 |
Category: News and Politics
So President Marx went on TV the other day and imposed a $500,000 cap on the salaries of senior executives who work for financial institutions receiving government bailout money. "Americans don't like it when executives are rewarded for failing," he remarked, adding that he "will not tolerate it as president."
While that may sound reasonable to the majority of people in this country, especially since we the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill to supposedly save these bankrupt companies, there's a few aspects of all this that most folks don't seem to have considered.
The first is that allowing politicians to dictate the terms of employment for a company's executives, simply because that company has accepted federal bailout money, kicks open the door for them to begin doing the same thing to ANY business that has ever received a government subsidy. Just in case you didn't know this, the federal government spent over $100 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses last year, and none of that cash was attached to any "stimulus" package.
Secondly, how come nobody is talking about putting a cap on the salaries of our legislators? After all, they're the ones who created the wholly insane laws that all these lending institutions were forced to adhere to, and which inevitably led to the collapse of our nation's housing market. Why aren't Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Chris Dodd getting their paychecks slashed for being monstrously incompetent lawmakers? At least none of the Bank CEOs everybody is so upset with these days were allowed to raise their own salaries last year, unlike Congress.
Oh and by the way, where in the Constitution does it state that the federal government has the authority to hand out taxpayer dollars to any private sector institution that hasn't been contracted to do military or public works projects? Why should you and I be expected to pay a dime to a business that hasn't provided us with a product or service in return?
If you went to Wal*Mart and paid for a TV at the counter, only to find out afterward that you couldn't take it home with you, would you just shrug off the experience and go about your merry way, or would you raise bloody hell? Now ask your self how many moderately priced television sets $100 billion buys, multiply that number by 16, and I think you'll start to appreciate just how completely irresponsible these bailout schemes truly are.
By my reckoning, our elected representatives already owe every man, woman and child in America at least five 32" flat-screen TVs for the last porkulus bill they signed onto, and once the next one passes into law, they'll be on the hook to us for another six. I don't know about you, but I want my freakin' high definition TVs, and I want 'em now!
10:08 PM
Powered by  | | English | | Albanian | | Arabic | | Bulgarian | | Catalan | | Chinese | | Croatian | | Czech | | Danish | | Dutch | | Estonian | | Filipino | | Finnish | | French | | Galician | | German | | Greek | | Hebrew | | Hindi | | Hungarian | | Indonesian | | Italian | | Japanese | | Korean | | Latvian | | Lithuanian | | Maltese | | Norwegian | | Polish | | Portuguese | | Romanian | | Russian | | Serbian | | Slovak | | Slovenian | | Spanish | | Swedish | | Thai | | Turkish | | Ukrainian | | Vietnamese |
|