President Obama recently made several statements
against corporate salaries he considered to be too high (salaries that are above his pay grade
, perhaps?), and issued an executive order to cap them, declaring
that "for top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste – it's a bad strategy – and I will not tolerate it as President."
He will not tolerate it.
Pardon me, Mr. President, but since when did executive salaries become the estate of the White House, to the point where what you will and will not tolerate becomes any of the government's business?
I'll answer my own question, because this is where the irony comes in. In formal logic, a statement may be incorrect but still logically sound. Here, there is another standard of "incorrect" (IE, morally and economically wrong
) but still logically consistent with the state of affairs. Since these businesses took bailout funds, the government is now entitled to meddle in their business conduct. How's that for fine print? This is certainly one of the more foreboding aspects of the Bush legacy.
And here's a little gravy...Wells Fargo canceled
a luxury trip for some of its executives after there was a short-lived public outcry that the company was spending some of the $25 billion ($25,000,000,000) on playtime. Yet just days later, it was revealed
that members of Congress were engaging in trips to luxury resorts. Partaking in the trip were both Democrats and Republicans, but they explained. It was imperative to strengthen their working relationships with lobbyists and each other, they said. One bold little Congressman even had the nerve to insist that they were dwelling on the economy "from morning till night."
That clears it right up.
Labels: economy, politics