Erin Burnett ‘98 was on Meet The Press today. (Thanks to Soph Mom for the tip.)

(Burnett’s main comments start at 1:15.) Transcript here. Quotes and comments below.

MS. BURNETT: Now, I think that’s a fair point. I also think it’s important to notice that the job losses we’ve had so far in this slowdown, or whatever term you’d like to use, Tom, are not as bad as in a usual recession. But it is expected, given some of the repercussions that we’ve been talking about here in terms of lending, that some of that job loss may accelerate. So that’s important.

And another thing is you know the Treasury secretary talking to you, he keeps bringing it back to the root is housing. Once housing prices start dropping–stop dropping, we’re going to be all right. And I think that’s highly questionable because the whole point here is there has been contagion. You see credit card–we haven’t seen real blow-ups there, we might. Or on the auto loan side of things. And that not only affects regular Americans, but will have another “derivative effect,” to use the word, on Wall Street.

Correct. Although housing may be the major component, the bubble was everywhere: student loans, credit cards, auto loans, LBOs and on and on. Think all the debt for the LBO deals of 2006–2007 is worth 100 cents on the dollar? Ha! Not even close.

Erin, let’s begin with you. I know that you’ve been talking to a lot of people on the Hill. Are they going to get this done this week?

MS. ERIN BURNETT: They say yes, talking to, to various members of leadership, both in the House and Senate yesterday. They’re going to get it done by Friday, Tom. Right now, what we have is a very rudimentary plan, and there’s a lot of argument, especially among Democrats. Hank Paulson, as you know, wants to have as much flexibility as he can for the money he needs to get this job done. Democrats would like to put in some–maybe a stimulus package of $100 billion. Some are fighting for that, and some are also fighting to say, “Look, banks, if you participate, we want to put a limit on CEO compensation.” So that’s a big part of it. But, Tom, the big question is, last time we went through this, it took six months from the day we signed legislation to the day the RTC was up and running, and some might argue this time we do not have that window of time. It needs to happen much more quickly that.

1) Friday?! Isn’t a week a very long time in politics, especially for a deal that has enemies on both the left (Paul Krugman) and the right (Michelle Malkin)? The campaign ads write themselves.

2) I am not a Democrat, but where are my class warrior friends when I need them? Consider these suggestions.

Let’s assume there really are toxic weapons of mass economic destruction in the portfolios of the world’s banks which need to be seized before they destroy us all. I’m not there, BTW, but there’s gonna be a bailout so let’s think about the rules. They ought to be similar in pain to what bankruptcy would entail.

Rule #1: Cut salaries now

Part of the bailout bill ought to be that any organization which proffers securities for government purchase must agree not to pay any employee or contactor more than $1 million per year for the next four years. No cheating with trips to events on the corporate jet or other perks with draconian penalties TO THE RECIPIENT for violations.

Rule #2: No new golden parachutes

Some executives have contracts which entitle them to huge golden parachutes – especially if their pay is cut. These need to be annulled.

Rule #3: End payment on old golden parachutes

Payments on existing golden parachutes should be stopped.

Indeed. No firm is being forced to sell securities to the government. Want to keep paying your executives huge amounts? Go ahead! But for a firm to, simultaneously, get bailed out by taxpayer dollars and pay its executives (especially all the ones who caused the mess) lavishly is obscene. Don’t my Democratic friends agree?

3) If someone is looking for a way to rein in “CEO compensation,” I have the perfect plan.

4) Why don’t reporters like Brokaw ask Paulson some tough questions? How about this dialog:

BROKAW : Secretary Paulson, isn’t it true that the senior 20 or so executives at Goldman Sachs have collectively earned around a billion dollars over the last 5 years of the credit bubble, including tens of millions paid to you?

PAULSON: Well, Tom, I hardly think that the compensation practices of a single firm are relevant to this discussion, but, yes, financial executives are well-paid.

BROKAW: But now we know that the profits that led to that billion dollars in compensation were, in some sense, fraudulent. Goldman Sachs was never really that profitable in, say 2004. That’s why we need to bail them out now. So, given the fact that Goldman now wants a bailout from the government, shouldn’t executives pay back some of that compensation?

PAULSON: Well, I don’t think it is helpful to focus on the past. We need a plan for the future.

BROKAW: Lloyd Blankfein, your hand-picked successor as CEO at Goldman Sachs, made $67 million in 2007. You propose that US taxpayers — teachers, soldiers, fire fighters — bail out Goldman Sachs with billions of dollars and yet you won’t ask your friend Blankfein to contribute a dime of his massive wealth?

PAULSON: …

Am I the only one that finds this absurd? If Goldman Sachs needs a cash infusion, then the first dollar ought to come from the multi-millionaires who have been taking money out of the firm for the last decade. If they won’t contribute, then why should I?