First, for the five biggest recipients of TARP aid, the Pay Czar has decreed massive pay cuts.  See

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281:

At the financial products division of the insurance giant, A.I.G., the locus of problems that plagued the large insurer and forced its rescue with more than $180 billion in taxpayer assistance, no top executive will receive more than $200,000 in total compensation, a stunning decline from previous years in which the unit produced many wealthy executives and traders.

Now check this out, from Zerohedge, a very interesting financial blog, quoting a Bloomberg story:

Carnegie Hall Stagehand Moving Props Makes $530,044

 Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — After you practice for years and get to Carnegie Hall, it’s almost better to move music stands than actually play the piano.

 Depending on wattage, a star pianist can receive $20,000 a night at the 118-year-old hall, meaning he or she would have to perform at least 27 times to match the income of Dennis O’Connell, who oversees props at the New York concert hall.

 O’Connell made $530,044 in salary and benefits during the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. The four other members of the full-time stage crew — two carpenters and two electricians — had an average income of $430,543 during the same period, according to Carnegie Hall’s tax return.

 At Carnegie Hall, which has featured on its three stages such varied musicians as Duke Ellington, Bob Dylan and the Berlin Philharmonic, only Artistic and Executive Director Clive Gillinson makes more than the stagehands.

 Gillinson earned $946,581 in salary and benefits in the fiscal year that ended in June 2008. Chief Financial Officer Richard Matlaga made $352,139, while General Manager Anna Weber received $341,542.

Full blog is at http://www.zerohedge.com/article/whats-wrong-america-part-i

I guess that now we need a Folding Chairs Czar…

So what does the W Post feature as its lead story an hour ago?  Sarah Palin’s negatives are up!!  And on the same digital front page there’s an op ed criticizing Palin’s position on global warming (or cooling or whatever it is today).

I’ve never seen an industry like the newspaper industry in which companies so willfully alienate half their customers and consciously lower the quality of their product.  And btw, if they’re trying to get me to like Palin less, it’s not working. 

Yeah, I stopped my print subscription two years ago, and my only regret is that I can’t stop it twice.

But that’s not today’s Peggy Noonan.  In the last few months, I was surprised at your reticence even to comment about, much less criticize, the hugely consequential actions of the Obama administration.  Maybe you’ll speak up the next time the government takes on $15 trillion in new debt, takes over the auto business, tries to restructure the health care industry, and enact a profoundly important energy tax.  I guess this time you need to focus on what really matters- settling scores with Sarah Palin.

(In fairness to you, you did gently observe last week that maybe the administration is a bit ambitious.  Not wrong.  Just…. ambitious.  Thanks for that, Peggy.)

My split with you has been a long time coming, but the last few weeks have put me over the edge.  Two weeks ago, you wrote a column criticizing conservative radio talk show hosts for being harsh and divisive.  You said that they are preventing the Republican party from moving forward to start to win elections- because they’re too thoughtless and harsh.  Your take on the hosts is that they take too little time (3 hours a day not being sufficient for you) to say what is needed to be said to sell more ad time. 

The end for me was today’s missed takedown of Sarah Palin (it’s on www.opinionjournal.com) .  Here’s a few bits and pieces-

* Palin makes the Republican party look “stupid”, a party of “the easily manipulated”.

* Palin is a “ponder-free zone”.

* Her performance in the campaign was “rather horrifying”. 

* She is a “complete confection” of Republican party elites.

The problem, Peggy, is that your criticism of Palin was at least as vitriolic as anything I ever hear from Rush or Sean or Mark.  But unlike the talk show hosts, you didn’t bother to present any facts or evidence, nor did you ground your opposition to Palin on principle.    With you, it is instead some personal issue you have- always had- with her.  Also unlike the talk show hosts, who talk for hours without scripts, you had a whole week to collect your thoughts and exercise that restraint you talked about only two weeks ago.  Instead, you used the time to sharpen your words for maximum, personal, sting.

Peggy, I am genuinely saddened that you’ve taken this new direction.  By the way, it’s you who has changed, not me, not the many, many principled conservatives who so respect the great President who, as you love to remind us, you served.  I can’t imagine the Peggy Noonan of ten years ago writing such a petty little column.  You’d be writing about the big issues and big thoughts, with real insights and perspective about what the actions of our leaders.  You would think about what’s next.  Above all, you would provide some real insight about how normal Americans see things (you know, the “working class” as you, the expert, choose to define it).    Instead, you write columns about how the last Republican vice presidential candidate was a “bonbon”. 

So- see ya’ later.  If a columnist can’t even take her own advice two weeks after she gives it, then why should anybody else?

* Who got the $1 trillion in direct Fed payments during this bailout period

* Whether it’s true or not that, as Bloomberg says, the Fed has also entered into “$9 trillion of off balance sheet transactions”, and, if so, the risk of those transactions, the counterparties and on and on.

After you watch, think about the opportunity for the Republican Party.  I know it’s not election season, but sometimes it’s critical to create public perception about the party’s views on what is going on with such critical transactions.  To run a few ads showing the inspector general fumbling around, and to ask “Where’s the Administration”, would be brilliantly good politics and an enormous, consequential public service.  This is the kind of thing that Bill Clinton did in late 1995/early 1996.  It helped to shape the election dialogue to ensure his re-election.

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2009%2F05%2Ffederal-reserve-inspector-general.html&feature=player_embedded

Some comments:

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9.html

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/federal-reserve-inspector-general.html

* This is about .005% of the forecasted 2009 budet deficit.

* At this rate, it would take the Cabinet almost 5,000 years to find enough savings to balance the budget.

* $100 million is about 2% of the value of the earmarks in the 2010 budget.

* It is about .003% of the (original) 2009 total budget.

* It is about .0002% of the total (and rapidly increasing) sum of unfunded future federal liabilities of $59 trillion.

* It is about 2 HOURS of interest expense on our total national debt.

On the positive side:

* $100 million is probably twice Nancy Pelosi’s budget for G-5 jets and crews, which she requires to be available 24/7. 

* It is only 10 times the budget of the failing Senate Restaurants.

* It is only 1/7th of what Our Leader raised for his presidential campaign.