Posted on 02/06/2009 5:12:14 AM PST by Zakeet
The executive compensation caps that President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner summarily announced this week violate both the Constitution and Economics 101.
I have argued on this page that the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the banks is itself inherently and profoundly unconstitutional for several reasons. It promotes only short-term private benefit, rather than the general welfare as the Constitution commands of all federal spending. It evades the constitutional requirement of equal protection by saving some businesses and letting others that are similarly situated simply expire. And it delegates to the secretary of the Treasury the power to spend taxpayer dollars as he sees fit, in violation of the express constitutional grant of the nondelegable spending power to the Congress.
Now the federal government wants to interfere with private employment contracts already entered into -- and regulate those not yet signed -- in order to satisfy the perceived populist instincts of the electorate. To do so, it demands salary caps as a condition to the receipt of public assistance.
Salary caps are unconstitutional because they violate the well-grounded doctrine against unconstitutional conditions. Simply stated, the government may not condition the acceptance of a governmental benefit on the non-assertion of a constitutional liberty.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I was admitted to Harvard Law School as an equal opportunity candidate, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduated from Harvard Law School with an undisclosed GPA, and became an undisputed expert in community organizer legal issues. And I say the many well reasoned arguments in this article don't apply to my mandated salary caps because I won the election.
I think the answer is TARP money should not be given out. Let the banks that are broken fail.
The problem is, the government benefit in this case is itself unconstitutional.
Hire a street walker get a street walker. Fooled you didn’t I ... And that is all that matters to me, ignorant voters.
One thing America needs is a real ACLU, instead of the liberal claptrap we have.
The push to regulate compensation in these "private" companies is no less unconstitutional than the move to provide billions of dollars in financial assistance in the first place.
The new Golden Rule:
“He who has the gold, makes the rules”......
Remember — He Won..... /sarc
So does the minimum wage, if you think about it.
You are right....... he sure did! Shucked-n-jived his way right into the presidency with the help of racists and guilt ridden, history ignorant white folk.
I'm off to work out, take care.
Giving the banks a trillon dollars of taxpayer money also violated good sense and the constitution.
There is nothing unconstitutional about having requirements before awarding Federal funds. Any company unwilling or unable to meet the requirements don't have to take Federal funds.
You want an example, look at all the strings that are attached when a College or University accepts Federal Student Loan money from their students. It's so bad that Hillsdale College in Michigan refuses all Federal funds just so they don't have to abide by all the crap the Feds attach to such money.
President Nixon Imposes Wage and Price Controls
August 15, 1971. In a move widely applauded by the public and a fair number of (but by no means all) economists, President Nixon imposed wage and price controls. The 90 day freeze was unprecedented in peacetime, but such drastic measures were thought necessary. Inflation had been raging, exceeding 6% briefly in 1970 and persisting above 4% in 1971. By the prevailing historical standards, such inflation rates were thought to be completely intolerable.
The 90 day freeze turned into nearly 1,000 days of measures known as Phases One, Two, Three, and Four. The initial attempt to dampen inflation by calming inflationary expectations was a monumental failure.
http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm
Exactly, those businesses never agreed to salary caps to satisfy his masses. The CEO salaries have nothing to do w/the bottom line of multi-billion dollar companies. When will he axe the congress to cut their pay or his own?
Pray for America, Our Troops and obama’s Guidance
He makes many good points. I wonder if it would be possible to challenge this on constitutional grounds? Since I just read that banks that have had second thoughts and want to repay the money are not being allowed to do so (the government must approve the source of the funds with which the repayment is made), but are essentially being forced to remain under government ownership, I can't see any way other than to challenge the legality of the whole thing.
Screw him and his socialist ideas.
You forgot to add the PRAVDA shield reporters ...
You are not a private company if you take TARP money...pay the money back and use your own money to pay CEO’s to drive your companies into the ground...no taxpayer funded millions in salaries or bonuses to bailed out companies.
I agree, simple auction the assets pay back the tax payer and let the CEO's and board pay bonuses out of whats left.
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.