Last fall, the president's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, slashed executive pay for seven companies who had received government bailouts. Feinberg said, in an October interview with ABC News, "I've tried to balance both sides, listening carefully to what is said in the way of citizen anger and also the statute, which requires that these companies stay in business and thrive so we get repayment."
An argument could certainly be made that the administration was well within its authority to cut these salaries, since the government (aka taxpayers) held considerable stakes in these companies. On the other hand, the competing argument could be made that the government (aka taxpayers) had no business being in business. In which case, Feinberg's action would have become a moot point.
The action did occur, though, and it begs answers to several fundamental questions. It, also, may have revealed certain masked, intrusive attitudes and agendas of the Obama Administration, in specific, and the left, in general.
In that same October interview – in a less-publicized snippet of his comments - Feinberg continued, “I'm hoping that, using these seven companies as a template or as a model, that other companies will voluntarily see the wisdom of the way we've structured compensation - less cash, more long-term stock tied to the financial future of these seven companies. Hopefully others will see the wisdom of this and follow suit voluntarily." Translation: Privately-owned companies - pay your employees the way we want you to, voluntarily, or we might just force you to.
The first question we should ask ourselves is how much is too much? Feinberg brazenly defined that, in a recent Fox interview, as in excess of a $500,000 annual salary. Now, I'm not a rich guy, and I don't play one on TV, so that kind of money sounds like more than enough to me. But, keep in mind, the true definition of rich is much more subjective and relative than Feinberg's arbitrary, simplistic number. Katie Couric for instance, at $14 million a year, probably doesn't think 500 large is all that large.
Now is a good time for us to conduct a little exercise in introspection. Take out a sheet of paper and a sharpened #2 pencil. Write down your annual income. Now, write down what you think a rich guy's annual income would be. Now, answer this question; if you could simply snap your fingers and instantly become your definition of rich, would you do it?
Without peeking at your paper, I'll make three predictions about what you just jotted down. 1) your annual income is considerably less than what you marked down as rich. 2) somebody, somewhere, just wrote down your salary as their idea of rich. As I said, it's all relative. 3) you answered, “yes” - you would snap your fingers to become instantly rich, and if you said “no”, you're lying.
The second fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is, who decides? Kenneth Feinberg's answer would be that the government should not only dictate minimum wages, but maximum wages, as well. But, that isn't the correct answer.
I've written, in the past, about a “slippery slope,” and I think it presents a real danger with this issue of pay caps. If the government dictates salary caps for high wage earners of bailed-out companies, how long will it be until it mandates the same caps for high wage earners of all privately-owned companies? And, if the government is willing to set wage caps for employees of privately-owned companies, then how long would it be until a maximum wage is set for every wage earner, at every level?
So, how much is too much? The correct answer is that one should be limited only by his or her education, attitude, ability, skill, and work ethic. It's that simple. If my neighbor is willing to pay his or her dues, play by the rules, and work twice as hard me - and makes twice as much, how does that harm me? How is that even my business?
And, who decides? The correct answer is certainly not Feinberg's vision. The correct answer is I decide what's right for me and you decide what's right for you. I don't want a government bureaucrat deciding how much you or I can make. I don't want that for anyone.
|
|
|
Last fall, the president's pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, slashed executive pay for seven companies who had received government bailouts. Feinberg said, in an October interview with ABC News, "I've tried to balance both sides, listening carefully to what is said in the way of citizen anger and also the statute, which requires that these companies stay in business and thrive so we get repayment."
An argument could certainly be made that the administration was well within its authority to cut these salaries, since the government (aka taxpayers) held considerable stakes in these companies. On the other hand, the competing argument could be made that the government (aka taxpayers) had no business being in business. In which case, Feinberg's action would have become a moot point.
The action did occur, though, and it begs answers to several fundamental questions. It, also, may have revealed certain masked, intrusive attitudes and agendas of the Obama Administration, in specific, and the left, in general.
In that same October interview – in a less-publicized snippet of his comments - Feinberg continued, “I'm hoping that, using these seven companies as a template or as a model, that other companies will voluntarily see the wisdom of the way we've structured compensation - less cash, more long-term stock tied to the financial future of these seven companies. Hopefully others will see the wisdom of this and follow suit voluntarily." Translation: Privately-owned companies - pay your employees the way we want you to, voluntarily, or we might just force you to.
The first question we should ask ourselves is how much is too much? Feinberg brazenly defined that, in a recent Fox interview, as in excess of a $500,000 annual salary. Now, I'm not a rich guy, and I don't play one on TV, so that kind of money sounds like more than enough to me. But, keep in mind, the true definition of rich is much more subjective and relative than Feinberg's arbitrary, simplistic number. Katie Couric for instance, at $14 million a year, probably doesn't think 500 large is all that large.
Now is a good time for us to conduct a little exercise in introspection. Take out a sheet of paper and a sharpened #2 pencil. Write down your annual income. Now, write down what you think a rich guy's annual income would be. Now, answer this question; if you could simply snap your fingers and instantly become your definition of rich, would you do it?
Without peeking at your paper, I'll make three predictions about what you just jotted down. 1) your annual income is considerably less than what you marked down as rich. 2) somebody, somewhere, just wrote down your salary as their idea of rich. As I said, it's all relative. 3) you answered, “yes” - you would snap your fingers to become instantly rich, and if you said “no”, you're lying.
The second fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is, who decides? Kenneth Feinberg's answer would be that the government should not only dictate minimum wages, but maximum wages, as well. But, that isn't the correct answer.
I've written, in the past, about a “slippery slope,” and I think it presents a real danger with this issue of pay caps. If the government dictates salary caps for high wage earners of bailed-out companies, how long will it be until it mandates the same caps for high wage earners of all privately-owned companies? And, if the government is willing to set wage caps for employees of privately-owned companies, then how long would it be until a maximum wage is set for every wage earner, at every level?
So, how much is too much? The correct answer is that one should be limited only by his or her education, attitude, ability, skill, and work ethic. It's that simple. If my neighbor is willing to pay his or her dues, play by the rules, and work twice as hard me - and makes twice as much, how does that harm me? How is that even my business?
And, who decides? The correct answer is certainly not Feinberg's vision. The correct answer is I decide what's right for me and you decide what's right for you. I don't want a government bureaucrat deciding how much you or I can make. I don't want that for anyone.
