Anyone who knows me is probably aware that I’m no fan of Obama. I am a fiscal conservative, I believe in very limited government and the new President’s idea of foreign policy makes my brain catch on fire. We also disagree on most social issues, but I suppose that can be reserved for another discussion. In short, I am not one of those drooling fanboys who gets a thrill in his leg every time Obama makes one of his rockstar speaches. He gets no free pass from me for the same reason no other politician receives a free pass. It’s simply a bad idea. People should save their blind obsessions for gyrating pop stars and wealthy ex-boyfriends.
Having said that, President Obama did surprise me today. As with any political move, I’m sure there are details I don’t know about that would quickly make this look like a bad idea, but based on what I know so far, it seems to be a good thing.
As everyone knows, a number of financial institutions received bailout packages from Congress last year. Many of these packages reached into the billions, turning Uncle Sam into the biggest sugar daddy to ever exist.
The truly sickening part was that these bailout packages were offered with little or no oversight, so the money was often spent in ways that should enrage the voting public. That was our money they spent, and they often spent it in ways that would get people shot back when shooting was cool. Many of these financial institutions paid their CEO’s millions of dollars in bonuses and salaries following the bailout, essentially rewarding them for failure. Rewarding an individual for poor results is not exactly in keeping with the tenets of capitalism, and it most certainly is not justifiable when the funds used in those massive compensations come from the public coffers.
This brings us to the part where Obama made me smile for once. Today he announced that he is implementing a new condition for any financial institution accepting bailout money. That financial institution may not offer its CEO a salary or bonuses with a combined sum exceeding $500,000, which represents a severe decrease in the compensation that many such figureheads have come to expect for driving a company into the dirt.
Normally, I would not agree with the federal government dictating salaries for a private company. The idea itself would be preposterous in most situations. However, once a financial institution has accepted federal funding on such a monumental scale, it is no longer simply a private company. It is owned in part by the taxpayers, and those taxpayers should be able to dictate how their money is spent – at least to a certain degree. At the very least, the taxpayers deserve to know that some form of oversight is being implemented to ensure that we as a country have not subsidized more failure.
I could get into the government’s role in landing these financial institutions in their current hell, but that too is best reserved for a later discussion. So thank you, President Obama, for applying a little logic to this otherwise rediculous venture. Even if we never agree on anything again, I can always point back to this day and say, “Yeah, I agreed with him once before everything went to hell. Now get out of my cave so I can get some sleep.”
4 responses so far ↓
Carey // February 5, 2009 at 12:47 am
i agree completely.
my biggest beef with all this nonsense is that, thanks to the stupidity of how we’re allowing these bastards to do this, we now move further into Big Government, which i loathe like the plague.
smellytourist // February 5, 2009 at 12:52 am
These businesses are not owned by the taxpayers–they’re owned by the government. This is government take-over at its finest. Capping wages means companies cannot hire the best person for the job.
This represents one more problem with TARP–now governments have an excuse to control businesses. After all, it’s “our” money, right?
http://www.smellytourist.wordpress.com
broca74 // February 5, 2009 at 1:10 am
Thanks for commenting, Smellytourist (love the name and the reference).
In a way, you’re absolutely correct. As taxpayers, we are the government – at least if the system is working as intended, and unfortunately it’s not. Though we own these companies by proxy due to the fact that our government is a “representative” body funded/elected by its taxpayers, we have had a majority of our control stripped from us as a result of our own apathy. This one blaring issue lies at the heart of everything happening in Washington these days, and is the principal reason for our current spiral.
Those elected to go shepherd Washington back into the correct pastures become sheep themselves. You don’t fix a barrel of bad apples by putting more apples in it.
But what do I know… I’m no rocket surgeon.
socialmalcontent // February 5, 2009 at 9:38 am
Ya know, I completely understand the principles of capitalism, but let’s be honest… the old boy club in corporate America was sticking it to their shareholders and their employees. Some how these leaders figured out how to justify million+ dollar salaries, regardless of how the business performed. To the rest of us, there is simple concept of “pay for performance”… meaning I’m paid better if my organization performs better. Why weren’t we holding these people to a similar standard? I’ve done some checking recently, and bloated corporate salaries and immense corporate perks seem to be the norm everywhere these days.
The chief of our local municipal water company makes over $2million each year, plus all of the corporate perks he gets… apparently I went into the wrong line of work.
Thanks for bringing this up, bro… we’ll see how long we actually agree with him… sorry to be pessimistic, but like you, I’m already waiting for the other shoe to drop.