You would be fired.........

[The Mucca]

(Yes, the Kerry thing is a red herring because he married into wealth, and I don't know the details on the LLC, but it was useful to show exactly how that sort of thing works in other cases. Of course, there is a chance that yacht wasn't from the misses as much as there's a chance it was.)

 

I guess the difference in my mind is the level of behavior and the burden of proof required in both cases. Presidents and Congressmen don't generally get booted by 'the board of directors', they get booted out by not getting re-elected. They don't get 'arrested' because they are basically above the law (both institutions have their own way to deal with that). Let's say Rangel and Waters both get nailed by the Senate Ethics committee. Are they going to go to jail? Hardly. They might not even lose their seats immediately (that outcome is possible, but rare). They may lose re-election, but then they'll have a nice Tom Daschle-like existance bringing in millions by lobbying (or by consulting to lobbyists so they don't violate their one year clause). You want to complain about a CEO fudging his expense report over amounts that are a fraction of a percent of his salary... that's cool. Where's the populist outrage for the 780903454 vacations Obama has been on, or the half a million to send Eva Peron Michelle to Spain? Where's the fire about how on one hand Obama can declare every facet of American life is in crisis, yet has been golfing more in a year and a half then the last guy did in eight?

 

Everyone was pissed off the car companies would DARE fly their CEOs out to meet with Congress, apparently ignorant of the fact that Congressmen get their own free flights, free cars, free drivers, free securty details, and on and on all funded by taxpayers. Those don't show up on their relatively small salaries in public office, but you're still footing the bill for it. Those same Congressmen make a fortune (indirectly and hidden) through lobbyists, PACs, and the like but you don't see the fingerprints because it doesn't go into their re-election funds or in their name where they'd have to declare it. Many abuse their public office to arrange deals and laws to help businesses they have interests in (Pelosi has done this in CA, and Waters is currently being hoisted up by her petards for this) and never get caught, and sometimes even when caught or something is fishy, don't face the Ethics committee.

 

I don't understand how people can complain about a CEO and not complain about government when you *might* be affected by the CEOs supposed largesse (assuming you might have stock in that company) but don't seem to care about government largesse which you ARE affected by in taxes every year (and more than just income tax, city/county/state/federal... they all get you).

 

If companies blow money on this crap, and it really is frivolous, then they weaken themselves and a smart competitor can take advantage. There is no competition for public services so there is absolutely no reason for anything in the public sector to be efficient. THIS is why government programs are generally a disaster, why we spend so much on Defense but don't see the results you'd expect from that expenditure, why the Post Office can't make money, etc, etc. Government programs don't have to run with a survival instinct because they'll just get bailed out, they have no competition so they don't have to worry about efficiency, so they bleed money like stuck pigs and we all end up paying for it.

 

I know it's just a silly movie, but I think Distinguished Gentlemen makes a pretty good point about the ridiculous level of sleaze in Washington, and that movie is what... 20 years old now? Nothing has changed, or if it has, it's gotten a lot worse.

 

+1000

 

These CEOs that dabble in their expense account are actually making their shareholders money, what do you get from the politicians who do it, higher taxes?

[Ursa Majoris]

(Yes, the Kerry thing is a red herring because he married into wealth, and I don't know the details on the LLC, but it was useful to show exactly how that sort of thing works in other cases. Of course, there is a chance that yacht wasn't from the misses as much as there's a chance it was.)

 

I guess the difference in my mind is the level of behavior and the burden of proof required in both cases. Presidents and Congressmen don't generally get booted by 'the board of directors', they get booted out by not getting re-elected. They don't get 'arrested' because they are basically above the law (both institutions have their own way to deal with that). Let's say Rangel and Waters both get nailed by the Senate Ethics committee. Are they going to go to jail? Hardly. They might not even lose their seats immediately (that outcome is possible, but rare). They may lose re-election, but then they'll have a nice Tom Daschle-like existance bringing in millions by lobbying (or by consulting to lobbyists so they don't violate their one year clause). You want to complain about a CEO fudging his expense report over amounts that are a fraction of a percent of his salary... that's cool. Where's the populist outrage for the 780903454 vacations Obama has been on, or the half a million to send Eva Peron Michelle to Spain? Where's the fire about how on one hand Obama can declare every facet of American life is in crisis, yet has been golfing more in a year and a half then the last guy did in eight?

 

Everyone was pissed off the car companies would DARE fly their CEOs out to meet with Congress, apparently ignorant of the fact that Congressmen get their own free flights, free cars, free drivers, free securty details, and on and on all funded by taxpayers. Those don't show up on their relatively small salaries in public office, but you're still footing the bill for it. Those same Congressmen make a fortune (indirectly and hidden) through lobbyists, PACs, and the like but you don't see the fingerprints because it doesn't go into their re-election funds or in their name where they'd have to declare it. Many abuse their public office to arrange deals and laws to help businesses they have interests in (Pelosi has done this in CA, and Waters is currently being hoisted up by her petards for this) and never get caught, and sometimes even when caught or something is fishy, don't face the Ethics committee.

 

I don't understand how people can complain about a CEO and not complain about government when you *might* be affected by the CEOs supposed largesse (assuming you might have stock in that company) but don't seem to care about government largesse which you ARE affected by in taxes every year (and more than just income tax, city/county/state/federal... they all get you).

 

If companies blow money on this crap, and it really is frivolous, then they weaken themselves and a smart competitor can take advantage. There is no competition for public services so there is absolutely no reason for anything in the public sector to be efficient. THIS is why government programs are generally a disaster, why we spend so much on Defense but don't see the results you'd expect from that expenditure, why the Post Office can't make money, etc, etc. Government programs don't have to run with a survival instinct because they'll just get bailed out, they have no competition so they don't have to worry about efficiency, so they bleed money like stuck pigs and we all end up paying for it.

 

I know it's just a silly movie, but I think Distinguished Gentlemen makes a pretty good point about the ridiculous level of sleaze in Washington, and that movie is what... 20 years old now? Nothing has changed, or if it has, it's gotten a lot worse.

I am not really sure where to begin. Perhaps I should start by pointing out that my original post had nothing to do with politics but you and Mucca felt the need to make it so, perhaps as a diversion because you want everyone to believe that business is always better and adheres to capitalist rules when the evidence clearly states that it is just as culpable as government.

 

I will refute / make a few points:

 

Politicians do go to jail for crimes. Robert Ney, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson, Bill Janklow, Stephen Griles , Bernard Kerik and Jim Traficant have all gone to jail in the last 10 years alone, to name not all of them.

 

Barack Obama has spent considerably less time on vacation than any of his most recent predecessors, particularly George W Bush. I am not sure at all what your (incorrect) point has to do with anything being discussed here but I thought I would refute it anyway, since it was so easy.

 

Your criticism of Michelle Obama's trip is equally without merit unless you want to completely ignore all that has gone before. The Obamas are forking over their own money for the private parts of the trip and the public parts are the same for any First Lady, including Laura Bush (who, it should be remembered, was on vacation as much as her husband - see above).

 

We checked with the White House for a price breakdown of the trip, looking for a smoking gun. And honestly, there isn’t one. The bulk of the trip—the hotel stay and all meals—were paid for by the Obamas and their close friends who joined them. “Any additional footprint,” says a White House aide, “including additional rooms needed for security support, falls under the same rules as have applied to any previous first-family travel: the costs are split appropriately, with private expenses paid for privately; government expenses are paid for by the government.”

 

The thing that pissed people off about the three car company CEOs was that they didn't travel together, which they certainly could have done. It's their complete inability to cut their cloth appropriately - they were begging for a handout, for Christ's sake! - that was criticized. Your criticisms of politicians free this and free that completely ignores the fact that company bosses get exactly the same free this and free that.

 

You have presented no evidence whatsoever (neither has Mucca) to show a payoff of millions when a politician leaves office. That's because they don't exist. You are however correct to point out that many become lobbyists or whatever, taking advantage of their previous position. I've ranted about corruption on these boards many times e.g. Cheney and Halliburton but somehow that never seems to be a problem for you when the other side are in power, only when it's not. Also, there is a direct parallel in the business world for this - ex-executives sitting on boards of directors. These are usually extremely well paid sinecures.

 

The last paragraph of your post is just a rant so I'll not bother with it.

[bushwacked]

Professing to being outraged by Michelle Obama going on a vacation is a good way to not have people take your outrage seriously. There are several huddlers adapt at being outraged well past the point of diminishing returns.

[tosberg34]

Professing to being outraged by Michelle Obama going on a vacation is a good way to not have people take your outrage seriously. There are several huddlers adapt at being outraged well past the point of diminishing returns.

 

You're absolutely right. It only makes sense to be outraged if your name is George W Bush (besides, it's ALL his fault anyways).

 

IMO this is par for the course for lefties. They expect everyone else to sacrifice except, of course, themselves. I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in this but, then again, I wouldn't expect someone as far left as you to see it anyways.

 

Truth - 1

Bushwacked - 0

[WaterMan]

+1000

 

These CEOs that dabble in their expense account are actually making their shareholders money, what do you get from the politicians who do it, higher taxes?

 

Well if a CEO extorts his business into the ground that's hundreds of jobs lost. You should be proud to pay more taxes for the highest military budget in the world. Go hawks.

[Deathpig]

Well, then let's get back to the original point. You may not like the fact the guy got money on the way out, but he wasn't fired for cause. I'm sure he had a contract that specified what was to happen when he left the company (fairly standard for executives and likely also filed with the SEC, I just don't feel like looking back far enough to find it). You won't find public sector employees with a similar situation because they don't have employment contracts that specify what happens when they leave. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

 

This is balanced by the fact that it's not easy to get someone high up in public service out of office (outside of elections). It is possible for politicians to go to jail, but it's not all that common (three times in the last 10 years for seated Congressmen). It's not common for them to lose their positions, but it can happen (expulsion has happened twice in the last 30 years-- normally people resign first). Generally, they get a slap on the wrists and then it's up to the voters to take care of it (and they usually do). That's if the allegations become public, which isn't as common as you'd think.

 

Likewise, if you stick to the top public sector people, you're looking at a list of names under 1000 (Congressmen, top Executive branch, top folks in the various agencies, etc.). I'm sure there are well over 100x that many CEOs-- and an order of magnitude more if you include all executives-- so the pool of newsworthy events will be much higher, even if the actual percentage of bad apples is lower.

 

On the other side of the coin, companies and their boards are dropping executives faster than ever, occasionally without even verifying that they did anything wrong-- the possiblity of them doing wrong and the ensuing media excoriation before the facts are in isn't worth the cost of damage control.

 

A recent article in the WSJ touches on this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2089375632.html

 

And the comparison to seperation agreements for standard employees has merit, even if you don't like it. Companies will often go the 'seperation agreement' route rather than the 'terminate for cause' route because it's easier on everyone (company doesn't have to jump through hoops to avoid the inevitable lawsuit from termination, employee gets a month or two of pay, ability to exercise vested options, and access to unemployment insurance and COBRA). This situation is different only in that he has a legally binding contract that specifies exactly what happens when he departs instead of the seperation agreement being at the discretion of the company.

[Ursa Majoris]

Regardless of any of the foregoing, you have still not come up with an example of a politician dismissed for cause (or the equivalent) who has been given any amount of money by their employer as separation. Originally you claimed a whole bunch of largely unrelated things, each of which I refuted, including your claim that politicians don't go to jail for crimes - I gave seven examples from this decade alone. It is not too much to ask that you provide an equivalent politician example of either the HP CEO or the Omnicare CEO, both of whom have departed after admitted malfeasance (and in the case of the Omnicare guy, colossal losses) and yet have been paid off with multiple millions.

 

Whether all companies do it or not (and I can assure you that private companies don't, at least those I have experience of), your attempt to say that it's the same for politicians is demonstrably false, as is your assertion that all employees get separation after being caught fiddling expenses. Most employees are "at will" and do not receive free money for being fired for cheating their employer.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[bushwacked]

You're absolutely right. It only makes sense to be outraged if your name is George W Bush (besides, it's ALL his fault anyways).

 

IMO this is par for the course for lefties. They expect everyone else to sacrifice except, of course, themselves. I guess you don't see the hypocrisy in this but, then again, I wouldn't expect someone as far left as you to see it anyways.

 

Truth - 1

Bushwacked - 0

 

:sigh:

 

I could ask you to come up with one example of anyone at the huddle complaining about Laura Bush taking a vacation. But, it's not like anyone here has to be convinced you unthinkingly react to every political post with the intelligence and grace of a knuckle dragging drooling neanderthal touching fire for the first time.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Politicians do go to jail for crimes. Robert Ney, Duke Cunningham, William Jefferson, Bill Janklow, Stephen Griles , Bernard Kerik and Jim Traficant have all gone to jail in the last 10 years alone, to name not all of them.

 

Maybe 1 out of 100 that should.

[SEC=UGA]

Regardless of any of the foregoing, you have still not come up with an example of a politician dismissed for cause (or the equivalent) who has been given any amount of money by their employer as separation. Originally you claimed a whole bunch of largely unrelated things, each of which I refuted, including your claim that politicians don't go to jail for crimes - I gave seven examples from this decade alone. It is not too much to ask that you provide an equivalent politician example of either the HP CEO or the Omnicare CEO, both of whom have departed after admitted malfeasance (and in the case of the Omnicare guy, colossal losses) and yet have been paid off with multiple millions.

 

Whether all companies do it or not (and I can assure you that private companies don't, at least those I have experience of), your attempt to say that it's the same for politicians is demonstrably false, as is your assertion that all employees get separation after being caught fiddling expenses. Most employees are "at will" and do not receive free money for being fired for cheating their employer.

 

They get to keep their pensions even if they are convicted of a crime... Is that a good enough pay out?

[TimC]

Timothy Geithner. [/thread]

[Yukon Cornelius]

Maybe 1 out of 100 that should.

well that average may be about accurate to white collar criminals also.

[Square]

You're absolutely right. It only makes sense to be outraged if your name is George W Bush (besides, it's ALL his fault anyways).

Personally, I really hated the ridiculous outrage at every little thing Bush did. The big stuff was fine, but he'd do something small and all the sudden the crazy left would call him the anti-christ. Unfortunately, the presidency changed to a dem and now the right thinks it can be just as crazy without any consequences.

[WaterMan]

Personally, I really hated the ridiculous outrage at every little thing Bush did. The big stuff was fine, but he'd do something small and all the sudden the crazy left would call him the anti-christ. Unfortunately, the presidency changed to a dem and now the right thinks it can be just as crazy without any consequences.

 

It's going to be even crazier when a Repub takes office. Yay America.

[dmarc117]

who here owns hp stock? anyone? if anyone should be pissed, its them. i own none, so i dont care. doesnt affect me.

 

the bs in washington dc affects me.

Edited August 9, 2010 by dmarc117

[Azazello1313]

I'm sure the HP stockholders would love to get out of paying this pr!ck, but the contractual legalities make it impossible. hopefully, for their own sake, they'll be more careful about how they structure their executive contracts in the future.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with politics or politicians.

[Deathpig]

Regardless of any of the foregoing, you have still not come up with an example of a politician dismissed for cause (or the equivalent) who has been given any amount of money by their employer as separation. Originally you claimed a whole bunch of largely unrelated things, each of which I refuted, including your claim that politicians don't go to jail for crimes - I gave seven examples from this decade alone. It is not too much to ask that you provide an equivalent politician example of either the HP CEO or the Omnicare CEO, both of whom have departed after admitted malfeasance (and in the case of the Omnicare guy, colossal losses) and yet have been paid off with multiple millions.

 

Whether all companies do it or not (and I can assure you that private companies don't, at least those I have experience of), your attempt to say that it's the same for politicians is demonstrably false, as is your assertion that all employees get separation after being caught fiddling expenses. Most employees are "at will" and do not receive free money for being fired for cheating their employer.

 

Here's the short, short version:

 

How is what the HP CEO did worse than what guys like Geithner and Rangel did? In each case they fudged accounting for (in the grand scheme of things) a relatively trivial amount of money. All three of them cheated their employer. Hurd lost his job, Geithner and Rangel kept theirs. Why doesn't that analysis bother you?

 

Here's the long version:

 

I don't understand what you are looking for. I explained this already, and I'll do so again but I'll use small words and short sentences so you'll understand.

 

1) Congressmen don't possess legally binding contracts that state what happens in the event the Government no longer wishes to employ them. Moreso, the Government doesn't have the opportunity to arbitrarily decide it doesn't wish to employ them any longer.

2) The Government doesn't pay Congressmen millions of dollars when they are IN office, much less when they are OUT of office.

 

Hence...

 

The example is apples to oranges.

 

However...

 

1) Congressmen after five years of service are eligible for pensions and, depending on service time, can translate into 80% of their salary.

2) They keep their (very good) health plan.

3) They are protected from civil lawsuits for events that happen while they are in office (Federal Tort Claims Act)-- so if they break a law while in office they aren't liable for the civil damages.

 

THIS is why you don't generally see someone get booted out of office-- they can resign and keep the perks. They can resign AFTER they are charged with a crime and keep the perks. If a Congressmen IS arrested and goes to jail, they keep their job, though they are not allowed to vote or participate in committee work until there's a House Ethics Committee hearing. As a percentage of income, their benefits are quite good (potentially many, many times a single year's listed government compensation over the course of drawing the benefit).

 

This is also not to say that Congressmen don't make millions of dollars. They do, but that money doesn't come from the government, and they aren't so stupid as to have the lobbyist write them personal checks.. They also retain that source of income when they are out of office, if they so choose.

 

You might not like the fact that CEOs have employment contracts, and that's fine. They have them as protection to prevent a board of directors from leveraging the CEOs work and then dismissing him to avoid compensating him. You might not like that HP didn't choose to fire the CEO for cause, and that's fine too. It would not shock me if a condition of his seperation required him to 'admit wrongdoing', I doubt he came forward before that was all taken care of because he'd be able to litigate against the company if they did want to fire him for cause. Nevermind that the litigation process would be FAR worse for the company's stock AND would likely cost them far more than they are already paying out.

 

You can argue with me that people get fired all the time and that work is 'at will'. I've been working for 20 years in an at-will state. I've seen a lot of crazy stuff. And I've seen TWO people fired for cause (both of which sued-- again, in CA it's easy to find a plaintiffs attorney if you are in a protected class). I've seen dozens and dozens of people that probably shoud have been fired for incompetance or violations of conduct given seperation agreements (generally referred to as elimination of position, downsizing, lay-offs, 'change in direction', 'services no longer required', or whatnot-- the terms are candy-coated). Why? Because, at least in CA, it's way too easy to get sued and litigation costs way more then settling.

 

As for the Obama comments, those were there as a contrast to your bombastic claims of CEO corruption or whatever point you were trying to make. I tried to inflate the numbers/amounts to make it obvious as ridiculously exaggerated nonsense, which was probably a mistake given the Have to agree here-flinging here (it's hard to tell what's nonsense and what isn't )

[MikesVikes]

It will be messy

 

That is the trickle down theory.

[jetsfan]

Congressman and civil servants are both under FERS now. The pension program is not what is used to be. After 5 years of service you would get nothing. You need at least 20 year to get anything close to 50% of your salary. They also pay into social security. The good ole days of CSRS are long gone, expect for the 80 year old guy in the office next door to mine.

[The Mucca]

Congressman and civil servants are both under FERS now. The pension program is not what is used to be. After 5 years of service you would get nothing. You need at least 20 year to get anything close to 50% of your salary. They also pay into social security. The good ole days of CSRS are long gone, expect for the 80 year old guy in the office next door to mine.

 

 

If that is true, maybe that's why they steal so much now.

[THEKING]

DAMN - who has this much free time ?????

[WaterMan]

DAMN - who has this much free time ?????

 

I think they are paid to type here.

[SEC=UGA]

DAMN - who has this much free time ?????

 

Evil rich people...

[WaterMan]

+1000

 

These CEOs that dabble in their expense account are actually making their shareholders money, what do you get from the politicians who do it, higher taxes?

 

America seems to be on the boat for taxes going back to normal for the rich and corporations.

 

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/6685/greenbergbig.jpg