Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COMRADE OBAMA'S SALARY CAP
boblonsberry.com ^ | 02/05/09 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 02/05/2009 6:35:52 AM PST by shortstop

It’s ironic that on the same day the president set a $500,000 cap on executive pay, his campaign manager signed a book contract for more than $1 million.

Actually, it’s more than ironic.

It’s hypocritical.

When a president who – in 2007, the last year he was truly employed – made $4.2 million in a year, says that others are greedy for getting more than $500,000, it’s a pretty good example of “do as I say, not as I do.”

Barack Obama’s pick for secretary of Health and Human Services – Tom Daschle – had to step down because he had unpaid tax on free car service that totaled $128,000. If that was the tax on it, how much was it worth? When you have an unpaid tax bill – for your limousine and chauffer – that’s three times the national median income, you’re not really one of the “common people,” are you?

And it is odd that an administration of millionaires is attacking people for being millionaires.

More importantly, it is stunning that in the United States – a supposed land of liberty, checks and balances, and a free economy – the president can, by simple declaration, set a maximum wage.

It’s a Marxist’s dream come true.

The background, of course, is that the president has been very indignant about what he calls the excesses of corporate executives. They travel in private jets – like he has for the last two years – and they make more than a million dollars a year – like he does – and they get bonuses for their jobs – like his wife did at her last job.

And they’re wrong.

The worst part, he says, is that the executives of banks and companies taking money from the government are sometimes getting bonuses. To stop that, he has put a cap on their compensation. Unless it’s some stock option or deferred payment that’s put off until every dime of government money is paid back, no big boss at any of those companies can make more than $500,000 a year.

Which makes a lot of people happy.

But it shouldn’t.

Because of its practical impact, and its theoretical implications.

Let’s take the last part first.

Karl Marx taught that those who make little should envy those who make much. Much of current American politics is based on that principle, that we should hate the rich – which is anybody who has more than we do – and we should believe that they have what they have because they stole it from us.

That’s why CEOs are the current villains of American society. Instead of being admired or congratulated on their success, they are vilified and held up as boogie men, the scapegoats of our economic angst.

So the president caps their salary.

No executive order, no resolution from Congress, no bill passed and signed into law – nothing whatsoever that can be challenged by due process – just the word of the president. “Thus saith the Lord” had been trumpeted across the land and the cap is set.

Which sets a precedent that any wage can be capped. The free market has been decapitated.

And everybody is glad.

Because it is immoral for anyone to make that much money in times like these.

Which ought to be big news to the NBA and the NFL, and to all the Hollywood blowhards who bankrolled this president’s campaign.

In America, wages are supposed to be determined by what the market will bear. Typically, those who administer multi-billion-dollar companies are paid handsomely. Not many people know how to do it, and it takes years to develop the ability.

Doctors make huge amounts of money, architects make huge amounts of money. Both those professions take years and years to acquire. Business owners whose companies are successful make a lot of money. Inventors of useful and marketable items make a lot of money.

But now American business has a wage ceiling. And the various bailouts – passed or planned – will spread into so many areas of the economy that this cap almost becomes nationwide. In one fell swoop, the president has capped the salaries – and consequently limited the impact – of a group of people who mostly didn’t vote for him.

That’s some nasty payback.

And it is going to have some nasty consequences. Right when American needs experienced business people and bankers to help it dig out of a potentially monumental mess, the president has decided to punish them. He has also created a situation that will push some of them to foreign companies. If American companies have a wage cap, and a foreign business or bank comes offering more, what is an executive going to do?

And why would a skilled banker or businessperson push to get to the top of their profession when it contained a wage cap? Most Washington lawyers make more than $500,000 a year, most former-politician lobbyists make more than $500,000 a year, so why would a very talented person want to stay in the corporate world?

And finally, given that the largest portion of New York's state income tax comes from Wall Street salaries, the attack on bonuses and the cap on wages kills a revenue stream for a state that is teetering on the far side of bankruptcy.

At the same time the president is pushing a $900 billion package of pork for his Democrat colleagues and constituents – a bonanza of liberal special-interest money that will feather Democrat nests for years into the future – he is feigning indignation at people who are making just about the average of his cabinet members’ pre-government salaries.

This isn’t change, it is demagoguery.

Last week he attacked Wall Street bonuses, though he clearly must know that those are merely commissions, a conventional part of compensation for lower-level brokerage employees. This week he attacked banker salaries, knowing that almost all CEOs who have asked for public money have already lowered or eliminated their salaries and ended all perks.,p>

It’s grandstanding.

And it’s a dangerous precedent.

Because the last major country to have a salary cap was the Soviet Union.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bho2009; marxist; obama; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last
To: chickadee
I don’t like the idea either, but when business decides to use public money instead of letting capitalism work as intended, then, as a “shareholder”, I agree with caps on salary.

Then, you and your fellow shareholders should put a cap in place for every company whose stock you own.

I have to wonder how many CEO retirements will result from this cap. The loss of business leadership certainly won't help these companies.

41 posted on 02/05/2009 7:17:41 AM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

Works for me. Bad businesses should fail...that is the essence of capitalism. The good succeed, the bad fail.


42 posted on 02/05/2009 7:17:44 AM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

Bullcrap. If their banks followed the normal rules, they would be bankrupt, and executive salaries would be zero.

The executives decided to be marxist-oligarchs, and get their friends in DC to use MY money to take the hit for their sharp-shooting internationalist banking scams that fell.

Then, as soon as they had taxpayers cash which they had NO right to, they became “free market capitalist” again. A massive reduction in their pay seems to reflect their performance. In truth, they are public employees now. And with a poor track record.

And of course,,they are always free to go work for a non-bailout firm. And then they can freely demand the 50,100, and 300 million they believe they are worth.
Theres a reason why they don’t. The bailout might be socialist, but capping the pay of federlly funded employees such as bank executives, isn’t.


43 posted on 02/05/2009 7:19:28 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

And indeed they DID get money from the taxpayers with no strings attached during the FIRST round of bail-out - which I blame on George W. Bush, the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans in Congress, in that order.


44 posted on 02/05/2009 7:20:41 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty
The CEOs affected by this brought it on themselves when they agreed to take money from the government

______________________________________

Nope. Those who already took TARP monies are excluded. This is nothing but PR.

45 posted on 02/05/2009 7:22:18 AM PST by wtc911 ("How you gonna get back down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
It' kind of funny, many of these banks were forced to make the unwise decisions that caused them to be in a position where they could be coerced into taking taxpayer money to survive and have gained control over private enterprise.

And yet, many banks did not engage in the same unwise decisions and are having no problems today. It was the banks that insisted on doing the wrong thing that went screaming to us for welfare.

So yes, I will call these banks and their executives welfare bums and give them the level of respect that someone on welfare deserves.

46 posted on 02/05/2009 7:22:59 AM PST by pnh102 (Save America - Ban Ethanol Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland; Uncle Miltie
Sudetenland, please read post #34 by Uncle Miltie.

My brother was a CFO of a bank. He saw the financial disaster roaring down the government track and did the smart thing. He retired 2 years before everything imploded.

Blaming the CEOs for this government mess is ridiculous. They merely trying to hold things together for the investors in their businesses, and it was their responsibility to do that.

The Marxists ( who are all really fascists) won. They will move forward to either nationalize the entire banking industry, or move to enact total fascist control over it.

47 posted on 02/05/2009 7:23:21 AM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

No we should be standing our ground to put the pressure on to stop this now before it gets to the point of no return.


48 posted on 02/05/2009 7:23:36 AM PST by CajunConservative (Obama- The Milli Vanilli POTUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: shortstop
Obie should cap Hollywood Actors salaries as well.
49 posted on 02/05/2009 7:26:18 AM PST by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

You’ve told me nothing I did not already know.

Now, please tell me who, in the government or ACORN, put guns to the heads of the “...bunch of people who couldn’t really pay their mortgages because they were too poor to start with..” and FORCED them to take out these mortgages.


50 posted on 02/05/2009 7:26:38 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chickadee

Thank God you are not a CEO.


51 posted on 02/05/2009 7:31:06 AM PST by waxer1 ( Live Free or Die; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

Nice try, but not even the same, either in scale or in concept. Social security takes from you your whole life, annd returns an amount that would be criminal if the private sector did it.

Student loans? Must be repaid or all kinds of federal consequences can occur. Student loans are not at all unconditional.

How are these the same as a business that failed, demanding that *I* pay their losses, and pay them a 100 million and up salary to do it to me again?
Its amazing to see some people *even yet* defending the performance of these guys.


52 posted on 02/05/2009 7:31:12 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Absolutly, but your missing my point.

.This was planned crisis to allow Government to be able to come to the "rescue". As a result, the American people are championing their goal of taking over and controlling private enterprise.

53 posted on 02/05/2009 7:32:07 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Obama says we should listen to our enemies, but not to Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: chickadee
I don’t like the idea either, but when business decides to use public money instead of letting capitalism work as intended, then, as a “shareholder”, I agree with caps on salary. Who was it drove the company into this situation in the first place?

The the government needs to act in the role of a shareholder, and pressure both management and the board of directors. That's not whats happening, the government is issuing a mandate outside their role as shareholder. That's not capitalism, it's central control.

54 posted on 02/05/2009 7:33:08 AM PST by SJackson (most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it, M Sanger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wtc911

Bingo!! JUst wait until the Govt tells some of these people here how much thier profession can make, then you’ll hear the screaming.

I am so tired of people not looking at the consequences of this move.

This is a major disaster coming fast and furious down the track.

Sure, I am a bit mad at these companies, but this is NOT THE ANSWER!!


55 posted on 02/05/2009 7:34:18 AM PST by waxer1 ( Live Free or Die; Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez
Since Congressmen and U.S. Presidents also suck from the hind, teat, I think we need to limit Bill Clinton, he can’t make more than 500g all year, he needs to charge LESS for his speeches.

I'll go you one better. Limit every member of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branch including staff to $500,000 of income per year. Not just salary, oh no, that $500,00 includes the market value every damn perk they get. Car and driver: Cha Ching, Franking: Cha Ching, Air travel: Cha Ching, Allowance for any office outside DC: Cha Ching. Book deals and speaches made by staff: Cha Ching. Then make them abide by the limit after their service ends so they don't get to parlay their time in office into massive wealth or fees given for BS "consulting" work. Oh, and make those b@stards start paying Social Security too.

56 posted on 02/05/2009 7:35:53 AM PST by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Of course none of that matters - we are talking about one man dictating the salaries of others. I do think that, as an ‘investor’, the government should have input...but only to the extent that they are invested in these comapanies.

See post 54 as to the governments role. I used the term central [economic] control, but dictator would work too. I should point out it's not "one man", rather a government official.

57 posted on 02/05/2009 7:35:58 AM PST by SJackson (most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it, M Sanger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shortstop

I don’t feel sorry for these executives at all. They took the government money, so they have to dance when the gov’t plays the tune.

If they wanted independence, they should have stayed independent.


58 posted on 02/05/2009 7:36:28 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
This is one thing I actually agree with Obama over...not the envy stuff, but the limits on how these idiot corporate managers spend our tax money....They should never have received the money in the first place. This is them getting their just desserts.

You didn't give them the money, you lent it to them. The government is generating positive cash flow on the deal, charging 5% to 8% while borrowing at sharply lower rates. Regardless of your feelings about "just desserts", do you really accept a centrally planned Soviet style economy as their price?

That aside, the whole think is nonsense. It will apply only to a handful of executives, those bonus' that offend you go to hundreds, the overwhelming majority of whom aren't covered. Which is a good thing, since they'd simply leave for greener pastures, aka non-US and non-participating banks. Foolish economics, made possible only by the class envy across the political spectrum which The One is tapping into. He's good at that.

59 posted on 02/05/2009 7:40:50 AM PST by SJackson (most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it, M Sanger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Congress deserves about half of the credit for the current economic crisis, the remainder rests squarely on the shoulders of Wall Street greed.

They took a bunch of worthless paper and bundled it into Triple A investment vehicles and sold them to a bunch of idiot CEO's. If you're conned by a conman, don't blame the conman, blame yourself.

As for the real estate problems of New York...who cares? Rent control isn't something that just fell out of the sky...or the Mayor's office, it has existed in New York since WWII. They were whining about it when I lived in Joisey back in the late 60's...if it is so bad, why are these guys still buying buildings? Only a fool would buy an investment or a building that loses money unless they found some advantage to it...can you say tax-shelter?

Most of those guys have been in bed with the local government for a long time...if you sleep with a snake, don't be surprised if it turns around and bites you on the a$$, it's a snake. No sympathy!

As for Ayn Rand, she was about half right and about half bright. Her proposals were about as practicable as Karl Marx's. I don't believe in Utopian visions whether they come from the Left or the Right.
60 posted on 02/05/2009 7:42:34 AM PST by Sudetenland (Those diplomats serve best, who serve as cannon fodder to protect our troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson