Government Forces Banks to Take Bailout, then Less Pay, then Comes for the Rest of Us?

So, that’s the game, then. Government basically forces banks to accept “bailout” money, and then government takes over. It starts with limiting executive pay, and will end with… well, your guess is as good as mine. Note that this is pretty much the definition of fascism, as Ayn Rand pointed out:

Notice how Obama puts it:

“For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn’t just bad taste. It’s bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president,” [Obama] said.

He’s not saying it’s illegal here, note. Rather, it’s in bad taste, and it’s “bad strategy.” And he won’t tolerate… what? Bad strategy? What does it mean when the President of the United States publicly states that he won’t tolerate “bad strategy” on the part of American businesses? Does Obama even think about the things he says?

This is also telling:

Obama said he’s instituting the new rules to put a stop to what he called a “culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain” at the expense of taxpayers, and to take the “air out of golden parachutes.”

“This is America. We don’t disparage wealth,” Obama said. “But what gets people upset, and rightfully so, is executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are being subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.”

And yet, it’s precisely government that’s rewarding executives for failure (to the extent that any have actually failed, but that’s another discussion). Whether an executive receives a dollar, or a million dollars, or a billion, he’s being “rewarded for failure” by the bailout. In a truly free economy, a company’s owners (for public companies, shareholders) would appoint people to run their companies (through a board, in public companies), and reward or punish them according to their own standards.

If an executive in a publicly traded company gets a bonus, then it’s been approved by a board, which is elected by the shareholders. These decisions determine the health of the company, that is, elect a good board that hires good executives, and the company generates profits and increases shareholder value. If not, then the company loses money or goes under, which decreases shareholder value. There’s a reward mechanism built into the free market, and  the only people with a right to concern themselves with executive pay are a company’s owners.

By “bailing out” failing businesses and otherwise intervening into their behavior, government perverts this process. And, it necessarily does so for political reasons. How else is a bureaucrat to determine what’s too much or too little pay, of someone else’s money? By populist appeal, of course, which is Obama’s game: he’s making a power play for control of American business by fomenting dissent over executive pay among a population that simply doesn’t understand how such things are determined.

It’s a common Leftist ploy, and it was immediately familiar to my wife, who grew up in the Soviet Union. First you demonize those you want to control. Then, once you get people to accept the concept of control itself, you extend it to everyone else. Don’t be surprised if we see wage controls sometime during the Obama presidency, or something like it. He loves to talk about self-sacrifice, and indeed, rails against what he calls “a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain.” That pretty much applies to all of us, particularly in an environment where government intervention makes long-term planning impossible.

The signs grow more ominous every day.

Speak Your Mind