Showing posts with label executive pay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label executive pay. Show all posts

Saturday, February 28, 2009

LAYOFFS AND DOWNSIZING....

Has anyone out there ever been laid-off or downsized?

I can tell you one group that never has suffered this indignity. Our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!


When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, there were 3 senators that were not doing their jobs while on the campaign trail for 18+ months) but were still accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

Summary of opportunity:

$ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

$8,073,383,400.00 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just ignore this post. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.


Next Week: The Administration! What we might call the CEO and Staff!

A.M.


YOU'RE FIRED!

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A SHOUT IN THE WILDERNESS




One Sunday as I was napping on the back porch, I heard a bunch of
screaming out in the woods behind the house. Hmm. What could that
be about I wonder? Stepping into the kitchen I picked up my .22 rifle
and headed out to investigate. About two miles into the trees I came to the little pond where I sometimes go to catch bream and catfish.
There was a man walking back and forth with two buckets of water, dipping out of the deep end, walking the length of the pond and pouring into the shallow end of the small pond. Each time he poured in a bucket of water he would cuss, yell and throw the buckets down
In frustration.
“Excuse me sir, what are you doing out here and why all the noise on beautiful day like this”?
The stranger looked at me as if I were crazy and said “I am here to fix this pond".
“But sir, there is nothing wrong with the pond! It’s perfect, it’s full of catfish, bream and is spring fed by the aquifer”.
“Nothing wrong with it? Nothing wrong with it? Are you blind mister”? “Sure, this is end is nice, but look at the other end, it’s shallow and muddy and has no vegetation like this end. This pond is out of balance and I am here to make it nice on both ends and in the middle as well”! “But, every time I take water out of the deep end and pour it into the shallow end, it all just levels out again, I’m stumped, but I know I can come up with the solution, I just know it”!
“But sir, you are tramping all over the frog habitat on the shallow end of the pond! If you keep this up, the frogs will die, the fish will die and the pond will stagnate”!
“Now look fellow! I know it may not be a perfect plan, but it’s the one I came up with. I happen to be in charge here. I’m from the government and I’m here to help you”! By the way mister, is that gun loaded? Do you have a permit for it? I can’t believe we have people walking around in the woods with a loaded gun! What is your name”?
"This is another problem we are going to have to fix, just as soon as I get done with this pond"!


Monday, February 9, 2009

Obama sets executive pay limits

Obama Lays Out Limits on Executive Pay

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste — it’s a bad strategy — and I will not tolerate it as President. We’re going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for federal aid — so that when firms seek new federal dollars, we won’t find them up to the same old tricks".
--Barack Obama

The plan, which represents the most aggressive assault on executive pay by federal officials, includes salary caps of $500,000 for top executives at firms that accept "extraordinary assistance" from the government.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Let’s punish those bad boys and make ‘em
Hurt! But is there any teeth to this pay cap or is it just empty rhetoric?

Let’s look at how the new plan will affect James Owens, one of the members of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Team.

"The board will be chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Its members include Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, and James Owens, chief executive of Caterpillar. Both companies have strong sales around the world, though both are coping with hard times amid the slowing global economy; Caterpillar said last month that it would cut 20,000 jobs".

According to Forbes, this is James Owens compensation package for
2007. Now personally, I don’t care how much any CEO or Executive
Makes. I think that is between them and the shareholders. But, just for the heck of it, let’s see how this ‘salary cap’ will affect him.

$ 1,512,504.00 Salary
$ 300,000.00 Bonus
$ 0.00 Other Annual Compensation
$ 0.00 Long term incentive plan payouts
$ 918,626.00 Restricted stock awards
$ 0.00 Security underlying options
$ 221,307.00 All other compensation
$ 7,136,911.00 Option awards $
$ 4,442,998.00 Non-equity incentive plan compensation
$ 2,575,395.00 Change in pension value and nonqualified deferred
compensation earnings
$17,107,741.00 Total Compensation

So at first glance, it appears that Mr. Owens would lose $1,012,504.00.
Or would he? Might he just put oh, lets say $200,000 into his bonus plan and $800,000
into the item labeled 'Other Annual Compensation'?
Even if he did take the 1 million dollar pay cut, does it really hurt him? Of course not. CEO
salaries are nothing more than 'walking around money, for many of them.
I am all for CHANGE and a better method of doing things,but I firmly believe that I don't appreciate being misled by meaningless DoubleSpeak.

Where's the beef?