on this bill before I got too excited. Banks and Corporations will probably just find another way to give these bonuses with the government's blessings. I'll believe this bill changes that, when I see it.

Ah Michelle, the expert in every field. Turning to her for an informed opinion is like turning to a snowball for heat.

is slap eat up with teh dumbass.

Harry Reid is a complete idiot.

Taste of their own medicine. What frightening percentage of Americans are tied to a computer or phone system that records every moment of their work? This isn't even new. I was aware that data entry staff where I worked had monthly reviews of how many mistakes they make, their typing speed, their total records processed per hour and their backspacing. And that was over 20 years ago. Really, the same for most managers with production reports whether it is sales or manufacturing. Who but executives get to jerk around in their offices, screw up and still get fat bonuses? So, why not? Let's get executive labor spreadsheeted out in cold, hard performance reviews.

All in all, though, I'd favor a return in the other direction to a sustainable 40 hour work week.

..is an elitist myth. You can tell that, one might argue, because Maudlin and her ilk on the right are all up in arms, now that there is the hint that they might be held to an actual, measurable standard like the rest of the peons.

she thinks that us taxpayers should just pay bonuses regardless of performance? Just throw money at them no matter how bad they perform.

...all up in her pockets.

New Democrat Melissa Bean Helps Banks Gut Grayson Bill to Limit TARP Bonuses

...It looked like it was going to be smooth sailing, but then Melissa Bean decided to give the Republicans a hand. Her New Democrat Coalition has an Executive Director, Adam Pase, who is a former bank lobbyist for predatory lenders and their members brag about their Wall Street backgrounds and their close ties to the banks. The banks didn't want the bill to pass, and it looked like the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop it. So, Bean offered up an amendment which allowed TARP recipients to get out from under the bill's limitations if they had started paying their loans back. ...

I asked Brad Sherman how he felt about the amendment. He said, "I could agree to exempt financial institutions that pay back all of the federal money they received under the Troubled Assets Relief Program within a 12 or 24 month time frame. However, the amendment opens the possibility of agreements of far longer duration. It would allow agreements with even a 10 or 15 year term." It also doesn't prevent banks from taking more TARP money to make payment on their loans.

http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/03/melissa-bea...

Scrub engine compartments of Pleasure Boats. Must be good with rags. Uniforms provided. Report to Palm Springs Yacht Club for application.

We have a minimum wage for the poor.

Why not a maximum wage for the rich?

Seems fair to me.

Malkin is a self loathing bigot and a sociopath- the only emotion she can exhibit towards other people is hatred-Why exactly does this sleestak have a microphone?

She looks like she's blowing something.

No wonder they're in a tizzy. Performance-based pay and bonuses would be a huge blow to wingnut welfare.

....you don't want to be regulated on pay wages???? DON'T ACCEPT GOVERNMENT MONEY!!!...and go ahead and deal with your own 'free market' forces issues...END of story..buh bye.

shore got purty lips.

and a lot of wasted hot air. Who or what qualifies Michelle Malkin as a political or economic expert besides whoever pays her check?

By her twisted perspective, it's wrong for the government to require conditions on bonuses, executive compensation, etc, for companies that receive federal bailout money? Those companies are receiving that money because their executives caused their collapse. The government is only doing what it should be doing to guard against even worse financial damage. And the government is obligated to protect the tax payers as much with oversight, rules and regulations in whatever ways it can because it is using tax money for the bailout. That is a legitimate function of the government, whether or not Ms. Malkin approves of it or not.

Ms. Malkin is very upset, you can see it in her twitchy little facial spasms, that "we are going down the slippery slope." What's happening is that the government is putting into place some rules and conditions for the recipients of TARP and other federal bailout monies at the insistence of the people. The government is responding to the people, which was unheard of during the bush administration, which is only right since the government is supposed to work FOR the people. (Ms. Malkin may not appreciate it, but this government was not established to look after the special needs and interests of the people who pay her paychecks exclusively. She and her bosses need to keep it in mind that they need to stand in line like everyone else to get the government's attention, that the government isn't beholden only to them.)

Ms. Malkin, taking business's stance, is very upset about the slippery slope. She even stretched the truth when she stated that what the government is doing is encroaching upon the business sector when it comes to regulating executive compensation issues as it relates to this bill, which is simply a lie. This bill addresses conditions imposed on recipients of federal assistance money. These companies need not accept said funds. In fact, if they don't take them and then fail, it might be more of a relief to regular Americans than having to shoulder the burden of their questionably deserved bailout, tax-wise. As an American tax payer, you will never hear me complain about companies not accepting or returning federal bailout dollars. In fact, I wish more of them would do just that. Let them deal with it on their own. Ms. Malkin's host also suggested that if banks give back the money that they receive because they believe the terms of the conditions placed on their receiving federal bailout money is onerous, do not want to deal with the regulations and/or rules that are imposed on them conditionally, that they then may go on to do things like withhold credit as a sort of punitive measure. Well, sure, banks could decide to take such actions, but at what cost, and to whom? Doesn't such action, in the end, just perpetuate the problems that we are encountering now and exacerbate the financial nose dive that this country has been placed in by the banks and Wall Street to begin with?

Finally, Ms. Malkin is very upset about federal regulations of any kind that address executive compensation. Well, that really hasn't been explored yet. It hasn't really even been discussed much. But, perhaps, in the situation where we find ourselves with executives who make 300 to 400 times their average employees salaries and are awarded other obscene compensation not based on performance but solely on the political advantage that they enjoy, perhaps it's time that government and business have a meeting of the minds about practical compensation and whether or not regulation should be considered. If left to business alone, it won't happen. But, at least the issue should be studied because there may be some very deleterious consequences to the economy in general due to such practices. I would welcome any efforts to try to stabilize the economy and if executive compensation making sense is part of the whole enchilada, I'm all for it.

,public and media, over government intervention when Pres. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers back in the day? Stick picture time, goofballs, when we the taxpayers, have to bail out your business mis-dealings...we own you. We'll be deciding how you spend the money. Fairly simple, isn't it? (Kind of like when we borrowed money from the banks...the banks made the determinations.) Schools out, as they say.

There's been a lot of talk lately about performance based pay for teachers being the way to fix our public eduction system. So it's good enough for teachers but not for CEO's?