From the AP: President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed $500,000 caps on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving federal bailout money, saying Americans are upset with "executives being rewarded for failure."
Obama announced the dramatic new government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year.
The executive-pay move comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives heading companies seeking taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 even amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars.
"This is America. We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success," Obama said. "But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."
* * * *
I should say...you're absolutely dead on Mr. President. Americans don't much care for rewarding failure for other Americans who'm we are subsidizing. And, this notion that we might seek to regulate the behavior of those we are subsidizing is indeed a sensible idea. But, why stop here?
Why don't we employ this same ideology to disparage welfare recipients from having additional children in the hopes of increasing the credit applied to their EBT cards? Because we [the taxpayers] are subsidizing them, why don't we get to dictate the sort of food and beverages they may purchase with their EBT cards (emphasizing fruits and vegetables over Cheetos and prepared Mac and Cheese from the deli department)? Why are we not given the authority to mandate that they not spend a dime on cigarettes or liquor? Why might we not be able to deny them their new CD's, cellphones, or flashy new sneakers? Can we not agree that it is unjust that the American people ought to subsidize this equally irresponsible behavior. Can we agree that we ought to be afforded an opportunity to change the behavior; the culture of irresponsibility?
But let's not stop there Mr. President! With respect to wealthy sports team owners whose stadiums we subsidize, why are we not afforded the luxury of front row tickets to each and every home game? Why are we not granted the authority to sit in on trade talks? And why are we not afforded an opportunity to weigh in on design changes to the team's logo?
When it comes to subsidizing federal disaster relief for those select individuals who, time and time again, build their fabulous mansions of the crumbling shores of the west coast or in the Hollywood hills, why Mr. President are the American taxpayers not given dibs on renting out said properties weeks at a time when the temperature is 20 below in Minneapolis?
And on education...why Mr. President, do I and my fellow Americans shell out gobs of money towards your institutions of indoctrination without the opportunity to dictate its lesson plans or its educational mission?
7 comments:
While I believe less is more when it comes to government intervention, on this issue I wholeheartedly agree that income and perks should be limited for those who participate in the bailout until the money has been repaid. A good start but It's time to do more. How about the stocks and other options that could easily add up to millions of dollars?
Silly Soapie, Obama knows much better than you or I how to spend our money!
I dunno...maybe it's just me but frankly...I'd rather see companies NOT get a bailout, spend their money however they see fit, and fall flat on their face when things go awry.
Unfortunately, the free market ship has set sail already, gliding westward, as it did from Europe years ago. Maybe it's bound for a Pacific island or something.
Of course, Europe is in the process of trying to reverse their socialism now. Because they can't afford it. You'd have thought they'd have learned from what happened to their east (the USSR). Or that we would have learned from both of them.
It's not just you, Soapster...
i most love the last paragraph...it strikes a nerve as I am a home schooler. all said in this post is true...his philosophies are only applied to people and areas of his choosing...how is that change?
When it comes to moral conviction or guiding philosophy in Washington, there are few that exhibit it.
Post a Comment