BHO Seeking To Limit ALL Executive Pay At Every Financial Institution?

(Two posts today. Please scroll down)

Trouble of the most serious and the most extreme sort! And, if perpetrated, it WILL touch YOU, not just the AIG fat cats at whom so much anger has recently been directed!
---------
From this article in the March 22, 2009 edition of the New York Times (all emphases mine):

The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.

[...]

The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

[...]

The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money....

Read the rest HERE.

Also see "NYT- Obama to limit ALL EXEC pay- ALL? USA-SSR. The end of America" by Epa of Infidel Bloggers Alliance. Excerpt (emphasis mine):

If this is not shot down immediately, then what would we be fighting the war on terror for, again? The right of a federal govt to own me? Own my potential? Own yours?

Barack Obama, if this is true, not only has no right to the office, he is a danger to the republic as it was founded.

Anyone running around thinking, 'well this will never affect me, this is about the head of GM' is in denial. This govt is trying to establish they have the RIGHT to decide what you can achieve, what your mind, your effort, and your thought is worth.

This idea, this principle, if TRUE as the NYT states, is as destructive to this republic as ANY IDEA the alien freaks of Al Qaeda, Shia Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, or KSA ever wanted.

This idea that the govt has the right to determine ANYONE'S (non govt) pay is TREASON.

Read it all and the comments thereto.

Turn the page ....

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:

Turn the page ....

Wealth Redistribution: Your Retirement Account

I spotted the information below last week over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

RALEIGH — Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

[...]

The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.

[...]

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, “exacerbates income and wealth inequalities” because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are “skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do.”

HERE is a pdf file from the Agenda for Shared Prosperity, where other topics are also covered. For a full picture of what the left has in mind, hunker down and do some reading of the site.

The following comes from the site's home page:

The American people need an economic agenda that will spur growth, reduce insecurity, and provide broadly shared prosperity....

From each according to his hard-earned assets to each who doesn't have the same amount in assets? Such a leveling-out plan is what wealth redistribution attempts to accomplish, dragging down everyone to the same low standard.

The following is taken from this link on the sidebar at the Agenda for Shared Prosperity:

Election shows the center has shifted in economic thinking

Commenting on the historic election of Barack Obama to the presidency, Economic Policy Institute President Lawrence Mishel writes that U.S. economic thinking has undergone a dramatic shift, and that Americans are increasingly open to careful and effective government intervention. "We can declare with confidence and relief that the conservative era is over," Mishel said in a statement issued Wednesday morning. "It is now possible to build an economy with widely shared prosperity."

Change America! Americans have voted in change!

What's next? Forcing a homeowner to share what he receives when he sells his home, the other primary "bank" for retirement?

All this proposed sharing of wealth will come as a shock to the Kool-aid drinkers who waited in line on November 4, 2008, and gleefully cast their ballots for change.

Not much hope, though, for those who work hard, pay their own way, provide for their golden years, and should rightfully benefit from the fruits of their labor.

This is what sharing the wealth will come to:



Additional reading from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (Warning! Strong language!)

Turn the page ....