CE Week #1: “Obama Calls Wall Street Bonuses ‘Shameful’ “
WASHINGTON — President Obama branded Wall Street bankers “shameful” on Thursday for giving themselves nearly $20 billion in bonuses as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation’s most prominent financial institutions.
“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,” Mr. Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”
It was a pointed — if calculated — flash of anger from the president, who frequently railed against excesses in executive compensation on the campaign trail. He struck his populist tone as he confronted the possibility of having to ask Congress for additional large sums of money, beyond the $700 billion already authorized, to prop up the financial system, even as he pushes Congress to move quickly on a separate economic stimulus package that could cost taxpayers as much as $900 billion.
This week alone, American companies reported as many as 65,000 job cuts, and public anger is rising over reports of profligate spending by banks and investment firms that are receiving help from the $700 billion bailout fund. About half of that money is still available, but the new administration has yet to announce how it will use it, and many analysts think it will take far more to stabilize the banking system.
Should Mr. Obama have to go to Congress to seek more money for the bailout fund to avert the failure of more banks, he would most likely encounter opposition within both parties and demands for tighter restrictions on pay for executives of institutions that receive government assistance.
Mr. Geithner has already signaled a willingness to impose stricter compensation limits as part of a revamped approach to dealing with the banking crisis, but with his strong words on Thursday, Mr. Obama seemed intent on reassuring Congress and the public that he would step up the pressure on bankers before granting them additional assistance.
Mr. Obama was reacting to a report by the New York State comptroller that found financial executives had received an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for 2008, less than for the previous several years but the same level of bonuses as they received in 2004, when times were flush.
“That is the height of irresponsibility,” Mr. Obama said. “It is shameful. And part of what we’re going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility.”
The Obama administration and lawmakers have begun to consider ways to control executive pay; the bailout fund, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, would be the main vehicle for exerting such control. The administration of former President George W. Bush issued guidelines last October to try to control executive pay at companies receiving government help, but so far they have done little to curb large salaries.
During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Geithner said the administration is preparing rules that would require executives at companies receiving taxpayer money to agree that any compensation above a certain amount — he did not specify how much — be “paid in restricted stock or similar form” that could not be liquidated or sold until the government had been repaid.
Some lawmakers, meanwhile, have said they are considering so-called “clawback” provisions that could be invoked by the government to take back bonuses and executive pay from officials at companies that encountered problems.
In the meantime, public outrage is already forcing some companies to rein in their lavish spending. John A. Thain, the former Merrill Lynch executive who was forced out of Bank of America, said this week he would reimburse Bank of America for an expensive renovation of his office that included an $87,000 area rug and $35,000 commode.
But it took the urging of the Obama administration to force Citigroup, which received an infusion of taxpayer funds last year, to abandon plans to buy a $50 million corporate jet. On Thursday, Mr. Obama made reference to the jet, without singling out Citigroup by name; his remarks came one day after the president met at the White House with business leaders, including Richard D. Parsons, the new chairman of Citigroup.
On Capitol Hill, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, issued his own warning on Thursday, saying companies would be summoned to testify if taxpayer money was involved.
“Whether it was used directly or indirectly, this infuriates the American people and rightly so,” Mr. Dodd said. “So I say to anyone else who does it, if you do it, I’m going to bring you before the committee.”
There is also political pressure to rein in pay in industries beyond banks and investment firms. The pressure reflects the substantial disparities between pay increases for senior executives, the low rate of wage growth for workers and the frequent disconnect between compensation and the long-term strategic success or failure of corporations.
Mr. Obama’s message on Thursday was reinforced by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who pledged in an interview with CNBC and The New York Times that the government would spend the remaining $350 billion of the troubled assets money “wisely and prudently and transparently.”
Mr. Biden said that he, like the president, was outraged by reports of large bonuses going to Wall Street executives.
“I’d like to throw these guys in the brig,” he said. “They’re thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They’re thinking, ‘Take care of me.’ ”
John Harwood contributed reporting.
UPDATE
In Curbing Pay, Obama Seeks to Alter Corporate Culture
WASHINGTON — In announcing executive pay limits on Wednesday, President Obama is trying to hold the financial industry accountable to taxpayers while aiming to change an entrenched corporate culture that endorses outsize bonuses and perks that often bear little relationship to corporate performance.
Mr. Obama also needs to deflect a growing populist outrage over sky-high pay among the banks and other companies now on the public dole. His announcement comes just days before the administration is expected to unveil a new strategy — and possibly request more money from Congress — to guarantee or buy outright hundreds of billions of dollars in bad assets held by banks.
The new rules would set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation for the most senior executives, curtail severance pay when top executives left a company, restrict cashing in on stock incentives until government assistance was repaid and prod corporate boards to closely scrutinize luxury perquisites like private jets and country club memberships.
The plan’s effectiveness in curbing executive pay may not be known for years, however. Past administrations have also been critical of excessive pay, but corporate executives have found ingenious ways around limits, often hiring consultants to create new forms of compensation.
Even the new rules allow companies some leeway. While giving shareholders a say in bonuses above the cap and restricting when stock incentives can be cashed in, the rules do not place limits on the size of such awards, which have become the biggest part of many compensation packages. In addition, the toughest new rules apply only to large companies seeking government assistance to survive.
They do not apply to the more than 350 institutions that have already received bailout funds, only to those that seek aid under the next phase of the bailout program. And companies that seek aid but do not need exceptional government assistance can waive the $500,000 pay cap, as long as they submit their executive pay policies to a nonbinding shareholder vote.
Still, the rules represent the most comprehensive effort to curb compensation. “This is America,” Mr. Obama said on Wednesday. “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.”
In 2007, the latest year that figures are available, the largest participants in the bailout program paid their chief executives an average compensation of $11 million, including salary, bonus and benefits. Of that amount, according to a review by Equilar, an executive compensation firm, only about $844,000 was cash salary. About $2.5 million was in a cash bonus, with the bulk — $7.4 million — in stock awards, and the remainder in benefits and perks.
If banks return to the government for more money, the new rules would require a reduction in pay, but not in stock awards, though these would be subject to a non-binding vote of the shareholders and would be in the form of long-term incentives because of restrictions on when they could be cashed in.
The plan will most likely force companies to think twice before coming to Washington for a handout, and it is certain to nudge them to return taxpayer loans more quickly.
On Wednesday, for instance, David A. Viniar, the chief financial officer of Goldman Sachs, which received $10 billion from the Treasury Department, told analysts that his firm wanted to repay the government as quickly as feasible to “be under less scrutiny and under less pressure,” according to Bloomberg News.
The Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies on behalf of banks and other financial institutions, said that giving shareholders a vote on pay could discourage companies from seeking aid.
The rules would not prohibit a lower-level executive, like a stock trader or investment banker, from continuing to receive tens of millions of dollars in pay. Officials also emphasized that several of the proposals would not be made final until after public comments had been considered.
Still, investor groups, union leaders and lawmakers in both parties embraced the proposal.
“There is absolutely no reason why hard-working American taxpayers should be financing, directly or indirectly, excessive compensation for corporate executives whose decisions, in many cases, have crippled their firms and weakened the broader economy,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate banking committee.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader, said that pay limits would be more equitable for rank-and-file taxpayers. “If anyone is looking for the taxpayer to help bail their company out,” he said, “these types of executive pay caps are appropriate.”
Officials said that the larger goal of the proposal was to make the boards of major corporations across a wide range of industries award pay packages more consistent with corporate earnings.
Appearing with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, the architect of the plan, Mr. Obama repeated a theme that he began last week of attacking Wall Street for its excessive compensation.
“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it’s a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president,” Mr. Obama said. He said such pay 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.”
During the Bush administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission adopted new rules promoting better public disclosure of executive compensation as a way to discourage pay not tied to performance. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. also criticized excessive pay as a factor contributing to the crisis on Wall Street and tried to impose some limits on banks receiving bailout funds.
But none of that put a significant dent in executive pay. A recent study by Equilar, a compensation research firm, found that the chief executives of the 10 largest financial services firms in a survey of 200 companies with revenue of at least $6.5 billion were awarded a total of $320 million last year, even though the companies had mortgage-related losses of $55 billion.
Some companies may not find the new pay curbs all that burdensome. The plan does not limit the size of bonuses that can take the form of restricted stock above the $500,000 cap — though companies would have to give shareholders a nonbinding vote on such awards.
Indeed, troubled financial institutions are already giving executives significant sums of restricted stock — shares that are locked up for years and can be sold only under specified conditions — in part because they are trying to preserve cash. Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a Wall Street pay consulting firm, said that in some cases, restricted stock was making up 60 percent of executives’ total compensation.
Mr. Johnson said the new restrictions could make it harder for the government to resuscitate ailing firms by making it harder for them to retain and recruit talented executives.
The plan does not appear to prohibit a financial institution from sponsoring a major golf tournament that most of its executives attend as part of the company’s marketing strategy. At a White House briefing, senior officials repeatedly declined to answer whether the plan would prohibit a company like Citigroup from paying $400 million to have its name on a baseball stadium. It is also unclear whether lucrative pension plans would be banned.
The administration will have to determine how broadly to apply the most severe restrictions as the TARP program is revised. If the new strategy envisions that many banks will be eligible for assistance, as they have in the past, then the less restrictive pay rules would apply to them.
Eric Dash contributed reporting from New York, and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.
There are contracts in the business world that say that the highest executive can make no more for a yearly salary than five times his lowest-paid employee. Besides that being fair all around, it should be required of any company accepting federal aid. Also, there should no bonuses and strict financial reports to the government until the government has been repaid. The companies that are raking in the bailout money need to have the government overseeing everything they do. Forget free market and private companies. They gave up those rights when they accepted money from the government. Obama, Biden, and every other politician should be angry and demanding these changes. But where is the punishment? These corporate executives should not be asked nicely to spend the money properly. They should learn how to spend the money at the end of a sword. They need to be made examples of what happens when you abuse the trust of the government and the United States of America. Once upon a time, we could have cut off their heads and impaled them on spikes. Why can’t we go back to the good ol’ days? These high paid thieves should be taught a lesson, and it should be a painful one.
Connection: Congress has the right to regulate commerce, right? So do it already Capitol Hill! They need to get this show on the road, clean up this mess that those greedy Wall Street slimes of society have made.
Wall Street, unlike Main Street, has been given government money to stimulate the economy and what do they do, give themselves a big fat bonus check. I’m pretty sure Christmas happened a long time ago. And since when does a person get themselves a gift, if you looked at the economy, no one is buying themselves anything. It is really sad that human nature is so full of greed that when we know, such as those in Wall Street, that others are having a hard time, they decide to make themselves richer. And then it puts Obama in a situation where he may have to ask Congress for even more money. Enforcing TARP right now would be a great idea if it did work, so that these executives weren’t in control of their pay. Obama and Biden are getting out the message that “greed is what got us here” which may get these people conscious thinking a little more about what should be done.
Connection: In this article it talked about the government needing to possibly round up another $900 billion which links to the government needing to gain revenue from the taxpayers. Most of this will most probably come from individual income taxes which accounts for about 1/2 of federal revenues and social insurance taxes which accounts for about a 1/3.
I also think taking large bonuses is shameful. These are not normal times for the banks. $20 billion, that might not seem like an unreasonable amount in normal times, but they are being given the money, money that bankers are supposed to be using to stimulate the economy. What really makes me mad is that their were restrictions/limitations set by the Bush administration and that obviously didn’t work. I hope that Obama has better luck in gaining control through the ” Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.” I enjoyed what Biden said “‘I’d like to throw these guys in the brig.’” If not that, can’t we at least fire the people on top, replace them. It’s probably not that simple, what do I know, but I do know something different has to be done. The bailouts aren’t really even working. If the president is just going to keep giving money to banks we had better ensure that the money is getting used in some way that will benefit Americans. I do not mean a select few Americans that are on the receiving end of the bonuses. Greed got the guys on top there, there has to be something to do to get them out.
Connection: It just so happens that federal revenue is in the chapter that we are studying. The article stated that Obama’s stimulus package could cost the taxpayers as much as $900 billion. Taxes are the main source of federal revenue. So this article relates directly to our unit of study.
I find it absolutely disgraceful that Wall Street is getting a bailout and Main Street is getting nothing from the government. Obama keeps pushing for money to be spent bailing out corporations but what we really need to do is put money back into the pockets of people who need the money the most. It seems like all we are doing is throwing money at the problem rather than actually trying to fix it. When the bailouts were approved these different corporations promised that they wouldn’t waste the money, but look what they have done! They gave their CEOs Christmas bonuses when they didn’t deserve it and they used their money to send their employees on lavish vacations to Las Vegas and other expensive retreats. How was this going to fix the economy? Who’s bright idea was it to use this money for such foolish activities?
Furthermore, Obama is trying to send the message that spending this money on bonuses and retreats isn’t okay, but he hasn’t taken enough action to stop this! Having a press release doesn’t seem to affect these corporations much and having an angry look on your face doesn’t make them stop this foolish behavior. Obama needs to take action immediately, because if he only issues threats he is going to lose the power of controlling the nation.
Connection: This article on the bailouts relates to what we are studying, because the money has to come from taxpayers which is the largest source of revenue in the government. Taxes account for about ½ of all revenue collected for government activities.
In Response to Alena, Johanna and Felicia,
I agree with all three of you. High executive bonuses are ridiculous considering the state of the economy. I don’t see why those executives think they deserve the bonuses anyways, especially bank executives and CEOs of big corporations. It is obvious these people don’t understand the concept of “spend your money wisely” considering they buy 87,000 dollar area rugs to renovate their office. That is crazy. I’m sure that money could be put to better use. Alena I completely agree with you about the fact that if the government lends out money to corporations; there should be huge limitations meaning no bonuses to employees and a strict financial report. Guess what those executives shouldn’t complain about having no bonuses because without the government bailing them out their jobs would be in the can. Johanna I think it was you who made the comment about greed. I am not denying that big executives are greedy, but that may be a good thing. In times of economic prosperity it boosts the economy. They just need to know when to pull in the reins during tough times. Obama’s cap on executive pay was a great idea. It isn’t forever and will probably be lifted if the economy gets going again, but at this point in time I think it is really needed.
Well, unless you’re one of these Wall Street billionaires, this article is not likely to meet much opposition in opinion. Before I read this article, my dad and I had heard an interview with this man from Bank of America who paid $87,000 on a rug-which barely covered the floor under his desk and not even the whole office- and a $35,000 toilet. I even remember my dad saying, “Who would honestly pay $35,000 for something you empty your ‘bowel movements’ in?”, but with much more crude wording. So seriously, was the stupid thing made of gold?! And is it really that much better than any ordinary toilet? It must come with a lot of special features, because even the president and former kings have not had such an extravagant toilet.
With that said, the tax payers’ rightfully should be very angry that a good portion of their paychecks disappear in order to help redecorate someone else’s office, furnish their “commode”, compensate their salaries by a ridiculous amount, and still complain until they receive a bigger bailout. Do they not realize that all their workers under them with less lucrative titles are being stripped away? Having no money means having no workers to pay, which ultimately is the reason for the obliteration of companies across America. Wall Street is supposed to be stimulating our economy and giving people something to work for. This is obviously not possible with $11 million dollar compensation payments to executives-who put none of this money back into their own companies- and with $20 billion dollars in bonuses. Thus, I support enforcing executive pay limits and Christopher Dodd in particular for saying that anyone who spends taxpayer’s money on their own salaries/personal purposes will be brought before his committee and hopefully punished in some manner. What one individual would need such large amounts of personal wealth anyways? Especially when they know that their mistakes are the cause for the nation’s grief. How could they possibly seek that money and not feel guilt?
Connection: Tax Expenditures
Although the government is not allowed to collect taxes on company paid benefits, I’m wondering if maybe they should. If executives can’t be responsible with their money, then they really shouldn’t receive benefits at all, but I suppose maybe it would just be best in this case to tax the benefits for those such that fit the top tax bracket (35%). This would allow the government to get millions of dollars, if not billions back. Then the government could redistribute this such money as appropriately to stimulate the economy in such a way that Wall Street will not, even though it is their duty.
This seriously makes me sick to think that the same people we gave tons of money to in order to bail out, are giving themselves nearly 20 billion dollars just in bonuses. Do they honestly think that they can give themselves that amount of money while other people are losing their jobs and barely able to survive? This people must be super arrogant and only think about what will help them succeed. I’m glad Obama said that “now’s not that time.” This shows that he is willing to not be so popular with the Wall Street bankers in order to help the American public. There were 65,000 job cuts just in this week, we cannot be letting rich snobs take all the money while we are left out in the cold. It is true what Obama said about “the folks on Wall Street need to show some restraint and show some discipline.” People may think that if these rich bankers aren’t worried about the economy, neither should we. But in reality, we all need to be worried about the state of our country and these bankers should be setting an example for the rest of us. Hopefully Obama’s stimulus plan will help this problem and get our country back on track.
Connection:
This article involves Obama’s Stimulus package because people’s jobs get cut and our economy continues to stink, this package will hopefully help out the American public. Although it won’t be able to take back the money the Wall Street bankers gave themselves as “bonus” at least it will put some money in the hands of the public.
I agree with Johanna and Felicia on this, taking a big bonus for yourself while the rest of the people are suffering and losing their jobs left and right is greedy and just mean. Like one of the auto industry companies that flew in on a nice private jet to plead that they are suffering is just wrong. As Americans we do expect the world and we expect that there will always be jobs to get and money to be made but with this buy this buy that mentality we are never going to fix anything. Being smart about where the money that we do make goes is the best thing we can do, and not buying ourselves new things with the money that someone needs in order to not go hungry is kind of shameful.
Well, well, well, another thing that President Bush’s administration failed to do. His failure of curbing these companies that are giving themselves millions of dollar in bonuses is really showing. The AIG scandals and other corporate problems have cause too much stir up in the news. It seems like every week there is another company, mainly banks, that give themselves bonuses. This is just ridiculous. How can they just think of themselves over what is best for the economy in this time of need? But as Mr. Kautzman says, “It is the American way.” When will there be a serious crack down on these companies with serious consequences, not just the normal denial of bail out money. This stimulus package just needs to be passed and get the money out into the economy where it will do its best and actually some good. The so-called “control” on executive pay, doesn’t seem to be doing its job when companies are flinging money around like it’s nothing. At least President Obama is willing to go to the companies himself to yell at them. His newfound authority should be used to control these wild companies and punish them.
Connection: The General Accounting Office (GAO) – This office monitors and evaluates the use of the money from the budget that companies and agencies receive. I would assume that the GAO also monitors that use of stimulus money. This office can watch over these wild companies and let the government know when they have gone bad.
Moral Dilemma:
You are a world leader. Your people are starving. They have no money. They are very hungry. They are very sad. You want to help your people.
So here is your choice:
One day, you find a magic lamp, and are quite surprised. Out of nowhere, a mythical genie comes out of the lamp and asks you “You have one wish. What is it?”
It comes down to two choices in your worried mind.
“Should I wish for my people to have adequate food? Or luxury golf trips?”
You ponder this question—and ultimately decide that golf would the bring the most happiness to the people.
Later, when everyone is in Santa Barbara with golden putters and diamond encrusted drivers, you hold your hands up, so filled with joy at the sight of your people. But what is this? It seems that… bodies are littering the course?
Because YOU didn’t choose to feed your people, they are now dead.
So the moral of the story is, golf IS nice, but ONLY after the people have been fed!
This may seem ridiculous. You might be thinking “If I had a genie, that IS NOT what I would wish for”. But can we claim moral superiority when this scenario is occurring in America TODAY? NO! Wall Street executives are taking multi million dollar bonuses while simultaneously firing thousands of workers who could be kept on the payroll for these same sums.
Connection:
Elite class theory- THE RICH CONTROLL EVERYTHING. You, me, and your dog…apparently.
Mr. Kautzman, you may have said greed is a good thing, but after this, I am having trouble seeing how. The economy is taking a downturn, and the people responsible are giving themselves billion dollar bonuses! Greed may make people work hard to get more money for supporting themselves may be a good thing, but this kind of greed is just immoral. Those bankers could have used that money to buffer their businesses or to help their employees keep their jobs so the company doesn’t go under even more. But of course, that would be responsible and very un-Wall Street. I’m glad Obama placed the cap on the companies that receive government pay. That, hopefully, will shock them enough to realize that they actually need to make good decisions on what loans to lend. And hopefully, too, this will show them that just because they got the money doesn’t mean that they are no longer in the public view as to what they do will it. The money they got was taxpayer money, and the taxpayers want to make sure they get it back. At least the auto industry heads would admit that they made mistakes and were also willing to have their pay cut to one dollar for the year. If they are going to be this stupid with the money they got, then the government will not give them more money to save them.
Connection: Greed, bailout, and regulation. Mr. Kautzman said that greed isn’t a bad thing, but in this case I would have to disagree in this. Awarding bonuses that large in an economic crisis is like shooting yourself in the foot when your leg is broken. The remaining bailout money should be given only if certain conditions are promised to be upheld. And Congress has the power to regulate commerce. It is an enumerated power. So perhaps they should take advantage of that and regulate, at least until the economy turns around, the pay of the CEO to make sure they aren’t being more stupid than usual.
Reading about these big bonus guys makes me sick to my stomach. Who do they think they are to spoil themselves silly with corporate jets and commodes-on-legs when Main Street is suffering in the process? Granted, we may be scrutinizing the moves of these business leaders more closely than we otherwise would during times of economic prosperity, but, with that idea, those people need to be smart about how they’re spending their money these days. In the next article, readers were hit with an unclear message: “The plan’s effectiveness [to guarantee or buy outright hundreds of billions of dollars in bad assets held by banks] in curbing executive pay may not be known for years, however” (Labaton and Bajaj). Why do I get the feeling that while we may be wagging our fingers at these Wall Street bankers for this moment in time, another economic crisis would be enough to take these guys off the public anger radar? Seriously, it’s disgraceful for the bankers to give themselves bonuses when such money could be better spent otherwise. I’m glad that we’re covering the budget right now because I’m beginning to realize what an important part of our government it really is.
Connection: It’s a pity that Obama’s proposed $900 billion stimulus package is not entirely guaranteed to work, but sometimes that’s just the way it goes. Plus we learned that NONE of this money goes towards paying off our national debt, which currently stands at $10.25 trillion. Then again, $900 billion doesn’t look too shabby compared to our staggering national debt.
In Response to Rachel Kerr:
Yes, it is true that not everything is garunteed.
However, Obama’s stimulus plan would stand a pretty good chance at success in theory. He plans to put this money towards indivuduals wallets, towards schools, and larger companies so they can revise their hiring/firing practices during this time. If these areas are a success, then Obama’s large bailout shouldnt be overlooked or doubted. Once these aspects are completed, especially job rehiring/less layoffs, then other good things will follow and our economy will be back on track. At this point there’s not much else that can be done, so Obama’s stimulus package should not be so easily overlooked or doubted.
In response to Jon:
I agree completely. Top-level executives are not only being compensated for their failure, but they are now being paid for it, as well. These companies have led to the unemployment of hundreds of thousands of people. Ironically, it is often the same people who have lost their jobs due, most often indirectly, to these companies’ failures, now flipping burgers at McDonalds or greeting customers at Wal-Mart, who are paying those they once counted on for success fat bonuses each year. The system could not be more twisted. I have no problem with the idea of a bailout. If the majority of leading American companies fail, so do the majority of Americans. A bailout could benefit everyone. I do, however, have an issue with company executives taking the bailout for granted or, worse yet, as personal gifts and spending endorsements. Wall Street needs help, but with that assistance must come the firm reminder that money needs to be spent wisely. A bailout is not a handout. Like you said, if nothing else, keeping loans and business dealings in plain public view should at least give executives a small push to think about the checks they put into their own mailboxes each month.