HELP WANTED: Please Answer This Question

My hope is that someone out there, someone far smarter than I, will read this posting and can answer this question.

Pretty much anyone who can launch a browser and manage to punch up this site is smarter than I, so maybe I will get lucky.

This is a sincere and honest question, no politics, no bias, no bull.

How is is that a president of the United States, any president, can tell a private company how much it can pay its employees?

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

One proposal could impose greater requirements on the boards of companies to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to assure that outsize bonuses are not paid before meeting financial goals.

Under what authority can he do that? What part of the Constitution allows this?

Without regard to whether this is the right thing to do or not, how is it that he can do this?

If I own a private investment firm, and want to set up a high risk/high return fund or program, and want to land the best-of-the-best and pay him in kind to make these investment for my private-sector clients, what authority does Obama have to say that I cannot do this?

I am honestly perplexed by this. I understand the notion that if a company is struggling, and the federal government gives or loans this company money, the feds can and probably should require a company to make some concessions regarding salary in exchange for tax dollars.

But here, Obama seems to be saying he wants to control compensation at companies that are not struggling, as a measure to prevent the company from struggling someday, despite there being no evidence that the company will ever struggle or that the compensation structure would lend to that struggle.

This truly is an honest question. If anyone has an answer, please educate me.

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.