Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Silly Bits III

Having all but exhausted myself with a rant earlier in the week, I was reticent to attempt to annoy everyone with another bit of nonsense this week.  There were however, a couple of things continuing to annoy me like an itch that I couldn't scratch.  There are therefore going to be two weekday efforts this week (and don't you feel fortunate that this is so).

As I mentioned earlier this week rather briefly (he offered sarcastically), the President was doing a bit of public prodding of the Justices of the Supreme Court for doing their job in reviewing the Constitutional nature of the 'Patients Affordable Healthcare Act' (which of course, he and his spin masters are now hinting never really happened).  While I believe that I probably said enough about most aspects of that subject, I would like to add a couple of related comments to the previous effort, since as the week has developed the President has added even more to his list of those who he's apparently not happy with.

Oil companies were early on the list, as the President once more attempted to attack subsidies and tax breaks granted 'by law' to companies that seem to be rather profitable.  It seemed strange that he wasn't demonizing car companies that had likewise returned to profitability, and that continue to owe the government considerable sums of money, but perhaps it's because high priced cars never kept an incumbent officeholder from being re-elected, but high priced gas most surely has.  It was also curious that the President wasn't demanding that Congress remove the subsidies from Corporate farmers or institutions of higher education who are likewise dining at the government trough while maintaining their profitability.

I also found it interesting that while he was more than willing to chide SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) for fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities, he seemed unwilling to castigate a Democratically controlled Senate for failing to do theirs.  The Senate is after all supposed to be submitting an annual budget, but has failed to do so for over 1000 days.  I suppose that he might be holding back in doing so, lest the Senate take up the question of the President's most recent recess appointments.  Such backroom agreements between the President and Senate Majority Leader, both Democrats, call for (as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once said as a Senator to General Patraeus about the Iraq War) "a suspension of disbelief".

On a completely separate but equally important note, I find myself continuing to be dismayed at the diminution of freedom in this country that has apparently fallen off the radar screens of the media and citizens.  We continue to expand the government's ability to do warrant-less wiretaps and searches, apparently have no problem with deploying federal troops to perform law enforcement functions in violation of the Posse Cumitatus Act of 1878 (as long as it's done on Federal Interstate Highways), see little problem with deploying unmanned drones to perform surveillance on its citizens, see less of a problem with killing US citizens overseas without due process (or even filing charges), and preventing citizens from speaking freely within zones of 'protection' provided by the Secret Service.

Perhaps never in this country's history has the Bill of Rights been so grossly infringed upon.  Oh sure, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, shut down newspapers and exiled Congressman who said things he didn't like.  Sure FDR rounded up and imprisoned US citizens whose ethnic background he felt threatened by.  But you could at least you could say that we were in a 'state of war' declared by Congress.  And while many will try to make the case that the war on terrorism is just as much a danger as those previous conflicts, no such war has been legally declared by Congress (and certainly not one on US soil).  Beginning with the Patriot Act, and with continued assault on the Bill of Rights in what may be the only current example of continuing bi-partisan support, this nation can be said to have entered no less than a de facto state of martial law.  It seems, at least according to Democrats and Republicans in our current ruling class, that the only way to protect the freedom we hold dear is to surrender it a piece at a time.

If this were not despicable enough on its face, our current foreign policy is one demanding sanctions against those in other nations seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of their citizens in the very ways our own government is doing to us.  That it goes largely unnoticed by the mainstream media is tragic.  That it goes unmentioned and unchecked by leading members of both major political parties during an election year is criminal.  That it goes largely uncared about by the citizens whose freedoms are being compromised is .... just more Silly Bits.



Wednesday, September 17, 2008

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.