CNN seems bullish on Obama’s economic stimulus plan, even if public support for the second trillion-dollar spending spree in five months appears to be waning somewhat. Not that low public support should be much of an obstacle. After all, Congress passed then-Treasury Secretary Paulson’s $700 billion bailout over the objections of 99% of those polled. Support among CNN glitterati appears to be much more solid. Campbell Brown, Donald Trump, and editorial contributor Nell Minnow all stand firmly behind President Obama’s recent decision to dictate unilaterally how much money certain Americans will be allowed to earn here in the Land of the Free. CNN does give some space to a few dissenters, such as Harvard University’s Jeffrey Miron, but by and large it seems that the world’s most-watched news network’s only concern is that the Sovietization of the US economy isn’t going fast enough. Today, the conversation sounds like this:
FROM CNN, FEBRUARY 2009
Part I – Obama Sets Executive Pay Limits
Pledging to take “the air out of golden parachutes,” President Obama announced Wednesday that executives of companies receiving federal bailout money will have their pay capped at $500,000 under a revised financial compensation plan.
Last year’s “shameful” handout of $18 billion in Wall Street bonuses “is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else,” Obama said to reporters at the White House.
“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn’t just bad taste — it’s a bad strategy — and I will not tolerate it. 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,” the president added.
Under Obama’s plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government. The rules will be implemented by the Treasury Department and do not need to be approved by Congress.
Part II – Trump: Obama ‘Absolutely Right’ On Executive Pay Cap
Donald Trump, businessman and CEO of The Trump Organization, knows a little something about money. Trump spoke with CNN’s Larry King about whether there should be executive pay limits, if there should be a stimulus plan and when there could be an end to the economic downturn. The following is an edited portion of the interview.
Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with salary caps?
Donald Trump: Well, I think he’s absolutely right. Billions of dollars is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it’s a whole new game. So I absolutely think he’s right.
King: What about the whole concept of bailouts?
Trump: Well, it’s a little bit different. A lot of people are not in favor of bailouts. You know, we talked about all the different things going on in this country. Let’s face it, Larry, we are in a depression.
If they didn’t do the bailout, you would be in depression No. 2 and maybe just as big as depression No. 1, so they really had to do something. The problem is they’re giving millions and billions of dollars to banks and the banks aren’t loaning it.
If you are a prime customer of a bank and if you need 10 cents, you can’t get it. The banks are out of business. They’re not loaning. Now, billions of dollars has been given. They’re supposed to be loaning out that money and they’re using it for other purposes, so it is a real mess.
King: If you were in the Senate, would you vote for the stimulus plan?
Trump: Well, I’d vote for a stimulus plan. I’m not sure that all of the things in there are appropriate. Some of the little toys that they have are not really appropriate, and they’re a little surprising that they seem to want it, because the publicity on it has been terrible.
I would certainly vote for a stimulus, but I would really vote for banks having to loan out the money because they’re not doing that.
Part III – Commentary: Penalties Absent From New Pay Cap Rules
Editor’s note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN’s “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull” at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the “Cutting through the Bull” segment of Wednesday night’s broadcast.
All this week, we’re focusing on President Obama’s promise of transparency and accountability and to that end, we applaud his announcement today of a pay cap for corporate CEO’s taking bailout money. But what we didn’t hear anything about today — as the president, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs praised the virtues of the new rules — was talk of penalties. Real penalties for those who have mishandled the money and betrayed our trust. Penalties for those who may mishandle our money in the future. It’s one thing to freeze pay, it’s another to demand real accountability going forward. We weren’t the only ones scratching our heads after today’s announcement.
Part IV – Commentary: Wall Street Finally Got What It Deserved
Editor’s note: Nell Minow is editor and chairwoman of the Corporate Library, an independent research company, and was named one of the 20 most influential people in corporate governance by Directorship magazine and “the queen of good corporate governance” by BusinessWeek Online. She has co-written three books.
I would have preferred to have the corporate community demonstrate some sense of responsibility, leadership and self-preservation by taking steps themselves to establish a compensation system that communicated a commitment to investors and taxpayers. When they failed to do so, the government had no choice but to step in.
Alright, so be it. I’m not going to defend Wall Street firms that chose to make a deal with the federal devil by begging for taxpayer money. Nor do I claim that these are particularly well-run firms that haven’t made colossal blunders. But I can’t help wonder how the conversation will go a few years from now, after we’ve hit cruise control on the Road to Serfdom. Perhaps four years down the road, the CNN reports will sound something like this:
FROM CNN, FEBRUARY 2013
Part I – Obama Sets Calorie Limits
Pledging to take “the Crisco out of Christmas,” President Obama announced Wednesday that those individuals covered by his administration’s newly enacted universal healthcare program will have their caloric intake capped at 1700 calories a day under a revised health plan.
Last year’s “shameful” holiday banquets, filled with high-calorie foods such as pumpkin pie, fruitcake, and eggnog, “is exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else,” Obama said to reporters at the White House.
“For people to award themselves these kinds of unhealthy treats in the midst of this nation’s obesity epidemic isn’t just bad taste – it’s a bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it. We’re going to be demanding some restraint in exchange for universal government health care – so that when people receive taxpayer-funded medical services, we won’t find them up to the same old tricks,” the president added.
Under Obama’s plan, Americans will no longer be allowed to eat unhealthy foods, drink alcoholic beverages, or smoke. The rules will be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services, and do not need to be approved by Congress.
Part II – Trump: Obama ‘Absolutely Right’ On Calorie Caps
Donald Trump, businessman and CEO of The Trump Organization, knows a little something about rich foods. Trump spoke with CNN’s Larry King about whether there should be calorie limits, if there should be universal healthcare and when there could be an end to the obesity crisis. The following is an edited portion of the interview.
Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these people with limits on their caloric intake?
Donald Trump: Well, I think he’s absolutely right. Billions of dollars are being given to doctors and patients. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it’s a whole new game. So I absolutely think he’s right.
King: What about the whole concept of universal healthcare?
Trump: Well, it’s a little bit different. A lot of people are not in favor of government medical insurance. You know, we talked about all the different things going on in this country. Let’s face it, Larry, we are in an obesity crisis.
If they didn’t do the universal healthcare plan, you would be in size XXL by now and maybe just as big as XXXL, so they really had to do something. The problem is they’re giving millions and billions of dollars to hospitals and the people just aren’t losing weight.
King: If you were in the Senate, would you have voted for the healthcare plan?
Trump: Well, I’d have voted for a healthcare plan. I’m not sure that all of the things in there are appropriate. Some of the little toys that they have are not really appropriate, and they’re a little surprising that they seem to want it, because the publicity on it has been terrible. But listen, Larry, I’m not even sure why this is a big deal. Back in the financial crisis of ‘09 we established that government could dictate how much money we were allowed to make since taxpayer money was being used for things like corporate bailouts and economic stimulus plans, right?
President Obama is simply applying that same logic to our current obesity crisis. Now that our healthcare system is funded almost entirely by taxpayer money, it makes all the sense in the world to have government dictate what we may or may not eat, or how often or how much. What’s the difference between restrictions on how much we’re allowed to earn and how much we’re allowed to eat? After all, we all pay for healthcare.
Part III – Commentary: Penalties Absent From New Diet Rules
Editor’s note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN’s “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull” at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the “Cutting through the Bull” segment of Monday night’s broadcast.
All this week, we’re focusing on President Obama’s promise of transparency and accountability and to that end, we applaud his announcement today of a limit on the daily caloric intake for people taking universal healthcare money. But what we didn’t hear anything about today — as the president, the head of the Deparment of Health and Human Services, and the Press Secretary praised the virtues of the new rules — was talk of penalties. Real penalties for those who have eaten junk food and betrayed our trust. Penalties for those who may eat junk food in the future. It’s one thing to limit calories, it’s another to demand real accountability going forward. We weren’t the only ones scratching our heads after today’s announcement.
Part IV – Commentary: Holiday Eaters Finally Got What They Deserved
Editor’s note: Richard Simmons is an American fitness instructor, and the creator of “Sweatin’ to the Oldies.”
I would have preferred to have people demonstrate some sense of responsibility, nutrition and self-control by taking steps themselves to establish a diet that communicated a commitment to taxpayers. When they failed to do so, the government had no choice but to step in.
I can’t wait.
2 Comments
February 16, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Brilliant!
Richard Simmons, in particular, was well-played.
February 16, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Denny,
Thanks…the scary thing is, when I wrote this I just thought I was being satirical. Turns out I wasn’t as far off base as I thought. A couple of days after I wrote this post, I came across the following article in the UK’s Daily Mail: “Food Police Come Knocking…”
- Stephen