G-20: We Will Determine How Much You Get Paid at Your Job

As I previously noted, President Obama wants to cap the salaries of executives in the financial industry.

It gets worse!

Now we learn that Obama has agreed to allow the rest of the world to decide how much "bankers" can make!

The Group of 20 also agreed on new global rules to cap the pay and bonuses of bankers...

Assuming the decision-making power to set these salaries and bonuses stays within the G20 nations, representatives of the following countries will be able to control what a private company in the United States pays to its own employees:

• Argentina
• Australia
• Brazil
• Britain
• Canada
• China
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Italy
• Japan
• Mexico
• Russia
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Turkey
• United States
• European Union

I know you lefties don't care how much those evil rich bankers make, but in a moment of honesty, don't you think it a bit dangerous to allow someone form Indonesia, Turkey or South Korea set anybody's salary here in the U.S.?

I do.

And what will happen if the International Monetary Fund gets involved in setting salaries.

Guess what? Your salary will be next. Mark my words, and Barney Frank's:

(Frank) said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

...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.

So, the world will set the pay for executives at banks; the rules that apply to executives at banks could apply to all employees of the banks; the rules for bank employees could apply to ALL employees in ALL companies.

You do the math....

House Dems -- Geithner to Set Your Salary!

In another jaw-dropping move, the Democrats in the U.S. House Of Representatives voted to require Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to set the salaries of ALL EMPLOYEES at ALL "financial institutions" receiving government bailout funds:

(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary (of the Treasury).

So one person will be able to determine if that raise you got last November because of your great performance as a Customer Service representative or member of accounts payable team is excessive? As a member of the janitorial staff, one person can determine if you have to pay back some of your salary because the company did perform up to HIS standards?

This is truly getting surreal.

While my examples might be pure partisan rhetorical bluster, this bill allows Geithner to do all these things. He will have the right -- the obligation -- to consider these very situations.

Is this why Obama launched the Getting Through Tough Economic Times web site? I know when I read these stories, I get depressed, anxious, and irritable.

It is enough to argue that the people directly responsible for the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States should have their salaries monitored; it is a far different issue when the government will be monitoring the salaries of employees who have nothing to do with the success or failure of the company.

Alice on the cafeteria staff, pay back that money we gave you. Timmy said you are earning too much.

Will the next step be government monitoring of salaries at companies who get federal tax breaks?

A week ago, Obama cautioned us that he will not govern out of anger. Too bad the representatives won't follow this lead and not legislate out of stupidity.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, (said) its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure."

Oh, why not Rep. Greyson; you are...

Do as Feds Say, Not as They Do: Fannie and Freddie Give Bonuses -- Despite Losing Money

This is getting too easy.

Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.

Fannie lost $59 billion last year and begged $15 billion from the federal government. And the losses are expected to continue:

Fannie Mae's losses are likely to continue, the company said. "We expect the market conditions that contributed to our net loss for each quarter of 2008 to continue and possibly worsen in 2009," the company said.

But, despite the catastrophic losses, Fannie plans to dole out "retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives."

In response to this "federally run mortgage giant" paying bonuses to executives who helped drive the company deep into the red, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) demanded of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: "It is time that we stop rewarding failure."

No. I am sorry. Cummings said that about AIG; he has been silent on the Fannie bonuses.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA angrily compared the Fannie bonuses to "the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats."

Ooops. Lynch was criticizing AIG too. I am sure he will be out there protecting the tax payers from the Fannie bonuses any day now.

TV talking heads are chattering about these "retention" bonuses; why pay a retention bonus to anyone in this economy? Where else are these people going to work?

Ugh; that was AIG, too, huh?

Meanwhile, over at Freddie Mac, the other "federally run mortgage giant," bonuses are on the way too. Like sister Fannie, Freddie has lost tons of money -- $50 billion last year alone. And keeping in the family tradition, Freddie came to Washington with hands out, hands much larger than Fannie.

However, unlike Fannie, Freddie has yet to disclose the amount of the bonuses and to whom they are being paid.

Old friend Barney Frank (D-MA) was quick to demand the names of the executives receiving the money:

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, demanded that the company submit to Congress a list "of people who received the bonuses..." If the names were not provided "without restriction," Frank warned, he would ask the committee to vote to subpoena them.

"We do intend to use our power to get the names," Frank wheezed in anger.

Ooops, I did it again! If you couldn't guess, Frank wasn't talking about Freddie Mac.

Well, members of Congress stumbled over each other to get the tax payers' money back from the Freddie executives:

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned -- you will not be getting to keep them."

Darn it. AIG.

It must be the late hour. I keep expecting the same voices who condemned AIG for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money to be railing against Fannie and Freddie for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money.

I just know that the Democratic power elite will not stand by as Freddie and Fannie spend tax payer bailout funds on big-buck bonuses for a few rich executives.

Right?

I best not hold my breath....

AIG Outrage: DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!!

A magician is successful if he can distract your attention from what he is really doing; it's called sleight of hand. He does something with his right hand so you don't see what he is doing with his left hand.

That is what this fabricated outrage over the AIG bonuses is: it is sleight of hand; it is a distraction that Obama and his fellow Liberals are trying to pull over your eyes so you don't see what he is really doing.

Some estimates have Obama's spending costing this country $9 trillion dollars. That's $9,000,000,000,000. The ultimate cost of the $800 billion "stimulus" package is estimated to be over $3 trillion. That's $3,250,000,000,000.

Obama is getting all choked up with anger over $165 million handed out through legally binding contracts to executives at AIG. Are you joking Barack?

According to AIG, they were advised that not only are they obligated to pay by March 15, but if they try to ignore the contracts, the penalty is paying double. AIG says the Connecticut Wage Act, as well as employment laws in France, Japan, the U.K. and Hong Kong, could give employees legal recourse to quit and sue.

The U.S. government has given AIG $170 billion in recent months. These bonus that have everyone in such a tizzy represent less than 1% of the money! Where is the outrage that the Feds spent $170 billion of OUR money to prop up this company?

Where is the outrage that we gave $25 billion to General Motors only to have them come back for more?

Where is the outrage at Obama spending $800 billion on this so-called "stimulus" package, only to have Nancy Pelosi call for ANOTHER "stimlus" package.

If you are angry with AIG over the way they are spending this tiny fraction of bailout funds (assuming the money for these contracts was not already put aside, and not coming from the bailout), then you are being duped. Taken for a fool. A sucker.

The O-bots tried to distract us for a couple of weeks with pumped-up anger at radio and television talk-show hosts. That failed.

Now, they are trying to get us all hot-and-bothered that a company would actually honor contracts to its employees.

We have members of Congress actually planning to use the U.S. tax code to target specific individuals. This is absolutely unprecedented and anti-constitutional, if not outright UN-constitutional.

Don't fall for the shell game. Don't fall for the smoke and mirrors.

Don't be hoodwinked by this administration and it's radical left-wing goons who want you to think that honoring a legally-binding contract is somehow evil and wrong.

Whether or not these AIG clowns "deserve" this money is not ours for debate. They are owed this money and any move by the Democrats to steal it back is what is evil and wrong.

"It is time that we stop rewarding failure," Rep. Elijah Cummings wrote in a letter Monday to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

I couldn't agree more. How about we start by getting rid of the program to bail out people who don't pay their mortgage.

Barney Frank Sadly Wrong About Racism Charge

Don't it make my blue state bluer.....

Sorry, Barney Frank; you are just plain wrong.

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is on an extended rant, doing all he can to dismiss any level of blame for the current financial crisis from himself and his politics.

Like a good Liberal, Frank is quick to call the Republicans racist for criticizing the low-income lending that helped cause the financial collapse.

"They get to take things out on poor people," said the intrepid representative from tony Newton, MA. "The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either..."

Frank sticks his foot further into his mouth by calling claims that low-income loans helped cause the Wall Street meltdown "bizarre."

It is truly sad when a politician is so blinded by his own prejudices and his own agenda that he cannot or will not see the root of a problem.

This has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with banks being forced to lend money to people who could not afford the loan to satisfy the legal requirements placed on them by politicians.

Why in the world would a bank loan money to someone who could not afford the loan, unless there was some external pressure and/or a guarantee that the loan would be backed by someone else? Unlike the U.S. government, banks are in the business to earn money, not give it away.

He continues his partisan blathering by claiming that Republican's made no attempt at reforms that could have prevented the meltdown, ignoring efforts in 2005 by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John McCain (R-AZ), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), and John Sununu (R-NH) to reform Fannie and Freddie. And, he conveniently neglects to mention that it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that refused to allow this bill to come to a vote.

He declines to mention his own resistance to a President Bush plan in 2003 to provide new oversight over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, fearing that "we will see (less) in terms of affordable housing."

But, not surprisingly, Frank has a vested interest in seeing these agencies absolved of blame and further regulation, having received "more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989." Further, he may have had a serious conflict-of-interest, stemming from reportedly having a close personal relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time.

"The guys on Wall Street," preached Frank, "if they never earned another nickel, would live better than they have any right to live."

I find it pretty frightening when an elected official decides he should be the determinant of how people "have any right to live."

We are living in scary times, indeed.

Finanaical Bailout Has Remarkable Effect on Economy

Well, it's a damn fine thing we passed that $700 Billion "bail-out" measure last week. It has had a remarkable impact.

Downward!

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has dropped nearly 800 points to 9561.32. The first time the average fell below 10,000 since 2004.

The credit markets and banks are still not loaning money; banks are begging for cash from the government (that means you and me!), in the form of $900 billion in "loans;" and individual states are coming forward for "bailouts" (everything starts in California).

I don't know what that all really means, but it ain't good.

This guy knows what this really means, and he agrees with me:

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”

But, have no fear, gentle readers, President Bush tells us everything is hunky-dory, it is just "going to take awhile."

So, as long as you don't plan on retiring in the next couple of years, you might be OK.

So, thanks Barney Frank, et. al. You really saved the day this time.

And you want these guys running healthcare in this country????

Did McCain Save the Day?!?

The bank is something more than men, I tell you. It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it." -- John Steinbeck from the Grapes of Wrath

The monster is out of control and trying to take us down; like Godzilla, the fiscal "crisis" is a man-made disaster stomping on all of society, indiscriminate, and unrepentant.

OK, so that is a little dramatic; but so is the rhetoric coming out of Washington and the mainstream media.

Now, I am no economist. Heck, I am not even allowed to balance the checkbook at home. But, I feel rather comfortable, after listening and reading countless experts during the last week or two, that the country is not doomed if little or nothing is done to "fix" this mess.

No, we are not plunging into a depression. Just ask ol' Tom Joad, he knows a depression when he sees one.

I been thinking about us, too, about our people living like pigs and good rich land layin' fallow. Or maybe one guy with a million acres and a hundred thousand farmers starvin'.

There ain't a hundred thousand farmers starving; there aren't over-burdened cars queuing up for a space at the govenment camps; there aren't thousands of people flocking to California to look for work picking peaches.

It is time for our leaders in Washington to slow down and think this think through.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said "leading Democrats on Capitol Hill were shocked by the level of divisiveness that surfaced at Thursday's extraordinary White House meeting."

Imagine someone not wanting to sign-on to the plan without comment or question. Imagine not wanting to hand $700 billion dollars and more to the people who got us into this mess to begin with.

Imagine everyone not jumping on board with the first idea floated out there; especially with a large majority of the American populace opposed to the plan.

If the Democrats are to be believed, John McCain may have saved the American people from this plan. And despite what they claim, "key congressional players of both parties" are not on board with the Dems.

There is no consensus that the plan put forth by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is the right thing to do -- or that it will even work!

"Obama vice presidential running mate, Joe Biden, suggested that the deal was close to finished until McCain arrived in D.C. on Thursday, one day after he suspended his political campaign to work on negotiations and called for such a high-level meeting of candidates and officials in Washington, D.C."

“He’s slowed it down,” Frank said of McCain’s impact on the negotiations.

Well, thank you John McCain.