Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
Unconstitutional.
Hoax and change.
The one with the gold makes the rules. Frankly, the leadership at these companies should be unemployed, so I guess $500k is not too bad.
Nothing like holding back new talent from coming in to bring revival to these companies.
What country is this again?
It’s as though the economics of the last century never happened. How much damage will they do before an overwhelming number of people wake up? How much hypocrisy can the fools at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the NYT and the Washington comPost spin? How long can/will the productive and the future continue to subsidize the looters in the government (and their friends)? Who is John Galt?
These welfare recipients are still paid too much. $500k a year? For what? Running companies into the ground?
Non producers, by definition, produce nothing of value, therefore their salary (compensation for product), should be capped at zero (or maybe Zer0), whichever you prefer.
500K is way to generous.
impeachable offense
And when these companies go under for lack of executive talent the gubmint will wonder why it happened.
LOL......these companies won’t be around in three years.
When you sleep with wh0res and get herpes or aids... don’t complain!
LLS
Hope and Change is now Command and Control!
Where are the lawsuits?
Making executives pay in stock is what drove them to artificially inflate their stock values (after the government capped deductable pay at $1million).
No point in learning from past mistakes though.
Not capping the pay in union shops though.
By emergency rule promulgated without notice and comment, Secretary Geithner created the position of “Special Master for Compensation” or Pay Czar, and named Kenneth Feinberg to this position. In late October, Mr. Feinberg cut compensation for executives at seven large financial firms.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell, the Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law and Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, argues that Mr. Feinberg’s actions are unconstitutional because powers of the type entrusted to Mr. Feinberg may only be exercised by an officer of the United States, appointed in a manner consistent with the requirements of Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. This provision stipulates that all “Officers of the United States” shall be appointed by the President “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,” with the exception that “the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”
This forum will discuss the arguments put forth in Professor McConnell’s op-ed regarding the Pay Czar and the Appointments Clause. We have excerpted the key paragraphs of the ep-ed in the first post below.
The Pay Czar & the Appointments Clause – a Forum
November 19, 2009 http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.36/default.asp
It must be nice being so smart that yo9u knopw how much each of us should make.//sarc
But hey, welcome to the new socialist republic of obama.