When is a bonus not a bonus? When it’s an award

Just when I thought Wall Street attitudes toward undeserved “corporate bonuses” couldn’t get any worse, someone comes along to prove that there is no bottom to the blind greed.

I was sickened enough when, last week, so many Wall Street types went on the cable news networks to defend such bonuses as necessary to ensure that all those multi-billionaire CEOs continue to do their jobs, even if some of these CEOs ran their companies into the ground. (Isn’t a multiple million-dollar salary enough to motivate you to do your job?)

The Barack Obama administration is right to limit corporate bonuses as a restriction on bailout packages. You want the people’s money to rescue your ailing company? The least you can do is NOT throw money at failed, and already rich, corporate bigwigs.

And if anything, the recently passed stimulus package doesn’t go far enough. As reported by the Associated Press, the stimulus bill penalizes companies that paid out executive bonuses of more than $100,000 after receiving bailout money last year. My vote would be to eliminate executive bonuses altogether. With the economy in meltdown, this is no time for half-measures.

Worse yet, there is nothing in the bill that address executive “awards,” which brings us to corporate America’s latest attempt to cheat the system.

The Huffington Post got a hold of a tape of a conference call among executives of soon-to-be-merged financial giants Morgan Stanley and Citigroup’s Smith Barney. During the call, Morgan Stanley co-president James Gorman blatantly reassures his cohorts that they have figured out a way around the “bonus” issue.

"There will be a retention award. Please do not call it a bonus," said Gorman, as quoted on the audiotape. "It is not a bonus. It is an award. And it recognizes the importance of keeping our team in place as we go through this integration." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/11/bailout-recipients-giving_n_165624.html)

An award? The only award these guys should get is for excessive chutzpah!

Described on the tape as “very generous,” the awards “will be calculated based on performance numbers from 2008 instead of 2009, when the merger is expected to be completed. That decision virtually guarantees an increase in the size of the awards,” reports the Huffington Post.

As Gorman put it, “I think I can hear you clapping from here in New York. You should be clapping because frankly that is a very generous and thoughtful decision that we have made. We spent a lot of time kicking this around. We could easily have done it from the point of closing, which is obviously going to be somewhere in the latter half of this year or around the middle of the year. But we just decided ... that it was right thing to do, to give you that certainty that it would be based off '08. '09 is a very difficult year. ... So that degree of anxiety, which many, many of you have emailed me about ... is now off the table."

Since Morgan Stanley and Citigroup were given more than $60 billion in government bailout money, the only thing that should be off the table is any government bailout money. Aren’t these people paid enough to get them to stay put and do their jobs?

And if these companies can get away with this, it’s time to go back to the drawing board to make sure nothing that even resembles bonuses, awards, whatever you want to call them, is allowed.

NY’s new senator can bridge state’s urban-rural divide

Enough already with the criticism about New York Gov. David Paterson’s appointment of upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as the state’s junior senator to replace now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand is a strong choice who is poised to serve the entirety of the Empire State very well.

In fact, Gillibrand was a good choice for a number of reasons:

1. She is not Caroline Kennedy, who proved to be unqualified and not ready for prime time.

2. She is from upstate, and it’s about time New Yorkers north of Westchester had someone in Washington who truly understands their issues.

3. She is unquestionably pro-gay, even supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples. This will make her one of only a few U.S. senators to take such a strong stand for equality.

4. She is a Republican slayer. She first won her House seat, representing the heavily GOP district surrounding Albany, in 2006 by beating incumbent Republican Congressman John Sweeney.

5. She is a woman, and after Clinton’s historic presidential run – and those 18,000 cracks in the glass ceiling – it is a plus for a qualified woman to be chosen to replace Clinton in the Senate.

Despite all the pluses, however, Gillibrand has been criticized for being too pro-gun. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who represents part of suburban Long Island and is a staunch gun-control advocate, has even promised Gillibrand a Democratic primary challenge in 2010.

But this criticism has little to do with Gillibrand and says much more about how urban New Yorkers just don’t understand rural issues in the rest of the state. Yes, Gillibrand has a perfect voting record as rated by the rabidly pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA). But that doesn’t mean Gillibrand is a gun zealot. It means that she understands the culture of guns in her rural district is very different from gun culture in the state’s urban centers.

Howard Dean, until recently the head of the Democratic National Committee, understood this difference. No one would argue Dean is a conservative – in fact, he lost the 2004 Democratic presidential primary because he was perceived as too liberal. But as governor of Vermont for over 11 years, he was consistently endorsed by the NRA. That’s because he understood the culture of guns in his largely rural state, a place where deer season is celebrated but with one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.

As for Gillibrand, she has already signaled her understanding of this issue statewide. Upon being appointed by Peterson, she said, "I will look for ways to find common ground between upstate and downstate. There are so many issues where we can come together, … where we can reduce gun violence and protect our children and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but also protect our hunters' rights."

I’m no fan of the NRA, and I certainly don’t understand killing animals for sport, but I do understand that guns are viewed differently in urban and rural parts of the country. Gillibrand understands that difference as well, and that is a good thing for someone hoping to represent all of New York state.

Caroline Kennedy just ain’t qualified

It’s official. The New York Times reports that Caroline Kennedy – daughter of President John F. Kennedy – has told New York Gov. David Paterson that she wants to be appointed to the U.S. Senate. The only problem is that she’s just not qualified for the job.

Paterson has the power to appoint a new senator from New York once its junior senator – Hillary Clinton – leaves her seat to become President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of state. And Paterson has much to consider. After all, New York is hard hit by the current economic crisis, is an economic engine for the nation, and needs someone who can hit the ground running.

But as the Times put it, Kennedy “has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office, and has promoted such non-controversial causes as patriotism, poetry, and public service.” In fact, she has purposely kept herself largely out of the public spotlight until her recent campaign forays on behalf of Obama. Therefore, her political views are largely unknown.

What makes her qualified to be senator? Oh yes, she’s a KENNEDY – a name that makes older Democrats all fuzzy on the inside. Of course, there are Kennedys who continue to work hard for the sake of the nation – Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, to name two. But they earned their stripes, have well-known political positions, and have enjoyed continued and long-term support in their respective states.

Some Democrats are giddy over the idea of sending another Kennedy to Washington. And that would be fine if said Kennedy won the seat fair and square. But what has Caroline Kennedy done to earn this seat, aside from campaigning for Obama and being a Kennedy?

New York State is busting with a talented political farm team that could be tapped to fill Sen. Clinton’s shoes (or pantsuit) – counting everyone from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (who is African American).

At the very least, actress, businesswoman, and lobbyist Fran Drescher – who has also said she wants the senate seat – went on “Larry King Live” to explain her political beliefs to the nation. Kennedy has yet to talk publicly about what kind of senator she would be. Kennedy refused comment to the Times, instead giving some friends permission to speak on her behalf. If she really wants to be a senator, Kennedy needs to start talking for herself.

Clinton, before she began running for the Senate, went on a listening tour of upstate and western New York to make sure she understood the state beyond the five boroughs and the Hudson Valley. Cuomo, as a statewide official, is already familiar with these other parts of the state, and Brown is mayor of the largest city in western New York. Has the Manhattan-centric Kennedy even been to Brooklyn, let alone Plattsburgh or Tonawanda?

Democrats reveled in pointing out how unqualified Sarah Palin was to become vice president. But if Palin – who is a governor and served as a mayor – wasn’t qualified for a job that doesn’t have much responsibility, Kennedy certainly isn’t up for the job of senator.