The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Obama to Back Sanders' Crackdown on Executive Pay

by: David Sirota

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 10:42


This week, I wrote my syndicated newspaper column about what I called "The Make Him Do It" Dynamic - that is, how congressional progressives - with the help of the progressive movement - were having success pushing President Obama to take much stronger stands on issues than he seems inclined to take. And yesterday, I noted that while senators like Claire McCaskill (D-MO) were voting for the bailouts and grandstanding for cameras after the fact, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been working with the progressive movement to push a legislative crackdown on executive pay at banks taking bailout money. Well, today, President Obama finally responded, announcing his support for such a crackdown.

Though we don't know the full details of Obama's plan, it is a pretty clear reversal of his administration's earlier declaration that it would oppose limits on executive pay.

This is a huge victory for the progressive movement, and augurs well for "The Make Him Do It" Dynamic in the weeks and months ahead. And with Sanders getting big media kudos for his work, it also augurs well for our efforts to build up our most important congressional spokespeople.

Watch Sanders interview on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC Show last night. Maddow congratulates him on his success, and Sanders gives us some more details about what we can expect on this issue from the Obama administration moving forward. We still have work to do - but this is a big win.

David Sirota :: The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Obama to Back Sanders' Crackdown on Executive Pay

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Obama to Back Sanders' Crackdown on Executive Pay | 41 comments
credit goes to mccaskill (3.50 / 8)
she actually introduced legislation.

http://narcosphere.narconews.c...

Nah, you really missed the boat (0.00 / 0)
Sanders introduced it months ago - McCaskill grandstanded for the cameras after the fact. Nice try, tho.
[ Parent ]
That comment doesn't deserve a troll rating (3.20 / 5)
While Sanders may have introduced the bill, I doubt it would have gone anywhere had McCaskill not grandstanded for the cameras about it.  Do you honestly think Obama would have agreed to it if it was just some bill that Sanders proposed and not something that McCaskill made a big deal out of?

John McCain <3 lobbyists
[ Parent ]
Read the post linked above (0.00 / 1)
That's the whole fucking point.
[ Parent ]
you know david its not that i disagree with your politics (0.00 / 0)
i don't.

but you remind me of what i detest most about the right wingnut wack jobs: they put on blinders to keep their sight lines pure and chastise the rest of us for our peripheral vision.

[ Parent ]
Bad troll rating by the (4.00 / 6)
author of this post.  I uprated.

I don't get it.  Troll rating dissagrement is hardly progressive and whether Sanders or McCaskill deserve credit is a rather sterile debate.

People are losing jobs and homes while politicians posture.    

[ Parent ]
There's a progressive stance (0.00 / 0)
on troll ratings?

I need a new manual.

[ Parent ]
Sander's is completely safe... (4.00 / 1)
Maybe there was a backdoor agreement to let Claire take the lead on this.  Sanders will likely have to expend little effort in defending his seat for as long as he wants to hold it.  Claire will likely be in a fight for her life every 6 years.  Might it be prudent for the caucus to dole out 'leadership' positions to help those who will be in dogfights and need these TV moments to help them down the road?

I love Sanders and his positions are generally about as close to mine as any member of Congress, but we aren't talking about someone who has had much success in moving his legislation since we have regained the majority.  Sanders got his plan out there months ago, but it goes nowhere.  If McCaskill hadn't been out there touting this do we have any guarantee the administration would have done anything?

I hope you're right that progressives can get Obama to shift over to some of our positions, but if Sanders or other prominent progressives were out there dumping on McCaskill for 'grandstanding for the cameras' you could pretty much kiss future opportunities goodbye.

[ Parent ]
Is there going to be legislation? (4.00 / 1)
Or are these internal rules that will be enforced by Treasury?

I'm not reading anything about legislation--either introductory or standing--being used to codify the rules.

And I'm incredibly dismayed to see that bailout recipients can opt out simply by giving written notice to their shareholders.  

[ Parent ]
Troll rated that???! (4.00 / 3)
Man, you win the dick of the day award, for sure.

Disagreeing is not the same thing as trolling.

[ Parent ]
Partly incorrect, Sanders did first. (4.00 / 2)
But McCaskill got a lot of press and made it mainstream.

In any event, being incorrect does not deserve a troll rating by the author of the post.  So I uprated.

[ Parent ]
Did you guys hear what Obama said bout 20 min ago?? (4.00 / 2)
He's finally realizing that the repubs will not just play along with his kumbaya schtick. He said he's been hearing a lot of people recently repeating a lot of the failed policies of the past 8 years, that we should just give tax cuts to solve this problem. He said he rejects that idea and that the american people rejected that idea SOUNDLY this November.

He's finally getting it.  

Too late... (2.67 / 3)
He needs to stand up for this bill and do it now... even Rasmussen is unable to fudge low approval ratings for him...  The public is getting 100% FUD form the media and republicans about this and are unsure about spending.  If he gets on the bully pulpit soon, he might actually have a chance at saving this bill and making it still functional.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
There's still enough time for him to go to bat for the bill and push it through. He may have to make marginal concessions on the side though. I do agree that its too late for the bill, as it currently stands, to probably get passed through congress. The repubs did a good job defining it.  
[ Parent ]
I was always skeptical (4.00 / 1)
that the election meant the country wanted progressive change or just wanted the stick it to Bush.

I mean despite everything, 46% of the country still voted for another Republican President. That's still a higher number that I'd like.

I think people are already skeptical about spending and the media knew that and took advantage of it. I think we need to face facts that the country isn't as progressive as we'd like it to be just yet.  

[ Parent ]
bullshit -- there has never been more evidence than today that we are NOT a center-right nation... (0.00 / 0)
...and comments like NFR83's are the worst possible by-product of Sirota's wrong-headed, prideful strategy of rallying online voices against Obama.
[ Parent ]
I didn't say we were a center-right nation (0.00 / 0)
I said we're a center-left nation, but that still means the country as a whole is to the right of us here.  
[ Parent ]
Here's the reality (0.00 / 0)
We're a divided nation politically and ideologically, particularly after the past 16 years when its only worsened and about 80% of the country has hardened in its views and positions. In this political climate, Obama's 53-46 victory is a landslide of sorts. When you consider how little the rants of "socialism" had on the final outcome, I think its fair to say that the american people are not as skeptical on spending as we've been led to believe. Do they love it?? Probably not. But, in this economy, would they prefer spending over tax cuts?? Yes.  
[ Parent ]
Maybe some people are skeptical (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
But he then says this (0.00 / 0)
However more liberal the country might or might not have become, a figure like $800 billion is never going to be an easy sell, and the sheer number of budget items included within the stimulus provides plenty of talking points for the opposition.

This implies that, yes, maybe the public is willing to spend, but big numbers are scary and he were are asking for even bigger numbers  

[ Parent ]
But the number isn't big enough (0.00 / 0)
as every non-conservative economist in the country agrees. Obama's own analysis shows that the stimulus will still leave us with >8% unemployment in two years.

Look - the idea that most of the country inhabits some great big middle between the vocal extremes is a myth. On many many issues, the extremes are irreconcilable: conservative economists by and large believe that there's nothing the government can actually do to fix the economy: the market knows best. Liberal/progressive economists believe that only government spending can pull us out of our current tailspin. Obama tried to strike a balance between those, but there really isn't any balance: spending half as much as we need to won't improve people's lives enough to get credit for.

The public is more or less the same. Yes, $800 billion is a lot - but the public is inclined to think the mess were in will take that much if Obama says it will. I doubt very much there's a continuum here - the idea that the public still generally supports $800 billion but would balk at $900 billion. If Obama told them they need it, they would be fine with the government spending $1 trillion.

The problem is that Obama is telling us we need to spend >$1 trillion to fix the problem, but that he's only asking for $800 billion in order to cater to those who still think the government is the problem. The result? Nobody is sure anymore who to believe: Obama isn't convincingly asking for what he believes is right, the Republicans created the problem in the first place, the Democrats in congress are trying to patch Obama's bill instead of starting with something they actually believe in. We muddle on.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
it isn't big enough, and the reason we're losing the spin war is the public doesn't want a bigger stimulus plan even though it's necessary.

The media knows that and is using it against us. The media is running with the "look at the all the money wasted" meme and pushing the idea that the stimulus plan needs to be SMALLER when it really needs to be BIGGER.

and the public, utterly ocnfused and still afraid of spending large amounts of money, is buying whatever they're saying.  

[ Parent ]
I think we disagree in speculating about "the public" (0.00 / 0)
As far as I'm concerned, $800 billion is already in the category "who knows how much that really is". If Obama says its needed, he'll get the benefit of the doubt.

The problem as I see it is that Obama (and the CBO, and Paul Krugman, and Robet Reich, and Brad DeLong, and Joseph Stiglitz, and a huge number of other respected economists) say that we really need to spend a lot more, BUT Obama insisted on preemptively negotiating with the recalcitrant politicians and economists who continue to insist on tax breaks and that the government can't do anything about the problem anyway.

Had Obama asked for $1.2 trillion, 85% in spending, I suspect the public would have reacted the same way they reacted to $825 billion - but the follow through would have been better: Obama could have honestly made the case that $1.2 trillion is what's needed. He could have honestly told the dead-enders that their worldview is not the consensus. He could have honestly defended the plan. Instead he came out against his spending plan as soon as he presented it, and its been a muddle ever since.

[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Basically, once Obama came up with the initial figures for the plan, and its most basic outline, the die was cast.

It could be made a slightly better plan, or a slightly worse plan. But the likelihood it would succeed or fail to do what it was intended to do would not be materially affected by such modest changes.

The real issue is whether the stimulus will be enough to get "escape velocity" out of a truly serious and long lived recession or depression. My guess, given what I've read, is that the peril here is a deflationary trap, which can set up a vicious cycle from which there is no ready way out.

What I haven't seen yet from any economist I've read is any prediction of what the point of no return here might be, either in terms of deflationary rate (is it anything below 0?) or, more to the point, in terms of shortfall in GDP, in employment rate, or, most to the point, in the minimal size and minimal expected effect of the stimulus.

I wish one of these economists would hazard such an estimate.

[ Parent ]
WTF? (0.00 / 0)
are you downer of the polls??? his approval in Rasm has fallen a total of 6 freaking points since the inauguration. His gallup number is even better, it was 68% in the fist 3 days and now is 66%. stop being so pessimistic and misleading.

http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.co...

[ Parent ]
Make that 3 points for Rassmusan (0.00 / 0)
Cause he never went over 65% after inauguration. he is @ 62% now.
[ Parent ]
I think you misunderstood lord mike (4.00 / 3)
I'm pretty sure he's saying Obama has high approval ratings and he should use his popularity to mobilize congress to pass the bill.
[ Parent ]
Yes... (0.00 / 0)
I'm very glad his numbers are up.... that's exactly why he needs to be selling it!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Meanwhile, back in reality... (4.00 / 4)
From the Washington Post...

But the new rules do not limit compensation at any of the more than 300 banks that have received government aid so far, because the restrictions are not retroactive.

Furthermore, even if the new rules had applied retroactively, it appears that only three companies would have been subjected to the mandatory restrictions: AIG, Citigroup and Bank of America.

The mandatory standards would apply solely to companies that receive assistance beyond what is generally available to other companies.


Retroactive is not possible (4.00 / 7)
It's not possible to make the limits retroactive, but the sickening part is that the limits are optional for most companies that get handouts going forward. If the Post article is correct, it's complete window-dressing.

The hilarious part is about exactly how companies can waive the requirements:

Under the new rules, companies can waive the $500,000 cap by informing shareholders that they planned to continue paying executives higher salaries. Companies would be required to allow a shareholder resolution on the subject, but the results would not bind the company.

They're required to limit executive pay, but it's an optional requirement. They have to inform shareholders, and let them hold a vote, but the vote doesn't count for anything. Let's get really tough and make them do the hokey-pokey! (that's what it's all about)

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
How about (0.00 / 0)
You actually see the actual plan next week then go by lazy journalism? don't worry though, no matter what the actual restriction is you will get to bitch about it.
[ Parent ]
Next week? (0.00 / 0)
Here's the plan.

As far as I can tell, the Post article is accurate.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
that's the really incredible part (4.00 / 3)
And means the limits won't exist at all.  It will, however, generate horrible publicity for Obama when it happens, so really it's the worse of all possibilities.

Of course it's true that many banks that got money are doing fine and will pay back the money. I understand why they would like to be excluded from the limits, but this is too much.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Although it's worth noting (4.00 / 1)
The idea of compensation beyond the 500k being in the form of restricted stock strikes me as a good idea. It provides a good incentive to get the company in a position where it can pay us back. Of course, if won't matter if the limits aren't binding.

Also, the article doesn't mention the limit on golden parachutes, though it's not clear if that's the same sort of "optional requirement".

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

[ Parent ]
The deeper reality (4.00 / 1)
Paying a ransom is necessary in a society run by robbers.

$500K is a huge salary, by ALMOST any standard.  These executives can probably land jobs making $2 million to $30 million.  Opportunities have decreased for everyone, but I'm sure the president of Bank of America can find some regional bank that will snatch him up at a good price.

I'm sure many people would run Bank of America for $500K.  But, on the other hand, I would doubt it's a very good career move.  It probably looks better on a resume to work for a successful regional bank than to be the guy at the helm with Bank of America went down in flames.  

When the entire corporate system is corrupt, it's hard to bring one piece of it into line.

[ Parent ]
Then let them go (0.00 / 0)
"These executives can probably land jobs making $2 million to $30 million. "


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I just got a response from the DeFazio office on the stimulus (4.00 / 1)
It's long, but importantly it says
I voted in favor of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but not because I believe it is the best we can do. I voted in favor of the legislation because I am hopeful the package will be substantially improved by the legislative process and help alleviate the drastic job losses that are already occurring in Oregon. I am reserving my right to vote against the final version of this legislation if it is not substantially improved.

That's progressive pressure. I'm sure DeFazio is making it clear to Obama that the stimulus package still needs improvement. If all the rest of the progressive caucus were to go on record with a believable threat to vote against the final bill, I bet Obama's stance would change pretty fast.

Claire is using it for fundraising already. (4.00 / 1)
Wonder why she didn't send out a similar request after her FISA vote.  When I voted for former prosecutor McCaskill, my Missouri common sense told me that she wouldn't support retroactive immunity for widespread corporate crime. I was wrong.


Dear [Mobar]?,

Watch Claire's Floor Speech
Donate Now

Missouri common sense is a wonderful thing.  And my common sense says it's ridiculous that we would give taxpayer money to large financial institutions and they would turn around and give billions in bonuses.  In Missouri, I was taught that you only get a bonus if you've done a good job.

I'd been mad about this situation for awhile, but last Friday was the last straw for me.

As I complained to a friend about public funds being abused by corporate executives while President Obama was trying to turn our economy around, I decided that something needed to be done.

As long as these companies are on the hook for billions, no one working for them should make more than the President.

So, I went to the Senate floor to announce a bill that would do just that - salaries, bonuses and perks of anyone who works at the companies that took public money cannot amount to more than what the President of the United States makes.

Now once they pay back that money to the American people, it's none of our business how much they make.  But until they pay back the taxpayers, there has to be a different set of rules.

It's not always easy to break through the noise here in Washington, but with your help, I can keep fighting for Missouri common sense values.

Gratefully,

Claire McCaskill

Donate Now

Perhaps this proves my point above... (0.00 / 0)
Does Bernie really need the publicity on this like McCaskill?  Could it be Bernie and caucus have let her act as lead on this in the media to help her fundraising?

Sirota calls it 'grandstanding for the cameras' but perhaps it was good politics by the caucus in hope of helping McCaskill keep a seat likely to be attacked by the GOP for the next several cycles.

[ Parent ]
Even for those entities where the cap applies (4.00 / 3)
There is just no way these guys are going to end up making so little money.  There are so many accounting tricks and ways to push up compensation.  These guys know all these tricks, are highly intelligent, and are greedy as hell.  If you think the top execs at Citi and BoA will end up making only 500K a year under this plan, I have some mortgage-backed securities to sell you.

This is basically just a way to make the bank bailout more palatable politically.  And don't think Obama doesn't know all this either.  He wasn't born yesterday.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

yup--it's a crock-- (0.00 / 0)
... Under the new rules, companies can waive the $500,000 cap by informing shareholders that they planned to continue paying executives higher salaries. Companies would be required to allow a shareholder resolution on the subject, but the results would not bind the company.
-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

If they inform shareholders, it's waived.

And even with a shareholder resolution limiting any of it, the companies would not be required to limit pay or bonuses at all -- it's all bs.

And will it even be actually written into the TARP laws/regs at all?

[ Parent ]
The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Obama to Back Sanders' Crackdown on Executive Pay | 41 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox