TPMDC
« Poll: Specter Way Down In Republican Primary | Home | NY-20: A Tale Of Two E-mails »

House to Take Up New Executive Pay Bill With Added Limits to Geithner's Power

The AIG-inspired plan to tax bonuses at bailed-out firms is stalling quickly in the Senate, but the House Financial Services Committee is pressing ahead today by taking up a bill that would freeze existing bonus contracts and require the Treasury Department to produce its own executive-pay standards.

But the measure, sponsored by Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Jim Himes (D-CT), doesn't leave the thorny decision on appropriate Wall Street pay to the Treasury alone. After Secretary Tim Geithner makes the call on what constitutes "excessive" compensation, the bill would require him to secure the approval of other financial regulatory agencies.

The House bill's limit on Geithner's ability to control the pay standards is admittedly slight, but it reflects a growing shift in the capital away from consolidating power in the hands of Treasury and the Federal Reserve.

The Obama administration's proposal to give the government takeover powers at non-bank financial institutions is likely to involve a partnership between Treasury and the FDIC, as the Washington Business Journal reports this morning.

Similarly, Congress is leaning towards spreading the power to regulate overall financial risk among several agencies, shifting away from the original plan to give that power solely to the Fed.

After the Financial Services panel takes up the Grayson-Himes executive pay bill, it will tackle a Republican "resolution of inquiry" that would compel Geithner to release documentation of his contacts with AIG.

Late Update: During an appearance this morning at the Council on Foreign Relations, Geithner was asked about Congress' reticence to spending more money on direct bailouts for Wall Street. Here's how the exchange began:

Q: If -- if Congress were asked to vote on [more TARP money] today, I don't think it would be ...

GEITHNER: Overwhelming support.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: It would probably be as close as you'd like.

(LAUGHTER)


16 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

so geithner asks for more power to get us out of this mess and the house responds by taking AWAY power...

sometimes you just have to wonder what good having the majority is...

user-pic

I have little faith in Geithner. He is a Goldman Sachs guy, and that is where his prime allegiance is.

user-pic

Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. He's always been a civil servant.

user-pic

Bam.

user-pic

He's always been a civil servant.

He worked for Kissinger & Associates.

user-pic

Ew, even worse.

user-pic

Didn't Obama JUST say we should know about stuff before we speak?

user-pic

Because Congress has done such a fuicking good job themselves so far.

Tell me again how many of these same assholes were actually there from 2000 or so and created this entire disaster?

user-pic

That would actually be quite useful. Quite a lot of them actually weren't there (especially in the House), and it would be useful to know which ones.

user-pic

The problem is giving the power to the Fed, over which no one has any control or oversight.

You don't want this kind of new power to be a political football, but neither do you want it left to an unaccountable agency that's filled with bankers and Randians.

The power better belongs with an agency like the FDIC, which seems to have been doing a pretty good job of handling insolvent institutions.

user-pic

Geithner has been neutered by the tag team of Progressives and Republicans. Congressional oversight doesn't mean progressives only oversight. It means Republicans will have shared control and Republicans will be able to obstruct plans and drag everything into the middle.

Now you might argue that this is all well and good when the next Bush is elected, but the Republican led House would just give the President all of the Bush era powers back.


user-pic

Don't give it to the Fed, and don't give it to Treasury. It isn't the Fed's bailiwick, and while I don't think Timmy's a bad character, I worry that when the next Republican gets elected, that cat is going to be a bad character, and the de-regulation party will start, and there won't be nothing Congress in its wimpiness will do about it. Spread it around, or put it in a quasi-independent body.

user-pic

I say, give the power to the President. At least if he abuses it, we can impeach him! This gerrymandered Congress is mostly unaccountable and those that are accountable are corrupted, or just too plain stupid to do anything about the country's problems! What? Me cynical?

user-pic

Congress should write clear statutes about compensation at bailed-ot firms.

They shouldn't be telling the executive branch: you decide.

user-pic

Since they're talking about compensation, maybe Congress should cut their salaries and start laying off staffers. Let's see how much money that saves.

user-pic

Don't start on the lame nonsense about cutting Congressional pay. Members of Congress and their staffers don't make that much for what they do. Having a professionally-paid legislature is an important aspect of progressivism. The alternative, which existed before the 20th century, is that legislatures are a pasttime of the rich or those with rich backers.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Elana
Schor

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address