In an unprecedented move, it was announced recently that the Obama administration would cut the salaries of 25 top executives of the seven largest banking firms in the country. For a presidential administration to propose wage control on a major company is a slippery slope toward government control.
It’s an insult to the free market system. Wage control should not be government-driven, but market-driven. If the company loses money, then the wages should be cut naturally, because there isn’t enough money in the company to sustain the large salaries, but for the government to tell a company what they can pay or not pay frankly is none of the their business.
I know these are unprecedented times, which call for unprecedented measures. Last year was the worst financial year since the Great Depression, and the federal government took the unprecedented steps of bailing out the seven largest banking systems with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $700 billion.
With so much money riding on the line, it is prudent for the executive branch to keep a sharp eye on the seven companies in question, and it could be done with transparency by embarrassing the seven companies by revealing to the public their exorbitant salaries and bonuses. The government has done this, but to tell them how to run their businesses is just a little too much government interference.
When we allow our government to trample on our freedom for our protection and security, then we are giving up part of our freedom that may never be returned. When we allow our government to tell us how much to pay our employees, no matter how exorbitantly the employees may be charging, then we are giving them a part of our freedom to run our own companies.
In March 2009, the Obama administration, as part of its bailout of the auto industry, ushered CEO Rich Wagoner of General Motors (GM) out of the building and replaced him with board member Fritz Henderson. Talk about regime change.
What business is it of the federal government to tell a company who their top executive should be? Again, these were unprecedented times, which called for unprecedented measures, but how much government interference is too much? When we allow the government to tell us who the CEO of our company should be, then we are giving up our freedom to choose or elect our executives.
In 2002, George W. Bush decided that Palestine needed regime change and said that Yassar Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and that new leadership was crucial for the creation of a provisional state in Palestine. Again, what business was this of his? Arafat was an obstacle to negotiations and an obstacle to peace, but we had no business telling the Palestinian people who they should elect or not elect as their leader.
When Bush decided that Iraq needed regime change and Saddam Hussein was hunted and brought to trial, what business was it of ours? Hussein was a ruthless leader who had his own people killed and was in total control of his government, but what business was it of ours to go into a foreign country and kick out their leader?
After the disaster of Sept. 11, the Patriot Act was enacted by the U.S. government to protect us from terrorists who take advantage of our electronics, such as telephones, the Internet or any other form of electronics that could be used and abused by terrorists. We gave up some of our rights to privacy so that the government could seek out terrorists.
With the writ of habeas corpus, an American citizen cannot be detained unless they are brought before a judge and proof is shown that this citizen is a threat to society. Proof must be shown within a timely manner, or the detainee must be released. That is our protection under the law, and that is law of the Geneva Convention. Since the members of Al-Qaeda were not citizens of any particular country, George W. Bush’s friend and personal attorney, Alberto Gonzalez interpreted the law to mean that since the detainees had no formal country, they also had no rights either.
Some were kept in Guantanamo prison for eight years with no hearing, no proof and no freedom. What a good example we are setting for the rest of the world for American law and American human rights.
With the recent organizational changes of General Motors and the current pay cuts of banking firms, we are now seeing the government gain more control. With the Patriot Act, we are seeing our freedom of privacy being given up to the government for our protection against terrorists.
When we allow our government to protect us from financial insecurity or protect us from foreign terrorists, we are giving up our personal freedoms which may not be returned in the future. It’s time to take responsibility for ourselves, to check our financial institutions for their integrity, to run our businesses wisely and well, so that government intervention is not needed to set us on the right track.
I agree with your comments on the government meddling in the free market and how it reduces our freedoms. But you went off topic when you tried to tie in foreign policy. The president also wears the hat of the Commander in Chief of American armed forces. The world is now too small to pretend we can be isolationist. When a country on the other side of the world threatens world peace, it is very much our business.
True, I wonder if the author of this article would say that the Nazi conquest of Europe was “none of our business.”
Personally I don’t think the government should have bailed out the banks. However, now that they have, we have every right to control how many millions they pay their executives.
In fact, I don’t think these failed bank executives should be paid AT ALL.
Ms. Tapper:
I find it interesting that you’re up in arms about Obama dictating salaries but don’t seem to be concerned that he wants the government to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But maybe it’ll be the subject of your next piece.
What do I mean? I’m talking about the proposed government healthcare plan that further erodes our freedoms and essentially dictate how much doctors and others in the medical profession will earn. Of course, Obama is trying to get this thing pushed through as fast as he can while trying to limit debate. Fortunately, it appears that the American people are remembering their American values and aren’t buying it–even many moderate Democrats.
I can’t leave without comment the most foolish sentence in this piece: “When we allow our government to protect us from financial insecurity or protect us from foreign terrorists, we are giving up our personal freedoms which may not be returned in the future.”
While I agree to a large extent that the government should stay out of the financial-security issue, if it’s not to protect us from foreign (and domestic) terrorists then who will? Hope you’re okay with the Second Amendment ’cause you’ll need that firearm. I’m going to give you a break on this one and assume that what you wrote is not quite what you meant.
There’s lots of “buyer’s remorse” by many who voted for Obama. His vapid “Hope and Change” platform really got 53% of voters excited. But what exactly did they expect when they elected the most left-leaning member of the Senate?
While I’m at it, I’m going to direct you and you readers to a short but effective lesson on the Constitution. While there’s some debate as to whether these events took place precisely as documented–this is from the 1800s–it’s probably more educational than what you’re likely to learn at CSUN. It’s posted at the Foundation for Economic Education website: http://fee.org/library/books/not-yours-to-give-2
Well shoot you covered most my main points in detail already! Except for the fact that we were in Iraq before the rise of Saddam Hussein, there is a lot of back story to this don’t go into our country having no right to invade Iraq if you aren’t going to go into detail about how we gave arms to Iraq and originally supported Saddam. Yes, I know many people never heard this it was before the Bush admin. Why would we just look the other way as a leader torments his people and begins to establish himself as a threat to the United States. Would you look away when Hitler was torturing the Jews(many other ethnics as well). Maybe we should turn our backs on Korea right now too? I am sorry to mock you but your statements are less then…..valid.
“When we allow our government to protect us from financial insecurity or protect us from foreign terrorists, we are giving up our personal freedoms which may not be returned in the future”
I will be sure to tell the military that you don’t want them to protect you from foreign invaders. What would you have done if you were one of the tens of thousands of people who had money invested in the bank? Would you let them all suffer because the corpertations were decideding to be greedy bastards? I can’t believe how ironic this author is I am a fellow journalist but, I cannot believe how horribly researched this article was!
“Some were kept in Guantanamo prison for eight years with no hearing, no proof and no freedom. What a good example we are setting for the rest of the world for American law and American human rights.”
You must be joking you are complaining that we aren’t giving non American citizen’s AMERICAN rights, no wait “American human rights” The people detained in Guantanamo prison were not tortured they were fed and they were treated as prisoners of war. Habeous corpus is a awful argument on your part. Next time you write a opinion article do some research into military code and you will see why your argument isn’t valid.
One last statement you ask when does the government have too much control into our government. You say that they shouldn’t be able to decide who our CEO’s are, have you noticed how well the companies are doing right now would you prefer the government sit back and watch the companies destroy themselves and drag honest citizens down with them?
Sorry for grammar flaws in first few treatments. It should read
“there is a great deal of back story before we invaded Iraq, such as the fact we were supplying Saddam with military supplies prior to the bush admin.
Considering that those corporations were saved from bankruptcy because of the government, then yes – the President and congress has EVERY right to appoint who the top executives are and what the salaries are.
I find it ironic that an author who claims to preach capitalism doesn’t realize how share holders play a vital role in a companies layout. The government is now a major share holder of such companies.
And don’t get me started about healthcare. So many lies out there.
http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/article/2009/nov/04/gop-health-bill-analysis-meets-truth-o-meter/
David, healthcare is NOWHERE near 1/6th of our economy.
“But what exactly did they expect when they elected the most left-leaning member of the Senate?”
And Obama is NOWHERE near the most left leaning member of senate.
You’re living in a land full of delusions and misconceptions.
Here’s a synopsis of some of the more “interesting” sections of the House bill. Pray it doesn’t become law. I hope the American people march in the streets and protest at federal buildings throughout the land.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html
And even the liberals know this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574522680235765894.html
More to read:
http://www.alternet.org/politics/143790/10_of_the_nuttiest_statements_elected_officials_have_made_in_the_health_care_battle?page=entire
Aaron, If the government is the largest share holder of a company, that company has effectively been nationalized. And yes, every major source of news concedes that healthcare (including everything related to healthcare) is 1/6 of our economy.
Oops! I meant: “Thanks, David Bailey!”