The Color of Money

I have been hearing some rumors of a proposal for some interesting federal legislation floating around this election year that I think needs a bit more attention. I saw it first mentioned in a George Will Column relating to McCain's presidential campaign, but I can't think of a truly more bi-partisan issue, especially in light of recent events. The premise of this legislation is pretty simple: No company should receive federal money in any way or of any kind if any of its employees make more than the current highest level of federal bureaucrat. Just so we are clear on this, the current top level of government bureaucrat (GS-15) makes $124,010.00, which was a livable wage the last time that I looked (everywhere but in NYC and California). Understand, this does not mean that a corporation could not pay its employees or CEO the exorbitant remuneration that some of them get these days. Banks, automakers, computer manufacturers, and even evil oil companies will still be free to throw money hand over fist at an all-star management team if they so choose. If they do so however, they could not come cap in hand to the government for any type financial assistance. Just think of the ramifications:

• The recent Bear Sterns bailout couldn't have happened, as their managers made 'just a bit more' than the limit.
• The Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bailout couldn't have happened for the same reason.
• The Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers nonsense become situations that the market simply has to sort out.
• The AIG guarantees couldn't happen.
• No subsidies for Enron or Exxon for any reason as long as they keep their current pay scales.
• The bailout for Chrysler in days of yore never would have happened and the one staring us in the face for GM and Ford couldn't happen.
• The bailout just over the horizon for the airline industry (mark my words) could never happen.
• Even large farmers couldn't get crop subsidies unless they were paying themselves less the the $124k maximum.

It's pretty simple really. If you can afford to pay someone more than the highest paid government bureaucrat, you don't need the government handout that those bureaucrats would have to process. Not only is this the ultimate in fiscal responsibility, but it fits the agendas of both liberal and conservative thinkers:

• Liberals don't want money being handed out to "evil corporations" as Corporate Welfare.
• Conservatives want Welfare Reform.

*In addition, think of the money that could be saved in the cost of the federal bureaucracy that currently has to oversee and process all of the various forms of government largesse.
Now I know that such a proposal reeks of logic and common sense, two things which are normally an anathema to the operation of government, but this is an election year and a great opportunity for candidates who say they are for it to take a stand "for change". Maggie Thurber has spoken on a number of occasions on getting candidates to sign on to the concept of transparent government budgets. I would like to add this legislation to her list and ask that candidates step up on a plan to reduce or eliminate corporate subsidies in all of their various forms.

And what does this have to do with the title of this posting? Why I thought that you would never ask! It's that I would like to call this legislation "The Color of Money Act". If your company is in the red, but your employees are in the green, don't come looking for financial help from the red, white, and blue.