KREM BLOGGER |
|
December 2008
Categories
More KREM Blogs
|
We are a collective spending economy. Everything depends upon it. We are also a debtor society. Why pay cash when credit will do? So with the current deep economic crisis brought on by bad and massive debt, the solution appears to be let's make more borrowing available and spend our way out of it. Does this make sense? With hundreds of billions of bailout dollars creating a tidal wave of money wiping out bad debt and trying the ease the credit crisis, have we set up deja vu? More money will soon be available to borrow. The more we borrow, the more we spend. More spending means more sales. More sales means more jobs. Wall Street rejoices and the stock market soars. Is this the real solution? At what point do we pay the piper? Taxpayers are footing the bill for it. Was there another answer? What do you think? 2 CommentsLeave a comment |
Storm Tracker 2 Weather
Get the latest and most accurate forecast from our Storm Tracker 2 Weather team. |
|
I think deja vu just came home. CBS reported tonight (11/12/2008), that Congressional oversight of the bailout money is non-existent; they have no idea where it is going and how it's being used. Cameras have caught AIG employees wining and dining in the lap of luxury while American's are being laid off by the thousands, can't feed their families, are losing their homes.
Every congress critter who voted for this bailout should have to forfeit every dollar of his/her salary, all assets including retirment assets to pay back the American people. The same goes for the executives of the companies involved. As Democrat Representative Marcy Kaptur has stated, they should lose everything right down to the wheels on their Mercedes!
This is why the majority of Americans told Congress "no" but they did it anyway. They voted for it; they are responsible. They should be held accountable.
I was against the wallstreet bailout. I think more could have been achieved if the lenders/ banks were required to adjust the ARMs to the original rate, and taxpayers were given a stimulous check.
We shouldn't have to bailout the "Big 3", but I believe it will be a necessity. But unlike the $700b cash give-a-way, there needs to be changes and conditions met before the money is dispensed. A few of my suggestions are:
1. The union workers would need to agree to reduced wages for a predetermined amount of time (maybe partial reimbursement in stock so that workers will be "paid" for their efforts when/if stock becomes more solid).
2. No dividends payout for a predetermined amount of time (so that decisions can be made in the best interest of the comany, not the shareholders' profit).
3. Reduce CEO/Executive salaries to a base of $1m (with tough performance bonus objectives), limit on expense account spending. If the union workers are required to renegotiate their contracts, then the same should be expected of the CEOs and other executives. It should be understood that golden parachutes and other "extras" will not be paid out if they leave (termination or voluntarily) within a predetermined timeframe. If they quit, they don't benefit.
4. Require that each recipient provide an outline of where and how the money will be utilized (a business plan.. what a concept!).
5. Each CEO that accepts bailout money should be held personally accountable for Sarbanes-Oxley-type review of the funds being disbursed per the business plan they submitted when asking for funds. I would also like to see each CEO put up a "collateral" (personal guarantee) such as lien on home(s) or bank accounts or stock portfolio, that can be seized by the government in the event the money is used fradulently or cavalierly.
Granted, these are rough examples of what can be done, but I hold myself accountable and I expect these executives to be held to the same standards of ethical behavior.