US News And World Report

One of the most frustrating things for Americans is seeing businesses failing, businesses that were once thriving and prosperous, and now on the brink of bankruptcy. However, what’s more frustrating is hearing about the salaries and bonuses of the Executives of these companies that are failing.

When you hear that the heads of ten of the bailed out banks took home $200 Million in 2007, your mind starts doing math equations. You think, “Wait a minute, companies that paid their boss’ an average of $20 Million ($20,000,000) a year are asking me, a middle class income earner for help so that their business can stay afloat?” There is a bad smell in the closet. It’s time to clean out the closet. get out the disinfectant spray.

I don’t quite make 3/1000 of what the average salary of the above mentioned bank boss makes. I’m okay with that. I make enough to take care of my family and catch a movie now and again.  So I go back to the question I asked when President Bush pushed the original $700 Billion bailout last October: Why should I bailout, throughout my taxes and my kids future, company’s who pay their CEO’s exorbitant salaries? We shouldn’t have.

But look, up in the sky, it’s a bird, it’s a plane, no, it’s President Obama using the power of the lender to set limits on the salaries of bailout recipients executive pay. Is this good or is it bad? It’s neither.

It’s not good because now the Chief Executive Officer of the United States gets a say so in what goes on in private business, which is not so private anymore, since they received billions of tax payer money to stay in business. It’s not bad because if it’s obvious that one of the reasons they needed help in the first place was because they were reckless with salaries and bonuses. Someone needed to step in and bring them back down to earth.

But should it be Barack Obama setting these salary caps, or anyone from the government? The government is being bailed out every day! They are always creating new and clever ways to extract money from the wallets of tax paying citizens.

Obama’s salary is $400 K per year. His perks well surpass his salary. Shouldn’t his salary and perks be limited to the same limitations he is imposing on others? What about his fellow politicians? They make millions on investments due to information that comes from being on the “inside”. Shouldn’t that be monitored to make sure that they make no more than the $500,000.00 Obama wants to limit others to?

I understand that these executives are getting what they deserve. They were taking advantage of the companies they work for and now they are being called to the carpet. But where does it end? Is Obama going to dictate who gets loans? Is he going to monitor what the loans are spent on? What about the car companies? What cars will be made and what cars will be scrapped? It’s dangerous for the government to have too much of a say in business.

The pattern of socialism is not only to dicate what government “owned” companies can do but to invite themselves into companies that are strong and productive without the governments help. Don’t be surprised if one day in the not so distant future you receive word that Barack Obama has decided that you make too much money. It could happen and probably will.