There is an interesting story buzzing around the news world today that is getting some coverage, but has been overshadowed by other stories. This story got me thinking. It came from Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28596.html) and I heard it on several news channels about the "Pay Czar" Kenneth Feinberg who decided to apply executive pay caps for companies that have still not paid back TARP money. This pay cap includes salary and not just bonuses. According to the Politico article, the Obama Administration admitted that the decision was Feinberg's and he did not brief the Whitehouse on the decision.
My first thought was (I think a normal one for anyone who wants the government out of business decisions) I don't like the government deciding what executives or anyone else makes. This kind of government intervention usually starts the slippery slope on the government deciding who can earn what regardless of what money they have received from the government. As I was thinking about this portion of the story, I realized that there is a more important aspect of this issue to think about.
There are several questions that are of note here. First is who is Kenneth Feinberg; and second is how on earth does he have the authority to project executive power without even briefing the Whitehouse?
First Kenneth Feinberg was appointed the Special Master of Executive Compensation under the Secretary of the Treasury. That's the who...but what about the second question dealing with authority? According to the US Constitution, the executive branch is charged with enforcing laws passed by congress and this technically is a case of the executive branch doing so. According to the US Department of Treasury the Authority for the TARP comes from two congressional acts: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (http://www.financialstability.gov/about/spcMaster.html). This establishes the authority of the TARP. There is a problem however, executive pay caps are not included in the TARP. Enter the Office of the Special Master of Executive Compensation.
Again according to the US Department of the Treasury "On June 15, 2009, the Secretary released the Treasury’s Interim Final Rule for TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance, which sets forth the standards that will govern executive compensation at firms participating in the TARP (http://www.financialstability.gov/about/spcMaster.html). Well isn't that great. But this leaves me with two more questions, can the secretary of the treasury change the TARP at will; and second can the government break the contracts that executives previously had with their respective employers?
Because of the complexities of the TARP I don't know the answer to the first question. According to Judge Napaletano of Fox News the TARP cannot be changed at will. But the question of whether the government can break legal contracts of private citizens...no they cannot, because the TARP does not void those contracts. Furthermore I would like an explanation of how executive pay has anything to do with the financial troubles we find ourselves in now, and how capping that pay will in any way solve any financial problems we have. Maybe the government should cap executive pay and put it toward the ridiculous deficit that continues to grow everyday. They would still not be justified in doing so, but at least they would have an excuse that makes sense.
Although I have some legal knowledge, I am not a lawyer, but our government (in both parties) is constantly swimming in murky waters. What I do know is that I have recently begun a quest to understand how our government has strayed so far from our original founding and how to return it to a system where our government officials are held accountable.
Other Sources:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/2009102214125716010.htm
http://www.financialstability.gov/latest/tg_102220009e.html
The facts are that excutive pay has nothing to do with our ever growing economic problem. Nor is capping there pay a solution to it. It is reasonable to think that in our current social envirnment (the public's lack of knowledge and the liberal media), wants someone or something to blame for their lack of economic status. The fact that we start making capitalizm a the bad guy is the day we turn into the U.S.S.R of old. It's a companies responsiblity to manage there employees, not the government. This country does not know what it started by inbarking on this venture of government bailouts. When you put an individual in the face of a problem, that individual may think for his or her self with some rational and reserve. Put a massive group of people together, and it's mass "in-communication". The great question you posed is a question that will be asked of our children's children, and still without an answer. One day, hopefully in the near future, the silent majorty may become un-silent and actully DO something about our big government.
ReplyDeleteP.s. I think you're on to somthing with this blog... keep it rolling.
Calling on and inspiring the "silent majority" to action may be the single greatest act of patriotism any of us can commit at this, our preverbial fork in the road.
ReplyDeleteHow can the country return to its original form of governance? Well, that's simple enough: let the liberals take us to the logical conclusion of their arguments. Let the country hit rock bottom. Then, and only then, will people begin to think and say, hey, maybe liberalism isn't such a great idea after all.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, liberal "morality" seems based on Buddhist morality (as opposed to the traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that most people are familiar with). In Buddhist morality, there is no greater evil than greed. For liberals, capitalism is fueled by greed.
Side note: the harnessing of greed for the common good in the capitalist system is nothing short of genius.
Anyway, for liberals, capitalism's fuel is greed, and that means capitalism encourages greed, and that means capitalism is itself inherently evil and must be destroyed.
In the Buddhist system, all suffering is brought on by desire. Greed is simply monetary desire. Thus for the liberal who thinks like a Buddhist, capitalism is the root of all evil.
For the Buddhist, "all things in moderation" is the order of the day, the so called "Middle Way". (You also find this in Aristotle, which is why you also often find this in Roman Catholic thinking, because Rome has long loved Aristotle, at least since the days of Thomas Aquinas.)
So that means for the Buddhist, a big, expensive house is itself evil. A nice car is evil. Anything luxurious is contrary to the Middle Way, because it is immoderate.
So the liberal thinking like a Buddhist looks upon a rich person and thinks not only that the person doesn't NEED to be rich, but that being rich is actually harmful to them spiritually, morally, because it tempts them to greed, since they are able to purchase all things immodest.
Therefore, the rich must be "punished". But not in some retributive-justice sort of way, but more in a father-son sort of way. They must be disciplined and taught a better way, the Middle Way.
How did we get here? Well, it is a direct result of the waning influence of Christianity on Western culture. Western culture is increasingly influenced by Eastern religious ideas, especially Buddhism.
Say what you will about Christianity, but it is thanks to the Protestant Reformation that we have the form of government that we have. The founders of our country were presbyterians for the most part, which is what spawned the idea of competing powers in government. It was the protestant reformers that taught that all vocations could glorify God, that you didn't have to become a monk to be a faithful Christian. It was the reformers that said that while greed is sinful, it's not evil to be successful, it's not evil to HAVE money or nice things.
Why does our country continue to slide away from its roots? Because its roots are wrapped up in religious ideas, and those religious ideas have fallen out of favor, even as the religion that taught them has fallen out of favor.
Mike G.
Mike...Thanks for chiming in, I am trying to attract as many comments as I can.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with your assessment that perceived greed is the reason our government is attacking the free market system. I would take a venture to say that it is communist like/socialist like ideology that is causing it. I use these non specific terms because the current administration doesn't fit the definition of either communist or socialist, however many of the members of the Obama cabinet have openly praised the ideas of Chairman Mao. I think that your idea that Buddhist thought is to blame is correct, but I think it is more indirect. To me however that is the point. There are some very influential people in our government that are trying to create a social democracy through what I think are subversive means. This is the worst kind of deception.
If someone has a point of view different than mine (even if it be a communist or a socialist point of view), but states their point of view openly and clearly, then a debate/conversation can be pursued. But that is not what is happening in this country. Socialist programs are getting rammed through our governmental systems at a rapid rate without any conversation at all. If people in this country want socialism then fine, lets have that conversation, but there is no conversation only accusation.
I don't by any means think that you are one of the subversive individuals, I am merely trying to explain what I think is happening in our country. I think that there are many Americans that think the health care debate is about health care, when it is truly about ideology. When anyone voices any disagreement with the current administration they say you are getting in the way of "progress". That sounds like oppression to me. It is not merely a partisan debate to me either. Both parties are guilty of this sleight of hand. Our government has slowly been constricting our liberty for the past 80 years or so, but progressive ideas are quickly culminating in our time.