KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
If it's yellow, let it mellow
If it's brown, flush it down

/has saved countless gallons of water with this method

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Exactly. That's my own job security.

Thoughtful Suggestions for Improving America...
Flush the toilet.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Whether a salary cap for contractors gets considered will probably depend on what points grandstanding congressmen think they can score with it. But it isn't any particular random number I object to, or even a random ratio of numbers—the problem begins when there is any such requirement. It's another hoop to jump thru and it costs the same to certify that your CEO makes less than $471K /year or $500B, whether your CEO earns $500K or works for table scraps. And yes, the taxpayer is the loser. Time that poor bastid lost a little less.

I'll close by correcting your quote: it's Gerald Ford, not Jefferson, but it is a thought worthy of the gentleman from Virginia.

 Lazy8 wrote:  
Nice rebuttal.  Thanks.  I agree with most all of your points.  I still have a hard time with high salaries in not for profits, but yes competent leadership is not easy to find.  Federal purchasing and bidding is indeed an area where I defer to your insight, however, whatever allows the purchase of a $600 hammer needs to be halted.  On the other hand, foreign companies should not be supplying our military with aircraft or warships, even if they are a lower bidder.  I have a problem with that.

Getting back to the main point of salary caps for doing business with the government still needs consideration at some level.  Government contractors are required to meet certain standards in order to do business in the first place.  So rather than a draconian cutoff of $400K, perhaps a government imposed ratio between the lowest and highest paid position might be a more rational compromise.  The taxpayer is the loser no matter what.  Those with nothing left to lose become the most dangerous.

I close with this quote from Thomas Jefferson:

 

'A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have.'

 Zep wrote: 
My boss is one of "them." I'll have to bring that up!

Canuck fight!

And it isn't on a rink!

 Lazy8 wrote:  Are you in some kind of witness protection program? Because you make too much sense!

 kurtster wrote:

You may get your wish—in the end crap like TARP may burn the national house down, a piece at a time, tossed into the furnace for short-sighted heat.

As for free enterprise, how exactly does adding a layer or two to the effort required to do business promote it? Can you see that forcing the feds to buy from distributors rather than direct from manufacturers will make buying things cost more rather than less? And what purpose does creating an intermediary for buying, say, an aircraft carrier serve?

I share your desire to end the gravy train (the one that pays my salary) but my motivation isn't to punish anybody, but to promote accountability and efficiency to the solutions to our problems. I also want to get some first-class R&D talent connected to solving problems rather than chasing grants, but the way the federal purchasing system works now it's almost impossible to wean a company off the teat. If you streamline the overhead to be competitive in the private sector you'll wind up with executives in jail for violating the many many many safeguards in place to make sure that the government can track where every penny of the $600 hammers they buy went. It's cold turkey or stay on the federal gravy train.

If paying an executive 7 or 8 figures helps cure cancer I have no objection. Competent leadership is not cheap. "Non-profit" means only that the organization is run so that anything left over from running the organization is not distributed to shareholders, not that everybody who works there lives off a trust fund. ACS and UW have to compete with private sector entities for talent. Those organizations can offer things a non-profit never can, like equity. It makes sense then for non-profits to pay even a bit more than their competition, and again if they are fulfilling their mission I have no problem with that. Get rich curing cancer? How is that worse than getting rich selling Barbie dolls or cigarettes?

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute is the organization you're thinking of, I think. Their early history was dogged by accusations that it was just a tax dodge for Howard Hughes, who signed over all his Hughes Aircraft stock to it. Their new CEO is Robert Tjian; I'd bet money he'll make well into the six figures in this post. Read his bio and see if he doesn't sound like he's worth every penny.

 Welly wrote: 
Y'know... I keep hearing the theme song from "Dudley Do-Right" in my head... 

 Beaker wrote: 
You funny guy! 

Beaker wrote:
you just love using provocative language don't you? Yeah, okay, as you said, carry on.

What's all the Canookistin stuff? quit jackin' the evil American threads!

Beaker wrote:
I deal with police on a fairly regular basis and I'd far rather interact with city cops than the RCMP any day. The RCMP have a systemic problem and have had for years. So please don't talk to me like I have no idea.
And I don't hate you. Jeebus. Touchy or what?

Beaker wrote:
Cheap shot? Really? Tell that to Robert Dziekański.

Beaker wrote:
 
good one!

Force the police to patrol without guns... like they do in Great Britain.

   
If the taxpayeys are paying the freight, then it is our business.

I add to this that I would rather see the whole house burn down than see crap like TARP run down the taxpayers throat. 

I sense you are afraid of true free enterprise, the kind that finds a way to prosper on its own, without help and protection from the government.  What I propose supports that.  Do you believe that it would be impossible to find a niche that would not support itself, free from government support ?

Yes, it might add a layer or two, say if the Pentagon buys Apple computers for some reason.  Apple would not sell them directly to the Pentagon, they would be purchased from a wholesaler that would be subject to the rule.  The only benefit Apple receives is that they sell a widget.  The wholesaler would increase the price according to how much it costs to stay in business and keep the doors open as opposed to living large while their employees make peanuts.  That would prevent unnecessary markups and/or better wages for the employees of the wholesaler.  As the saying goes, "you can't take it with you", redistribute the profits to your employees, or don't do business with the government.  Something is better than nothing.

I am the last person to want to see Socialism spread like tainted peanut butter.  I want a new paradigm that rewards independence and entreprenurial genius and penalizes dependence on the taxpayer.

Edit:  And explain to me how Non Profit organizations like the American Cancer Society and the United Way are non profit when their executives receive 7 or 8 digit salaries ?

Edit, Edit:  An example of an organization doing it the right way is the Research Trust left behind by Howard Hughes.  The actual name escapes me, but the endowment is around $10 B and they refuse any government involvement and have done more to improve healthcare and find cures than anyone else.

 zipper wrote: