As the outline of the $700 billion bailout come to light, we’ll hear more about the impact of limiting CEO pay for those companies that sell their non-performing securities to the American taxpayer. The most frequent argument against any such limitation is that it would discourage some companies from participating in the program.

If I were a director of a public company whose CEO was making decisions solely on the basis of the impact on his or her salary, I’m not sure I’d stand by while the company absorbs the losses or, indeed, folds due to the selfish interests of the top dog. The argument doesn’t make sense. Or if it does, it says something disturbing about our brand of capitalism and public companies. Why is it in the interest of stockholders that their CEO keep his multi-million dollar salary, bonus and parachute if it means the business will suffer?

The imbedding of friends of the CEO on corporate boards is, if not the root of the problem, certainly it is one of the main causes. The argument that boards must offer outlandish pay packages to attract top talent is suspect. My guess is there are many people in the upper and mid echelons of most corporations who can effectively run the company and would be happy to do so for less than $25 million.

Moreover, the method for choosing CEOs defies logic. Consider Bob Nardelli. He was CEO of Home Depot for about six years. During that time, shareholder values was cut at least 25%. When he was fired, he walked away with a $250 million parachute. Then he was hired to run Chrysler. By then Home Depot had lost another eight percent. What exactly qualified a guy who couldn’t run a home improvement concern to be CEO of an American icon? Perhaps it’s hubris. Now he wants a government loan to bail out the struggling automaker.

Maybe the idea that the CEO should be accountable, especially if taxpayer dollars are at stake, is a quaint one. But it’s an idea worth considering before we sign the check.

Ah yes, blogging here at Commonwealth Commonsense until almost two years ago when I stopped for a couple of reasons. I’ve had many more reasons not to start up again. But I’m tired of yelling at the TV and crumpling the newspaper over inane political spin and what I see as poor journalism. But as much, I’ve missed the daily exercise of writing.

That’s not to say that I’ll be blogging anywhere near as much as I used to when I started CC in 2004, or that I’ll focus on only politics and the press. Other things are occupying my time and mind, some of which I hope will be fodder for this blog. In fact, I may start another blog for some of those topics. But for now, they’ll appear here.

A word about comments: I’ve set up the system that I hope will eliminate spamming. I’m also going to ask that anyone who comments identify themselves. No anonymous comments or even nom de plumes.

Peter Baker continues his string of good reporting in today’s Washington Post. Why is it good? Because he’s not a stenographer. He looks behind the statements — a one-man truth squad.

As Bush wound up a three-day campaign swing out west on Wednesday, for example, he attacked Democrats for voting last week against legislation authorizing warrantless telephone and e-mail surveillance.

“One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, ‘You know, we don’t think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists,’ ” Bush said at a fundraiser for Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) before heading to Colorado for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez.

Asked about the president’s statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. (emphasis added) Democrats who voted against the legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.

Yesterday, he took on Bush’s cheap “cut-and-run” shots.

While saying he does not question their patriotism, Bush paints Democrats as a “cut-and-run” party that enables terrorists.

His indictment centers on three pieces of legislation: the USA Patriot Act expanding law enforcement powers; a measure authorizing warrantless surveillance of telephone calls and e-mail into and out of the United States when one person is suspected of ties to terrorists; and legislation creating military tribunals that restricts the rights of terror suspects and permits harsh interrogation to extract information. Noting that Democrats supported the Patriot Act in 2001 before filibustering its renewal last winter, Bush said, “They voted for it before they voted against it.”

Bush’s language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued (emphasis added) against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture.

It’s critical that reporters challenge statements made by politicians, especially those such as Bush who regularly suspends reality and ignores what opponents really said and simply puts words in their mouths.

Remarkable people, from which many on the so-called religious right could learn a lot.

…they don’t balance the hurt with hate.”

Who is to blame for this sordid state of affairs on Capitol Hill? Is it Congressman Mark Foley for hitting on young pages? Is it gays, as Tony Perkins of Family Research Council believes? Is it the GOP leadership who apparently thought that Foley’s $100,000 contribution to the congressional campaign committee last summer was a sufficient price to keep the lid on his abuse?

No, it’s the pages’ fault, according to Howard Kurtz of The Post.

Among the many depressing aspects of the downfall of Mark Foley–who has now done the inevitable checking-into-rehab thing–is that a number of young people could have blown the whistle on this deceptive congressman in recent years, but didn’t.

The Washington Post tracked down a couple of them. Former page Patrick McDonald said that at a 2003 reunion he learned of sexual messages that Foley sent three or four ex-classmates and thought, “if this gets out, it will destroy him.”

Matthew Loraditch says he has known for years about the “creepy” messages the Florida Republican sent three of his 2002 classmates. But no one wanted to come forward. “You take down a Congress member, and you can’t end up trying to do something later,” Loraditch said.

Now I don’t want to come down on 16-year-old kids (though some are now as old as 21) who must have been intimidated by the whole thing. Indeed, the power imbalance between a big-shot member of Congress and a lowly page is part of what makes this infuriating.

But did they really think that if they told the outside world that the co-chair of the Exploited Children’s Caucus was sending them, or their friends, graphic sexual messages, that their future careers would be ruined? That they would be washed up in politics? Isn’t it more likely that they would be hailed as brave for doing the right thing?

The naiveté of Kurtz! Or maybe he’s just trying to deflect the blame from the GOP. “Hailed” by the Dems maybe, but ostracized by the GOP. If any Republican page turned in Foley, it would be along time before that kid would be a Republican candidate for anything.

I just tuned it to Chris Matthews on “Hardball.” Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council said that Congressman’s Foley actions prove that when you promote “tolerance and diversity, this is what you get.”

Then he said that research proves that gay men are more likely to molest children than straight men. Matthews did not ask him what research. Anybody know what research he’s talking about?

Doesn’t like tolerance and diversity. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

GOP leaders can’t get theri stories straight. Today, we have a new version. Or is it the old version?

Got a lawyer?

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Congressman John Shimkus, R-Collinsville, said in a press conference at 2:00 that they were not aware of Congressman Foley’s explicit Instant Messages until this news report surfaced last week.

Except it wasn’t really a press conference because they took no questions. Didn’t look good.

There are still a lot of holes in this story. ABC News reported yesterday that “Foley’s obsession has been known to Republicans for 5 years” and quoted an ex-page who said that “warnings were issued…Pages were told to watch out for Foley.” By using the past passive tense, the reporter suggests he doesn’t know the full details. Who knew it for five years? Who issued the warnings?

Those were probably some of the questions reporters didn’t get to ask this afternoon as Hastert and Shimkus walked out on reporters.

Update: With Gonzales heading this investigation don’t expect anything before the elections. They’re already dragging their feet.

[Justice Dept. o]fficials were still trying to decide whether the Washington or Miami offices of the FBI would head the inquiry.

How lame an excuse is that?

He has a point.

Most Democrats in Congress seem bereft of ideas or the courage to stand up for them. They clearly want power, but they have no principles to guide their use of it.

…I’m not saying that Republicans are at all better, and of course elections breed some policy timidity. But the infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters’ economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it’s hard to see what they will do with it.

There have been attempts to offer an agenda, but they have been vague and do not represent out of the box thinking. And of course, they are a “they,” no one single Democratic proposal.

Some will say that’s because the Dems do not have a single leader and couldn’t, given they are out of power. But that didn’t stop Gingrich.