As you've likely heard, Henry Waxman has sent letters to nine banks demanding that they justify pay and bonuses. The representative from California wrote, "I question the appropriateness of depleting the capital that taxpayers just injected into the banks through the payment of billions of dollars in bonuses, especially after one of the financial industry's worst years on record. Some experts have suggested that a significant percentage of this compensation could come in year-end bonuses and that the size of the bonuses will be significantly enhanced as a result of the infusion of taxpayer funds." Apparently the institutions are to get back to him by November 10 with answers. I have to say, this legitimately frosts my cookies.
I'd have more respect for the chairman if he pulled a Barney Frank and got on his megaphone and called for a ban on bonuses outright. But this meddlesome bull shit is actually quite disturbing. I'd like to know what Wax would consider acceptable justifications (which presupposes he's thought about this and isn't just winging it). Do the banks that fail to refer to him as Herr Henry get automatically disqualified from bonuses this year? What about the ones that rail against the "excessive and outrageous greed that permeates Wall Street" and include pictures of their first year analysts being bent over a desk? Are they up this year? For every paragraph that doesn't include a footnote complimenting Waxy on his distinguished chin and Roman nose, do bonuses drop five percent? No one should respond this request. As a compromise, a la NFL challenges, Waxman can pick three employees' bonuses each year that the banks have to give good reason for distributing. But that's it.
Chairman Waxman Requests Compensation and Bonus Information for Employees of Major Banks [Committee On Oversight And Government Reform]