Friday, January 30, 2009

Yup - Saw This Coming...

Angry Senator Wants Pay Cap on Wall Street 'Idiots'


An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.
Anyone who says they didn't see this coming - was too busy looking for the inaugural unicorns.

Prior to the 'Bailout', the very IDEA that government would be allowed to introduce legislation dictating what a company could pay its employees would have been met with gasps of horror from anyone not already on the welfare rolls.


Hey guys, what did you think you were selling?

Let me give you a hint : "Freedom"

...hope you got a good price.

- MuscleDaddy

P.S. -
Gov't gives money to Business... Gov't takes control of Business... Gov't tells Business what pay is "Fair"...

Sounds familiar... like something I might have said Before


  1. And we slip a bit further down the road to fascism...

  2. Well, you know, it's all for the 'greater good' and all that.

    Pretty sad that there is such envy of success that some would go to this kind of measure so that one person is held back in some misguided perception of 'fairness'.

  3. Instinct said: Pretty sad that there is such envy of success

    Are you sure that envy is the chief motivating factor here? My sense of things leans more towards frustration and anger, especially when, as US job losses mount, those perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be directly responsible for the economic malaise seek to be rewarded for failure.

    It seems that a good sized percentage of people - what faith they had in the financial corporations being able to play fair and police themselves having declined more precipitously than their savings - do not want bailout money being used to pad the already generous salaries of incompetent executives. We limit the dollar amount of welfare payments, we limit the salary percentage of unemployment insurance benefits one can receive - mayhaps the same line of thought leads to limiting bonus compensation that is coming from the federal coffers.

    Of course, envy and resentment will always make up a percentage of the fuel for such backlashes, but in this instance I don't believe it to be the prime ingredient.

    Obviously, YMMV - oh, and go Federer!


  4. How about we limit the bailout payments to zero? Solves the problem you perceive Tyrone, and solves the bigger one of wasting money on ill-conceived and completely unworkable governmental meddling in the market. Why bail these businesses out at all? If they go under, the execs won't get the big salaries. If they don't, then the execs DESERVE the big salaries.

  5. Let's not hold Congress back though. If anyone deserves to vote themselves a $93,000.00 increase in petty cash, well there ya go.

  6. It's not just pay, it's perks too, like Citi's new jet that just went down. See Dean's excellent post on this matter at Beers with Demo.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.