html
Geithner's PPIP is just another round of the largest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people.
April 7, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink