Big Government May Set Your Salary

From the "Washington Examiner"-----

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
March 31, 2009
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 24,2009. Frank's committee has passed a bill giving Geithner extensive control over salaries of employees working at companies receiving government bailout funds. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
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.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.

**********************************************************************

Ok, Ben Ferguson is discussing this on his show right now here in Memphis, and I have been trying to listen to it (between going back and forth cleaning my house and cooking dinner and trying to post on the blog--I am such a multi-tasker) that if I am reading and understanding this all correctly (and to hear Ben tell it on his show) this is absolutely crazy.

Now, the question that Ben asked is 'If the government came into your company and started telling you how you are going to run your company and said to "cut" peoples' salaries by 90%--would you continue to stay and work there'?

My guess is not 'no', but "HELL NO"!!! Now, I am absolutely terrible at mathematics (even in school it was my WORST subject as I was very lucky to make as high a grade as a 'D') but someone who makes $100,000 a year or more--to take a 90% pay cut is a hell of a lot of money. I mean I work at Pizza Hut for peanuts and a 90% pay cut for me, I would be litterally working FOR FREE. I may as well not even clock in (or show up for that matter).

But this has nothing to do with Pizza Hut, but with these other major, major businesses and companies that got bailouts and I really think this is just wrong. It is not the governments' business--they [government] they just have no place in our private owned businesses.

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, PLEASE, but since when is it the government's business how we own, operate, and run our companies or how much we pay our employees?????? Our country is turning more and more into a 'communist state' by the day when the President of the United States thinks that it is HIS J-O-B to own the automotive industry, the banks, the insurance companies, etc etc etc.

Did I suddenly wake up on a "life sized Monopoly board" where Obama owns everything except 'Boardwalk' and 'Park Place' and THOSE are NEXT?!?

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

Ok, very long post, I know. But, listening to the Sean Hannity Show prompted me to do a little research on this so-called 'White House Enemies List', and the White House's repeated attempts to deny such a list even exsists.

During the course of my research, I found the following articles from various web sites. I should have saved that particular information, but I didn't--however--I will re-search those sites and post them to this later. So, please forgive me on that error.

Here are the articles:

*****************************************************************

ARTICLE # 1---

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

August 18, 2009 - 5:47am.

(AFP Photo)The top Republican on the House's oversight committee asked the White House on Monday about an e-mail from a top political adviser urging support for a health care overhaul and whether officials are collecting names of President Barack Obama's critics.

In a letter to White House counsel Greg Craig, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked for details about who received a health care e-mail signed by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Issa also wanted to know how, exactly, the White House was using a separate e-mail account designed to track what it called "fishy" claims about its proposed overhaul — an account that was disabled Monday afternoon.

"I am concerned about the possibility that political e-mail address lists are being used for official purposes," Issa wrote. "This, again, raises questions about this administration blurring the lines between political and official business."

A White House spokesman traveling with Obama on a trip to Arizona did not have immediate comment. But administration officials have been dismissive of complaints that people had received unsolicited e-mail messages or that the administration was compiling an enemies list as conservative Web sites and talk radio programs have alleged.

"The fear has been expressed that the White House was asking neighbors to inform on neighbors in a government-led data collection effort," said Issa, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Weeks ago, White House officials asked the public to share critics' e-mails so they could fight back and correct the misconceptions. Because those e-mails are official correspondence with the White House, they must be preserved — unaltered — for decades and eventually released to the public through the National Archives.

Issa said he wants an answer on how the administration is archiving those e-mails and what protections would be put in place to prevent it from become an enemies list.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has faced questions about the practice during recent briefings with reporters and had treated them with a dismissive tone.

"All we're asking people to do is, if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names," he said on Aug. 6.

Issa on Monday also cited reports that some people received the e-mail even though they never signed up. Critics say that suggests the White House combined its taxpayer-funded list with member rolls from other political groups.

The White House has adamantly denied that claim. Administration officials have said the e-mail from Axelrod went only to people who signed up for a White House e-mail list typically used to provide updates on the president's speeches.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press


******************************************************************

ARTICLE #2---

Obama's plan: Undermine, discredit all critics
October 21, 2009 - 6:56am.
President Barack Obama: This is war (Reuters)

By DOUG THOMPSON

President Barack Obama and the White House propaganda machine are working overtime to undermine critics, particularly those on the right or affiliated with the Republican Party.

The systematic attacks against right-wing Fox News is part of a what Politico.Com calls a coordinated campaign to "marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds."

The campaign invokes memory on former President Richard M. Nixon, who compiled an "enemies list" of media organizations and political foes and then set loose the vast resources of the White House to destroy those enemies.

Comparisons with Nixon, who resigned in disgrace during the Watergate scandal, is the last thing the Obama White House wants or needs but such comparisons are inevitable when the administration cranks up a war of words with critics.

Writes Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post:

There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst.

Other Presidents have used enemies lists to try and discredit their critics. Bill Clinton used White House resources to discredit former lovers. George W. Bush sent his surrogates out to attack the left.

But the Obama campaign is gathering increasing attention because he is the candidate who promised to "change the way Washington works." Some now wonder if he is the one who has changed.

The Post's Marcus also writes:

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC.

Politico weighs in:

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.

All of the techniques are harnessed to a larger purpose: to marginalize not only the individual person or organization but also some of the most important policy and publicity allies of the national Republican Party.

So much for the President who promised to build bridges and reach out to his enemies. Instead, he is giving ammunition to his political opposition.

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," says former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove. "It’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States."

*************************************************************************

ARTICLE #3---

White House: Fox News is 'not really news'
October 19, 2009 - 6:36am.
By DOUG THOMPSON

Senior White House aides Sunday continued their war of words with right-wing Fox News Channel, saying the cable service is "not really news."

This is news?

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod is what Fox dishes out daily on is "not really news" and added "they're not really a news station."

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view," Axelrod told ABC host George Stephanopolis. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view."

Axelrod said Fox owner Rupert Murdoch is more concerned with making money than offering real news and information.

"Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money," he said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel continued the assault during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."

Said Emanuel:

It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.

Meanwhile, Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace said Sunday the White House is refusing to provide guests for talk shows on that channel.

********************************************************************************

ARTICLE #4---

Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done
Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
By NY Post

FOXNews.com

Friday, January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Click here to read the full story from the NY Post.

*******************************************************************************

Now, I may be wrong, but according to what I have been hearing is that the Obama Administration is making an 'enemies list' of insurance companies, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al that oppose his health care plan. So, my good conservative people, help me out here and enlighten me if I am wrong or misunderstanding what is going on.

Because, it really sounds to me like there is an 'enemies list' building at the White House, that the White House officials just want us to THINK does not exsist, because of all the unnecessary, childish, and pathetically petty attacks against FOXnews.com, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Can I get some enlightenment here, folks?

Thank you.

PURE EVILNESS (Story Out of South Memphis TN)

Some of you will be sickened by what you are about to see and hear. In the following video, from a news station here in Memphis, Tn--a woman and her sister leave 2 children ALONE-(one child is 2 years old the other is 3 years old)--so that the mother and aunt could go shopping. The house caught fire--the three year old died, the 2 year old is fighting for his life at the hospital.





Now, if you listened carefully, the aunt was asked if she 'regretted' leaving the children alone--her answer was--"NOPE". All the aunt was concerned about was--get ready for it--HER PURSE AND HER FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!!!

This is outrageous. The neighbors were distraught, crying and had to be comforted. The mother and the aunt however--all they cared about was the fact that the food stamps are probably destroyed and the mother didn't get to finish her shopping.

Personally, I believe that the mother and the aunt BOTH should go to prison for the rest of their lives. What do you think about this?

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Refuses to Marry Inter-Racial Couple

Ok. I just don't see what the problem is here. Here we have two people who love each other and want to get married. HOWEVER, the justice of the peace has now 'disturbed the peace' with his racial bigotry and refused to marry them.





The justice of the peace maintains that he is not a 'racist' and that he is not a 'bigot'. Ok, well, what the hell do you call it?!? An African-American male and a Caucasion female want to get married...and you tell them no BECAUSE they are an 'inter-racial' couple.

HELLO!!! That spells 'racist' and 'bigot' to me.

And let's not forget that comment about how 'the children of inter-racial couples suffer'...oh for the love of GOD! ALL children suffer ridicule and criticism at some point in their lives for one thing or another. An example: ME.

I was ridiculed as a child for having 'foster parents'. I was also ridiculed for having to wear 'glasses' and I was called 'four-eyes' so many times that I thought that was my name. Hell, I was even made fun of because of my MIDDLE name. And guess what???

I AM NOT A CHILD OF MIXED PARENTS!!! So, "THAT" is not even a credible reason to deny this couple a marriage license. Try again, please.

Also, he [Justice of Peace] tried to say that 'inter-racial marriages do not last long'. Guess what??? There are PLENTY of same race marriages that end in divorce, as well. So, "THAT" too is not a credible arguement, Mr. Justice of the Peace.

See, (and, as always, this is just MY personal opinion), this is just another reason why our country is in such a f***** up mess right now. There is way too much 'racial this'and 'racial that' instead of trying to look at people as just 'people'....

I am just so FED UP with all of this, that I don't even know how to end this post.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--WTF!?!

Ok, I may be a lesbian, but I have to say that I am really ASHAMED of and EMBARRASSED by the 'gay & lesbian' community right now, as well as with our President.





Now, personally, I have no problem with gays and lesbians serving in the military. HOWEVER, right now, this is NOT the major issue that should be addressed. Right now, our U.S. military soldieers are being picked off left and right, and there is a HUGE need for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan. THAT is what is important RIGHT NOW.

Our President is dragging his feet on the issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan just so he can secure the gay and lesbian community's future support to get re-elected for a second term at the White House.

Our military leaders have been begging our President to send more troops--he won't even TALK about this issue! Instead, he is more concerned about keeping the gay and lesbian community 'happy and in his pocket'.

Our military commanders are requesting moore troops--40,000--to be sent to Afghanistan, but the President is more worried about gays and lesbians serving 'openly' in the military.

Like I said, I have no problem with gays and lesbians in the military. But THIS should not be the President's 1st priority right now. Right now, our first priority should be sending more troops (more than 40,000 especially) to Afghanistan and we WIN this thing. If the gays and lesbians want to serve in the military and defend our country--THAT IS FINE--but don't make this our military's FIRST PRIORITY.

This is just my personal opinion and feelings on this.