Winston's Notes
In its next step towards totalitarian dictatorship, the Obama administration now
wants to control what you get paid if your company accepts the tainted funds from the bailout packages. This is beyond frightening. They must be stopped before the government owns all of our homes, jobs, cars, and way of life. I don’t want to live like we’re in Cuba.
Our freedom is being lost at an accelerated rate none can comprehend. The Obama administration is unconstitutional and is stomping on our flag.
How much more will it take? Do we want another revolution in this country? We’re going to have to take a stand at some point or we will be slaves to the government.
Please check out this incredible story below:
Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/31/09
It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.
Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.
"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."
After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.
Copyright The Examiner
In its next step towards totalitarian dictatorship, the Obama administration now
wants to control what you get paid if your company accepts the tainted funds from the bailout packages. This is beyond frightening. They must be stopped before the government owns all of our homes, jobs, cars, and way of life. I don’t want to live like we’re in Cuba.Our freedom is being lost at an accelerated rate none can comprehend. The Obama administration is unconstitutional and is stomping on our flag.
How much more will it take? Do we want another revolution in this country? We’re going to have to take a stand at some point or we will be slaves to the government.
Please check out this incredible story below:
Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/31/09
It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.
Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.
"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."
After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.
Copyright The Examiner
So I am waiting for the post on how these stimulus packages are giving money to Taiwan when you buy your TV, or China when you buy your new Wall Mart gizmo. What are your thoughts on our government setting people up to be dependent on them. (Give a man a fish, teach a man to fish). Stimulus is only allowing companies to keep their prices high. Your thoughts on our brilliant leaders strategy on this aspect?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your post.
The American people are only going to see a few dollars a week in their paychecks due to the stimulus. I would say the amount the US citizens would put into foreign countries by shopping at Walmart and Target would be minimal, and most people would be saving or paying off debt with what little money the stimulus is providing them with. If that debt is bought out by foreign countries I guess is another subject.
I keep the ‘bailout’ and ‘stimulus’ in separate categories. The bailout is specifically designed to attempt to keep business going. The ‘stimulus’ is designed to promote government growth.
I personally believe the stimulus is not necessarily designed to keep prices high. It’s a tool to take control of a company by giving them money with strings attached. They basically forfeit their business to the government. This is why GM and the banks should have filed for bankruptcy and taken care of the problems this way. The money Obama dangled before them was tainted. It’s all in his master plan to socialize big business. He proved this by firing the CEO of GM. Geithner said other firings of newly socialized Obama-run businesses might see the same fate as GM.
The government is clearly trying to get the public dependant on them. Obama is trying to make self-dependency impossible. Banning home gardens, guns, promoting nationalize healthcare, taking over the banks that will own your home. Obama wants you to think you can come to him for all your needs. Look at Cuba and how they ended up.
Thanks again for your post.
Winston