oldslabsides wrote: 

Articulate where all of these organizations have done more harm than good.  That would be thoughtful.

 maryte wrote: 
Not really, I've thought about it for years.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Dave, that's more reactionary than thoughtful.

Abolish the following:

ATF
FDIC
SSA
FBI
DOE
EPA
OSHA

etc. etc., ad nauseam

 kurtster wrote: 

 for you and one for your good lady wife, Patty! 

 oldviolin wrote: 

Life is not without risk

 maryte wrote: 
There goes the neighborhood...

 kurtster wrote: 

How about Thoughtful Suggestions for Improving America?

 Beaker wrote: 

So should I change the title to Tax Payer Revolt of 2009 or something like that ?

No blindsighted moronic irony allowed except between the hours of 12 midnight.

 Beaker wrote: 
Aw,C'mere you  we'll share with you too.  

 Beaker wrote: 
yea, no member is allowed to make more than $400 / per year all excess must be donated to the station 

 maryte wrote: 

think I fixed it.  If it opens logged on as trukster, let me know.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
If the only end user of your product is the government, then it makes sense to me.  The landscaper in Waukegan probably isn't netting more than $400K. 

You might consider this feel good legislation, where as I see it as a backlash to the outragous missuse of the TARP fund and similar proposals.  A line must be drawn somewhere.  Presently, our government requires American corporations doing business in foreign countries to adhere to the same laws in our country when conducting operations internationally.  The intent is to prevent kick backs and bribes, even if this is normal in the country you are seeking business.  This has been termed as disadvantage to American businesses operating abroad.

Faulty as it may be, I will apply it as a disadvantge to receiving government breaks for taking advantage of government programs.  Imposition of this policy is just as rude to the executive making $10M per year as the hourly worker who has just been laid off and lost there home.

Imagine the impact on Major League Baseball, which exists in its present form by an Act of Congress as an Anti Trust exempt organization.  Sure, there will be ways to seek out loopholes, there always are.  But just putting this out there for consideration should make people shudder, especially those who have been milking at the governments teet for far to long.

Wouldn't you love to see the wages at Haliburton affected by this approach ?  Or how about the wages at Exxon Mobil if they sell fuel to the government ?  Let these companies reinvest the difference in their companies or pay dividends to the stock holders and pay more taxes on earnings not diverted to the same.  I realize this isn't perfect, but do you have a better idea ?  Trillions of dollars have disappeared down ratholes overnight and no one seems to have a meaningful idea as to how to stop it.

 kurtster wrote:  

Fix the link if you can - it logs in as your account (I think it's your account - it sure isn't mine).

So if I invent a new body armor cheap and comfortable enough to be issued to every person serving in the military but my compensation includes a royalty of $1/unit the feds would be limited to buying only 471,000 of them even if my base salary is zero?

Or would they be able to go ahead and buy them, but I would be responsible for any penalties? And what are the penalties? Laws are meaningless without penalties; that's all they're really for: they assign penalties to behaviors. So whose behavior, in this case, would be punished? Mine, for the heinous crime of profiting too much from my work, or some purchasing drone in the Pentagon? Is this penalty jail time, a fine, a ban from federal contracting, the death penalty...?

How do you verify that your company doesn't pay its CEO more than the random number you've picked? Or do you just take their word for it and punish them if it turns out they do, whether they even heard of this law or not? What if the compensation is in a form whose value is ambiguous, like patent rights, or tied to the future value of the company, like stock options? Whose evaluation of those things do you use, and how do you document that? What if your corporate structure doesn't include a CEO—are you immune from the law or do you pick some other person in the company to measure?

And how do you deal with the increased costs that would accrue at every level of federal purchasing due to the added expense and complexity of documenting the pay of your CEO to an acceptable standard? How do you justify the additional burden to the guy with three employees who cuts the post office grass in Waukegan? Or do you just accept that you have taken yet another step towards limiting the federal government's dealings to specialist companies whose main skill is jumping thru the various hoops the feds put in front of doing any meaningful work?

This kind of "reform" is why General Dynamics and Raytheon and Grumman make so damned much money: it's not that they are such experts in so many things, it's that the massive tangle of red tape heaped up by this kind of feel-good legislation can only be navigated by a specialist. It limits their competition. They can subcontract out the actual work to companies who have actual useful expertise, and they provide the key added value of knowing what it takes to milk the federal teat.

And every additional layer you impose to try and stop them just cements their position more firmly in place.

After some feedback and a litlle looking around at various discussions similar to this topic, I have tweeked the propasal and argument.  If you want to copy, paste and circulate this, then here is the final draft:

 

Here is an idea for either a constitutional amendment or at least a new law.

 

I propose that:

 

Any corporation, financial organization, company or person that receives funds from the federal government in any form including but not limited to:

• Government grants and bail out funds
• Government loans and /or subsidies including but not limited to price supports and tariffs on foreign competitors
• Tax credits targeting certain corporate behavior
• Tax exempt organizations

should limit the highest paid organizational compensation to an amount not to exceed that of the President of the United States of America.  Excess profits resulting from an organizational restructuring will be paid to the US Government.  This organizational compensation schedule shall remain in effect for 5 years after the receipt of the last form of government aid.  No organization or individual shall be exempt.  Non profit organizations should also fall under this jurisdiction, due to their tax exemption status.  Religious enterprises that enjoy tax exempt status would fall under this jurisdiction as well.

The rational:

If you need help from the government to stay in business, then this is a term that must be agreed upon in order to receive government benefits.  This is not a socialistic restriction on free enterprise.  It is the cost of doing business with the taxpayer.  If one becomes dependent on federal support, then it is logical to conclude that no ones' compensation for services can justifiably exceed that of the Chief Executive.  Those people and organizations that conduct business without government support can be allowed to conduct and compensate as is currently legal.  If one can make a bazillion dollars without government help, then one can enjoy the fruits of their labor.  If however the one becomes dependant on the taxpayer, the one is not entitled to compensate itself as in the fashion of a completely independent organization.   

This proposal will reduce the range between the highest paid position and that of the lowest paid to what would be a socially acceptable redistribution of wealth.  No longer will someone be able to set their salary at millions of dollars just for being at the right place and right time.  The compensation bubble must burst as well.  This may be the last chance for the taxpayer to challenge the greed and economic disparity that is placing our country at great risk.

This should be considered as a common sense solution to bridging the gap between the top and bottom in annual compensation.

If you are a privately held government contractor, this will apply.  Your business would not exist without servicing the government.  It makes sense to apply the 5 year rule to exiting civil service employees, all federally elected officials and military personnel.  Think about the effect on lobbying.

Example:

If you or your organization receives say a $100,000 tax credit per year for whatever reason.  There is a decision to be made.  If you are being paid 1 million per year, do you want to cut your pay to $400,000 per year or $900,000 per year and forgo the government break ?  The obvious answer is the $900K.  And the government does not have to let out the $100K.  This will force everyone to see just how deep the pork and perks of our tax system really go.  Over time, the free enterprise system will adjust and society will no longer accept getting rich off the public.  And I still believe that this IS not Socialism.  This the price of doing business with the taxpayer.  This is a choice, not a government mandated wage cap on profit and compensation.  The Presidents salary is a good living wage for anyone.  If you want to make more money, then find another way to do it other than at the taxpayer's expense.  Get off the taxpayers back and get it yourself, Got dammit !!!

Edit:  This has been reposted at the Change America website.  If you want to vote it up or comment, here is the link

click here  

 Alchemist wrote: 

I would also add non profit organizations to the list as well.  They do have special tax exempt status yet there are very lofty salaries in the more successful ones such as the American Cancer Society.

Yes, if you are a privately held government contractor, this should apply.  Your business would not exist without servicing the government.  The Presidents Salary is for while they are serving, and it would make sense to apply the 5 year rule to exiting civil service employees and all federally elected officials.  Think about the effect on lobbying.  The only exception to this rule might be enlisted military personnel.  It would apply to all officers, however.

It just ain't right to profit exorbitantly when you do business with the federal government, which is us, the taxpayer.  If you or your organization receives say a $100,000 tax credit per yer for whatever reason.  There is a decision to be made.  If you are being paid 1 million per year, do you want to cut your pay to $400,000 per year or $900,000 per year and forgo the government break ?  The obvious answer is the $900K.  And the government does not have to let out the $100K..  This will force everyone to see just how deep the pork and perks of our tax system really go.  Over time, the free enterprise system will adjust and society will no longer accept getting rich off the public.  And I still believe that this IS not Socialism.  This the price of doing business with the taxpayer.  This is a choice, not a governmant mandated wage cap on profit and compensation.  The Presidents salary is a good living wage for anyone.  If you want to make more money, then find another way to do it other than at the taxpayers expense.  Get off the taxpayers back and get it yourself, Got dammit !!!

 kurtster wrote:
What about 401k plans?
What about companies that provide products or services to the government?
What would the government do when they decided a company needed to be saved?  Just nationalize it?

Also, I'd argue that the president's salary is not an accurate measure of his total compensation - Clinton reportedly has earned more than this for a single speech (that he didn't even end up delivering)!

It's not the companies that need more limitations, it's the government!  

 ed wrote: 
I adopted Leslie a few years ago.
She's fambly now.