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...

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.