President Obama believes that government should stop executives from being “rewarded for failure.” This from he who will “spread” successful people’s money to failure addicts. Obama tells us, “There will be time for [Wall Street] to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.” Messiahs know best. We must obey.
With halo shining brightly, Obama cautions that in order to minimize our economic woes, “we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and partisan posturing in Washington. It’s time to move in a new direction.” The President defines bipartisanship as a hard left turn. Translation: I have no time to address objections; give up your position and adopt mine.
So goes messianic-inspired “unity.”
The Associated Press calls the President’s plan to limit executive pay to $500,000 at future bailed-out firms “a dramatic intervention into corporate governance…” While a bit of intervention seems warranted in the case of companies that become wards of the state, anyone believing that power-drunk Democrats won’t try to extend control throughout the corporate sector lives in another dimension.
Yet truly, an understandable anger drives most of us to think that executives who helped bring about the current economic collapse should suffer a bit. The argument goes like this:
These reckless, arrogant, jackass executives deserve to have their pay limited. Taxpayers gave these business leaders taxpayer money to stay afloat, continue lending, and speed economic recovery, not to pay bonuses and throw parties.
Predictable emotion, given the situation. But does this reasoning justify far-reaching government interference? Obama’s new intrusion into the private sector smells like liberals forcing “fairness.”
To appreciate the fact that massive Wall Street and insurance company bailouts were unnecessary, look no further than the failure of the first $350 billion to achieve the stated goal. Institutions spent the money, yet lending hasn’t appreciably increased. Maybe people aren’t inclined to borrow right now, but liberals and others who claim that bailouts saved the economy speak from both sides of their mouths. Let’s read with both eyes so that we can grasp the silliness of the bailout defenders’ argument.
Government bailouts rescued financial institutions and prevented economic ruin by giving those institutions money to spend on everything but tactics that would prevent economic ruin.
Reminds me of the story of Darla the sex addict. Darla spent her counseling budget on sending naked pictures over her cell phone to every man in America, thus curing her sex addiction.
Yet there is indeed one objection to Obama’s salary cap that deserves debunking. Some pundits claim that capping salaries will make it tough to recruit and retain executives at bailed-out firms. Methinks I detect the aroma of male bovine solid waste. Meritocracies demand flushing lousy “leaders” and giving solid, hungry managers a chance to actually lead. Let Obama cap the losers. Encouraging losers to get the hell out of Dosge will be a good thing.
The real problem with the Obama plan lies in politicians manipulating circumstances to justify fledgling socialism.
In the free market, when companies keep CEOs who destroy those companies, stockholders get what they invite—bankruptcy and worthless stock. It is not the job of the President of the United States or Congress to decide which companies should live or die and how much employees can earn at the companies which government chooses to “rescue” from death.
Obama states, “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success.” But the President and his liberal brethren do encourage the “less fortunate” to begrudge the success of the “more fortunate” and demand the “spreading” of a “fair share” of wealth.
This President wants to apply restrictive compensation limits to firms getting “exceptional assistance” while other companies would have “more leeway.” The result: on government’s terms, government decides who earns what. Scientists conducting a study in London’s Highgate Cemetery report that an X-ray probe detected a smile on the skull inside Marx’s tomb.
Meanwhile, the lovely and talented Democrat Barney Frank, House Financial Services Committee Chair and co-author of the subprime mortgage crisis, calls for legislation allowing the Federal Reserve to shut down overly “exposed” financial institutions. In light of the causes of our current mess, this move actually seems reasonable. But how far liberals take this could be entertaining.
The President says his salary cap plan is “not a government takeover.” The statement illustrates textbook liberal ditziness:
- Unveil plan.
- Make claim immediately disproved by plan’s details.
Obama’s salary cap plan absolutely does require that private enterprise answer to doctrinaire government know-nothings.
Who really believes that “fairness”-minded Democrats intoxicated by Marxian drivel will want to stop at limiting pay only in bailed-out companies? Obama is already calling for his Treasury Department to influence compensation even in corporations not receiving government funds. How does the President’s “centrist” Treasury Secretary feel? Geithner has already expressed desire to forbid rescued banks from counting as operating expense anything above $500,000 paid to an employee. Stunning gall, coming from the tax-cheat in charge of the IRS.
Finally, Obama’s plan will invite government regulation that kills meritocracy. Performance-based pay? Nah. Income “leveling,” that’s the ticket.
Universal benign mediocrity is so very, how you say… Democratic.
And Bozo shrugged.