Despite the objections of the banking community and its market-addled friends, President Obama wasn't rousing the populist beast (God forbid), as his critics alleged, when he imposed pay limitations yesterday on top executives of the banks that will be seeking public bailouts. The beast is already plenty roused by the idiot indulgences that bankers have taken with our tax dollars. Obama was simply trying to appease public sentiment just enough so that the bailouts to come won't be politically impossible.
Nor have the opponents of limiting executive pay made a clear distinction between banks requiring public assistance to survive and those that don't. Right now, our government demands all kind of behavioral modifications from welfare recipients. What exactly is the moral and economic distinction between those recipients and those who head insolvent banks, except that the welfare recipients aren't responsible for tanking the global economy?
And while we're in question mode: What's the argument against having a public representative sitting on Citigroup's board right now, since the public is now the source of Citigroup's capital and has assumed Citigroup's debt? No public funds, no Citigroup. Not having a member on the board is plain old taxation without representation. With Washington's Birthday stealing up on us, it's well to remember: We're against that.
--Harold Meyerson
