Barney Frank Advocates Limiting ALL Executives' Salaries

(With a hat tip to Pastorius at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS)

In Barney Frank's own words, we have the left brazenly declaring the intention of looking to pry open Americans' pocketbooks, as quoted in Investment News:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that currently apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

Mr. Frank said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies....

As Pastorius noted in his posting:

We've been warning you that the Leftist reflex is towards Communism. Of course, when we say it, we sound like paranoid "far-right extremists".

Read the entire article in Investment News, and don't overlook the following:

The committee [working on the bill in consultation with the Obama administration] hopes to have a general outline of the legislation by early April...

Remember how, before the November 2008 election, some of us tried to warn the American voter as to what could happen under a leftist administration? How were our warnings received and heeded? I was ridiculed and told that I was paranoid.

And, by the way, if this Congress and administration get their way, don't expect the limits on Americans' salaries to stop at $500,000. The definition of "wealthy" is relative, after all. For many of us, a six-digit income as low as the bottom threshhold of those digits constitutes "wealthy." In fact, this household sees $50,000 as a cream-of-the-crop figure.

Wealth redistribution — the push is on for it. Good luck not getting caught in the squeeze, one way or the other.

A reminder from a previous post here at Always On Watch (Pause the PlayList before playing the YouTube selection):



In case you can't access the above, what Obama said is below the fold.

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Hat tip to Epa for the graphic below: