Posted on 02/05/2009 6:35:52 AM PST by shortstop
If a CEO has to take a pay cut to receive Federal assistance, why doesn’t a welfare recipient have to work for the government (or go to school) to receive Federal assistance?
Just askin’...
I can't really agree. What if that rule is applied to ALL entities that take public money - not just those in the spotlight now because of "bailout" money? That would include universities, federally underwritten insurance companies, every state government, any company that wins a government contract, banks that use the FDIC, any business that recieves a federal grant, . . . Where would this end? How many industries do NOT use federal money to some degree?
Other than the Soviet Union, what was the last major country to have maximum wages? Is that distinction ours now?
When any entity takes money from the Feds, strings are attached. Ask the public schools. Ask the various highway state highway departments. Even universities have strings. This is how the Feds enforce their noxious policies like affirmative action. How stupid are the banks and other companies to think that they would be exempt from the Feds’ overweening attentions?
I may be confused, but it was my understanding that the cap was applicable only to those whose company was taking bailout packages. In which case, I see the cap as a control mechanism placed on those who have demonstrated a zeal for high living, poor managerial decision making, and zero culpability.... with John and Jane Taxpayer picking up the tab. I can see where the fear of similar controls being expanded upon, and becoming commonplace outside the venue of bailout package recipients comes from, but that can only happen if we let it.
Here's to vigilance.
how about a salary cap for congress people since their rating is so miserably low and they have been only successful in making millions of peoples lives miserable with impotent worry?
IMHO
I agree. This is nuts.
“Sixth, how will TARP companies compete for the best talent to replace existing execs if they are limited in the compensation offer?”
They won’t, so they will fail. Then all the people who are all for this - including many freepers because the companies are spending our tax money - will get screwed again because the TARP funds will never be paid back. Of course, they never were going to be paid back anyway.
What’s scary is the precedent this sets, namely that salary caps are good. The left is already talking about caps for everyone, recipients of fed money or not. The reasoning is that this will prevent flight of talent to non-capped companies. The reality is that this wil utterly kill what is left of the economy...
Bravo! Talk about putting one in the 10 ring! Well said!
"I know, but I had a better year than Hoover." -- Reported reply when a reporter objected that the salary Ruth was demanding ($80,000) was more than that of President Herbert Hoover's ($75,000).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.