Another Fox graphic falsely suggests Pay for Performance Bill applies to all employees
SUMMARY: Cavuto on Business featured on-screen text that read: " 'Pay-For-Performance' Bill: Gov't dictating how much you'll make?" In fact, the bill would regulate compensation only for employees of financial institutions that have received federal assistance.
During an April 4 discussion of the House's passage of H.R. 1664, the Pay for Performance Act, Fox Business Network's Cavuto on Business featured on-screen text that read: " 'Pay-For-Performance' Bill: Gov't dictating how much you'll make?" In fact, the bill would not regulate pay for all workers but rather would regulate compensation only for employees of financial institutions that have received federal assistance -- a fact acknowledged by Cavuto and his guests during the segment. Moreover, the bill regulates pay for those institutions only during the period in which the public investment in them remains outstanding, and even then, it does not apply to institutions that have agreed to a schedule for the institution to repay the entire government investment, unless the company defaults on that plan.
As Media Matters for America documented, the March 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends aired on-screen text that falsely claimed of the Pay for Performance Act: "Bill lets government set your salary."
From the text of H.R. 1664, as passed by the House:
"(1) PROHIBITION. -- No financial institution that has received or receives a direct capital investment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment, other than a longevity bonus or a payment in the form of restricted stock, to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement --
"(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, in accordance with paragraph (2); or
"(B) includes any bonus or other supplemental payment, whether payable before employment, during employment, or after termination of employment, that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).
An institution shall not become subject to the requirements of this paragraph as a result of doing business with a recipient of a direct capital investment under the TARP or under the amendments made by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
[...]
"(4) CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION. --
"(A) REPAYMENT AGREEMENT. -- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a financial institution that has entered into a comprehensive agreement with the Secretary to repay the United States, in accordance with a schedule and terms established by the Secretary, all outstanding amounts of any direct capital investment or investments received by such institution under this title.
'(B) DEFAULT. -- If the Secretary determines that an institution that has entered into an agreement as provided for in subparagraph (A) has defaulted on such agreement, the Secretary shall require that any compensation payments made by such institution that would have been subject to paragraph (1) if the institution had not entered into such an agreement be surrendered to the Treasury.
Cavuto began the segment by saying to former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, "Jack, to this issue where Congress is hell-bent on dictating pay for everybody." Welch responded, "Well, for those who have received money from the -- " Cavuto interjected, "For now." Welch replied, "For now." Fox News business correspondent Dagen McDowell also acknowledged that the bill would only affect pay at institutions that have received federal assistance, while suggesting it may result in a "slippery slope." McDowell stated: "I thought, 'Oh, you know, it's to be expected that the government is going to try and control the pay of people -- of companies that took taxpayer money.' But you have to wonder if that slope doesn't become so slippery, they start going after companies that do a lot of business with the government, like the defense industry."
From the April 4 edition of Fox Business Network's Cavuto on Business (which subsequently re-aired on both Fox Business Network and Fox News):
CAVUTO: Jack, to this issue where Congress is hell-bent on dictating pay for everybody.
WELCH: Well, for those who have received money from the --
CAVUTO: For now.
WELCH: For now. And that's where they've gone, Neil. And the idea is insane. I mean, I'm an owner of this business, and the way they talk about the fact that these people can't go anywhere. They can go to foreign banks, they can go to hedge funds, they can go all kinds of places. I want my investment to have a return on it. And the idea that they're restricting the best players from dealing with my investment frustrates the hell out of me.
CAVUTO: Ben Stein, what's going on here, though, is bigger than just the big guys who might have brought on this calamity. By extending this to policing the pay of everyone at the company, you are opening a lot of doors, aren't you?
STEIN (conservative commentator and actor): Yeah, we have a big problem here. I mean, the problem was brought on by excessive pay on Wall Street and in many corporate executive suites. There's no doubt about it. They were begging for trouble because of the way they've been paying themselves and looting the stockholders for years. But the idea that government -- which is, again, not some genius; it's not Albert Einstein, it's somebody at the Department of Motor Vehicles wearing a different jacket -- is going to be capable of regulating pay is nonsense. This is a bill that essentially legitimizes envy and puts a law around envy and says that it's a public service.
CAVUTO: Can you imagine when Ben has to renew his license, how that's gonna go? Dagen, I guess what I found most offensive with the congressman and those who ultimately supported this is they're saying, "We will police objectionable pay right down to secretaries and assistants, but we won't tell you what objectionable is. We'll leave that in the hands of Treasury, political appointees all, who will ultimately decide on things that we're not fine-tuning right now." So they are going to write a number on a blank check backed by our money. That's the slippery slope I'm talking about.
McDOWELL: It's a slippery slope of that and also what Jack was pointing out, is not treating these investments like we're investments. They're not thinking about these companies as businesses that we want to get our money back from. Instead, they're just trying to hit all the people in terms of their pay. And I'm dead wrong about this. I thought, "Oh, you know, it's to be expected that the government is going to try and control the pay of people -- of companies that took taxpayer money." But you have to wonder if that slope doesn't become so slippery, they start going after companies that do a lot of business with the government, like the defense industry. If we let this keep happening, that's what will happen.
CAVUTO: Charles, I recently I spoke to -- I consider him a modern-day philosopher -- Don Imus on this very subject, a New York radio icon, who said, "Well, what's wrong here? We've given, you know, 180, $200 billion to, let's say, AIG. It's our money. We can decide how it's spent at the company." What do you think of that?
Is this an effort to gin up more agnst against the govt based on falsehoods or just trying to gain the lunatic fringe viewer audience? CLEARLY no ONE has said it would apply to ALL FRIGGIN EMPLOYEES. What a bunch of GOP tools
Simple chirons for the simpletons who watch Fox for serious news content. I have yet to see that on Fox. Perhaps they'll branch out into reality some day.
Randy
if you read what cavuto says, it's worse: "...congress is hell bent on dictating pay for everybody". and then jack welch, no liberal, starts to point out that it's just for those getting government money and cavuto cuts him off. out and out propaganda. it's time to start challenging their licenses. fox does own broadcast stations, and the licenses are for serving the public good, and this is not it.
Yeah, no kidding. Cavuto inserting "For now" right there is just an out and out lie. NOBODY has hinted that this would start applying to anyone else, and nobody WANTS it to.
This is baseless fearmongering directed at the rabid portion of the anti-Obama crowd, nothing else.
Forgot to add, that they choose this angle because frankly I think many of the Republican voters probably agree with this measure. It's government money given to the private enterprise, why not limit it? But that wouldn't work, so Cavuto et al have to do the "well, they'll be coming for you later!" angle, because that will likely work better for their purposes.
And that's a slippery slope argument, of course. Sometimes slippery slopes do occur, and they can sometimes be predicted, but absent of some rationale to that end it's a logical fallacy. Cavuto has no basis for suggesting that the motivation for this is anything other than a common-sense control over government investment.
I also think that this is another no-win set-up. If Obama doesn't do things like this, then he's allowing the type of behavior that created this mess in the first place. Where's the "change" we were supposed to get? Etc, etc. If we don't get a change in direction, then Obama's a liar and just another politician like all the rest. If we do get change in direction, then it's carried to illogical and far-reaching conclusions.
Fantagor, they will be like this and worse for the next eight years. They simply hate the fact that the Democrats and Obama are in charge and whatever they can do or say will be their norm until 2012.
A sad truth. At this rate, I predict a minimum of 5,000 lies and distortions by the end of this July.
Randy
Anyone ever hear of the Davis Bacon Act or the SCA act? http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/sca.htm
What they are doing with this act is pretty similar, so its not like this is exactly new.
Cavuto thinks Imus is a philosopher. If there's a clearer case of the blind leading the blind...
Hmm, Wolf, a fascinating thought just to came to me...
The government should give Fox News Manufacturing bailout funds. A lot of if, so they cannot refuse. Salary caps? New CEO and underlings? New "reporters" and entertainers? Maybe equal time?
Just think how the country could be improved as a result.
well fixed noise did lose about 9 billion i think in its stock prices.....might be less but that number sticks in my head
"In fact, the bill would regulate compensation only for employees of financial institutions that have received federal assistance."
That says it all right there... "In fact," is just a suggestion for the FoxNoise propaganda machine!
Anyone watch the video of the interview of Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman? Would it not be great if the attitude shown toward their job was the measuring stick to how the media MUST present itself and the "In fact's!"
now come on we all know that anyone who works at fox noise has to first sign a contract in blood stating that they will check their shame, sense of honor, and dignaty at the door.
then they enter a barely lighted room which when the lights are turned up and number of robed and hodded figures form a circle around the person where you can only hear the voices of Rush, Dick, Wolfie, Norquist, Yoo, Gonzolas, Rumy, Hannity, Coulter, Will, Bybee, Ashcroft, McConnel, Corker, Shelby, and Palin ordering the person to kneel before them and recite the following oath:
i (insert name) hereby pledge myself freely to the teachings and precepts of the FOX news channel (insert Order of the Sith Lords for a laugh)
after which Dick as reigning Dark Lord, accepts the candidate into the business (Order) and proceeds to command the candidate to rid themselves of someone close to them, thus proving they are committed. this usually takes the form of either a secret murder of a famiyl member (explaining why those working at fixed news does not have a conscience cause their mothers would surely slap them) or somehow making them disappear. (im betting they have them shipped off to Gitmo or sold into slavery)
having completed said rituals they swear to espouse whatever they are told to no matter what, this includes outright lies and distortion of facts. after swearing fealty, they are given their office, check their soul, conscience, sense of hummanity, and individuality, at the front desk, and begin working.
now come on we all know that anyone who works at fox noise has to first sign a contract in blood stating that they will check their shame, sense of honor, and dignaty at the door.
then they enter a barely lighted room which when the lights are turned up and number of robed and hodded figures form a circle around the person where you can only hear the voices of Rush, Dick, Wolfie, Norquist, Yoo, Gonzolas, Rumy, Hannity, Coulter, Will, Bybee, Ashcroft, McConnel, Corker, Shelby, and Palin ordering the person to kneel before them and recite the following oath:
i (insert name) hereby pledge myself freely to the teachings and precepts of the FOX news channel (insert Order of the Sith Lords for a laugh)
after which Dick as reigning Dark Lord, accepts the candidate into the business (Order) and proceeds to command the candidate to rid themselves of someone close to them, thus proving they are committed. this usually takes the form of either a secret murder of a family member (explaining why those working at fixed news does not have a conscience cause their mothers would surely slap them) or somehow making them disappear. (im betting they have them shipped off to Gitmo or sold into slavery)
having completed said rituals they swear to espouse whatever they are told to no matter what, this includes outright lies and distortion of facts. after swearing fealty, they are given their office, check their soul, conscience, sense of hummanity, and individuality, at the front desk, and begin working.
yes our resident idiot neil cavuto strikes the bell again
yes, ok. fine. only looking into employees of companies that took bailout money....but now giethner wants possible power to decide who is cloooose to needing a bailout and swoping in before they beg...so he can decide who is on the edge. he comes in, takes over, forces them to take money and there's one more company that will now fall under "only these few companies"
it's sick. and if you don't think the gov't at any point being able to fire a ceo of a private company isn't a sign of complete meltdown, then there's no hope for you.
it's sick and wrong.
can you name a credible source?
not acceptable forms....WSJ, Fox Business Channel
acceptable forms...CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN
I say it is accurate. The government does not give up any power once they have it. they only strive to make it greater.
Once they are controling the salaries of companies that get Federal bailout then there is going to be a disparity between what theose companies employees get paid and what other companies employees are paid for the same work and to make it fair someone will push legislation to make all emplyee pay the same for the same job. And under this Congress anything is possible.
That is completely nuts. People working for bailed-out companies are lucky to have jobs at all, so nobody's in much of a position to complain about any disparity. There is simply no rationale for lowering the pay of people at more successful companies to match employees at bailed-out companies.