While the creature’s front appears elephant-like, its rear presents a puzzle. The dazed biologist lowers her binoculars.
Senator John McCain tosses around wealth envy and junk science as freely as any liberal. He wants to go after poorly performing companies that present stockholders with losses while handsomely paying their executives. McCain seeks caps on “greenhouse gas” emissions in order to “address global warming.” But penalizing high earners helps no one and the 1998/99 research which kick-started the global warming brouhaha was proved a hoax.1 Humans’ “greenhouse emissions” do diddly to global climate. Furthermore, handcuffing industry will wreck our economy. Aall of this seems to count for nothing in the thought process of John McCain.
Truly, the typical liberal sighs, “Ideology and doctored data are my friends.”
Take executive pay. McCain wants to “shine a light” on it—make sure that it’s “reasonable.” Isn’t it socialistic for government to limit what someone earns? The senator embraces a fundamental Liberal Guiding Principle, the notion that wealth is evil.
In consistent liberal fashion, a Reuters story complains that the contrast between executive earnings and shareholder losses “comes at a time when the ripple effects of the home mortgage crisis are leading to financial ruin for some middle and lower-income families[.]” Was there no disparity, and now one suddenly “comes” at a bad time?
“You broke your arm? You shouldn’t have pet that chartreuse dog this morning.” The cause-and-effect relationship is clear.
Lest we doubt that McCain’s motives are grounded firmly in liberal doctrine, consider the man’s musing that if there are “ways we can motivate shareholders and boards of directors to punish these [executives] we should do it.” One of my liberal friends, an expert on the Constitution, tells me that the Government-must-nail-big-wigs clause appears in the section following the Put-aside-the-alienation-and-get-on-with-the-alien-nation clause.
McCain’s executive pay limitation drivel is especially juicy now, as millions of homeowners default on loans which those homeowners knew they couldn’t afford. The senator joins other liberals in courting this “poor me, I shouldn’t be held accountable for my judgment” crowd. McCain’s pandering to wealth envy whiners illustrates another way to apply liberal guiding principle: Grow the government cocoon to discourage personal responsibility.
Seeing rich guys slapped around won’t turn irresponsible people responsible. The spectacle won’t discourage fools from reaching for more than they can handle and crying when they obtain it. Sure, the whiners will derive pleasure from watching rich folks get roughed up, but change their ways? Not a chance.
McCain has elite company.
In 2007, Senator Barack Obama introduced his “say on pay” bill. Hillary supports it. Unions love it because it would give shareholders “a voice in the process of determining executive compensation.” Hmm, would the senators allow us a say on their pay? Should the bill pass, will folks then demand a popular vote on tax rates? Imagine couch potatoes directly voting how much of other people’s money they get to collect after the IRS grabs that money from the people who actually earned it. Which way would McCain go on this?
The biologist raises her binoculars. The creature certainly looks like an elephant. But out flails the donkey tail again, swatting flies. This beastie has been spotted all over America. Now that she’s seen it for herself, the biologist knows the rumors are true.
She knows.
___________________
1 Ross McKitrick, “The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere ‘Hockey Stick’ Climate Index: a Tale of Due Diligence,” essay in Shattered Consensus: the True State of Global Warming, Patrick J. Michaels, ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005, pp. 20-49.
