Do We Have to Pick?
October 23rd, 2009 - 9:32 am
David Harsanyi has a tough one for you:
What’s more infuriating: a government “pay czar” who can dictate the
salary of private-sector citizens or some corporate welfare queen
having the nerve to complain about a salary cut?
I vote “present.”
The “pay czar”. We don’t have to buy stuff from AIG and GM and so on.
Pay Czar, without a doubt. Any governmental program set up to only “hurt the rich” always mutates to include everybody. Case in point, Alternative Minimum Tax.
Frankly, neither. The “Pay Czar” was an inevitable outcome of the bailouts. Prominent Democrats have been whining about executive compensation for as long as I can remember. Now they have an opportunity to sink their teeth. Meanwhile, the exec getting the bill of attainder are by no means tied down to the bailed-out companies. They can go elsewhere and set up shop (likely in Singapore, Sao Paulo or Dubai to get away from Uncle Sam the Taxman).
Prediction: in a few years the bailed out firms end up dying anyways due to brain-drain at the top. And the same executive names will appear in headlines again after the next burst bubble in a decade or so.
I would also vote “neither,” hanging the demurrer on the word “infuriating.”
The I remember who pays for the “Pay Czar” to do these profoundly unconstitutional things: us taxpayers. So I have to agree with Charlie and Brian.
CR, I’m curious: Do you have any predictions about the future of the CRA?
The pay czar was the whole POINT of the bailout money. There are some truly obscene corporate salaries out there, especially considering that the execs in question are presiding over failing companies. But I can choose not to buy their stock or their products. How can I avoid doing business with my government? (The word “my” is used advisedly, here.)
I also wonder how these corporations would be faring without the wise and beneficent assistance of Frank, Reid, Pelosi, and the strong-arm enforcement of ACORN. I’m not holding the financials blameless, here, but c’mon, duuudes! If the government forces banks to make loans to people who clearly cannot afford to repay those loans…