Comments on: Pay Czar Feinberg Revokes the Constitution

By: jacket06

jacket06 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:56:27 +0000

It is time for someone/some group to take “Obamanation” to the Courts. It would seem that this is an ideal issue to take to the Supreme Court for a resolution. I think that we are too afraid to take issues like this to the “Supremes” for fear that we might lose in the Liberal Court. But, if we do nothing, we lose anyway. Is it not better to lose in the court, and have tried than sitting around idly and losing w/o taking any action? If we lose, we will have at least brought issues like this before the nation – an issue that can be resolved 2010 & 2012 elections. And, we might just win! Think what that will mean to “Obamination” and his future plans.

By: LJ "Beaglescout" Miller

LJ "Beaglescout" Miller — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:17:42 +0000

I can think of quite a few ways ex post facto laws could reach around and bite them on the ass. Even their repeal could do it.

By: paint_it_red

paint_it_red — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:13:08 +0000

The porkulus is their war chest for close votes and the pay czar is their hammer on corporate leadership. They are stifling free dissent and obfuscating transparency. More sunshine is needed here.

By: Fred Maidment

Fred Maidment — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:35:07 +0000

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Wall Street investment banker, a California wine maker, a midwest factory worker or an accountant in the deep south, it’s no business of the government’s to determine how much you should earn.

A government that can take away 90% of a man’s income simply because his profession is politically unpopular is unequivocally evil.

By: twobeers

twobeers — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:32:18 +0000

You’re right. She did cover it masterfully. I especially liked her last line: “Government strings are like STDs. They last forever.”

By: muffin

muffin — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:32:11 +0000

has this administration adhered to the Constitution? Nowhere that I’ve seen.

By: Fred Maidment

Fred Maidment — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:24:11 +0000

…but my intent was to focus on 1) the ex post facto nature of the law and 2) the interference with the contractual and legal compensation package.

Michelle Malkin adequately (heck, masterfully) covered that subject in her blog, which I linked at the top of the diary.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:19:32 +0000

and on top of this being ex post facto, it is also being carried out by a czar for pete’s sake.!!!

¡¡pןɹoʍ uʍop ǝpısdn

By: twobeers

twobeers — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:46:40 +0000

Fred,

Great post, but IMHO, I think you missed the super scary money quote:

“Asked by Reuters if he could use that ability to target a firm like Goldman Sachs Group Inc, which paid back $10 billion in bailout money, Feinberg said: ‘Anything is possible under the law.’”

Umm,”Anything is possible under the law?” Surely, Feinberg was kidding, right? Because I really don’t think the Supreme Court will approve of such a broad delegation of power.

By: SoFiMil

SoFiMil — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:38:47 +0000

To czars, tyrants, and a President named Barack Obama who clamor: “How can you reward someone for losing money?” I say: “If my mutual fund only lost 5% of its value this past year, you bet that fund manager deserves to be rewarded.”

Depending on the circumstances/facts, even if a fund loses 50%, I could show methodologically (unlike the President’s “jobs saved” meme) that the losses would have been even worse if certain key decisions were not made, and therefore the compensation is indeed justified.

Or maybe they company was planning ahead, making capital investments (and sacrificing) for future long-term returns. Regardless, it is of course the responsibility of the owner and/or shareholders to make the ultimate determination.

Besides, many new businesses literally bank on losing money for at least the first few years. Does this mean new start-ups will be prohibited in paying bonus compensation until the business turns a profit? That itself would leave to poor long term decisions in order to turn a short term profit.