George Soros has given his two-cents about greedy Wall Street and their profits. Soros says that the profits made by leading banks on Wall Street are nothing but "hidden gifts" from the state (and by that he means taxpayers). Therefore, he believes that taxpayers are "justified" in their outrage over CEO bonuses and salaries. Soros says, "Those earnings are not the achievement of risk-takers ... These are gifts, hidden gifts, from the government, so I don't think that those monies should be used to pay bonuses. There's a resentment which I think is justified."

This is a typical leftist attitude. The basic premise of Soros' argument is that all wealth belongs to the government, and any portion of your earnings the government allows you to keep constitutes a "gift" from government. Since all wealth belongs to government, government gets to decide how it's distributed.

Then, there's this .... Will somebody then please explain this to me: The federal government set the pay package of Freddie Mac's CFO at $5.5 million, including a $2 million cash signing bonus. Remember, thanks to the taxpayer the government now owns 80% of Freddie Mac. We, the taxpayers, pumped $51 billion into this sucker. So within weeks of awarding a $5 million pay package to the Freddie Mac CFO, the federal government decides to slash the salaries of top executives at financial institutions receiving bailout money.

And don't' forget Franklin Raines ... He was the chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. He was also the White House budget director under Bill Clinton. I suppose that's how he got the Fannie Mae job. While Raines was at Fannie Mae he was accused of some accounting chicanery that allowed senior executives ... including Franklin Raines ... to earn huge bonuses. How much did Raines get? Try over 90 million dollars. Government insiders cook the books and get away with tens of millions ... and George Soros slams the private sector.

When in trouble ... appease the people by playing into their wealth envy. Right now, the liberals are upset with Obama and the Democrats for not being liberal ENOUGH. Republicans are upset about the impending government takeover of healthcare. But if there is one issue on which the two spheres may ... and that's a big "may" ... overlap, it is the issue of wealth envy. And so it has been since the dawn of civilized man. Thousands of years ago nomadic camel herders harbored seething envy over individuals or tribes with more stuff than they had. As you know, in ObamaLand everyone should have an equal amount of stuff.

So after weeks of focusing and floundering on healthcare and global warming; and ignoring the needs of our troops in Afghanistan, suddenly we get this announcement from Washington: we are going to cut top executive pay at the biggest corporations that took bailout money. Of course many Americans are now rejoicing! "Great! These evil rich people are getting exactly what they deserve!"

Then, the very next day we see the White House pulling away from bearing any reasonability on the issue. Officials in the administration say that they didn't have much to do with the decision at all. It all came from one man: Kenneth Feinberg. The Pay Czar. This Obama appointee (without any sort of Congressional approval), single-handedly decided to cut CEO pay for these executives. Is Obama going to take responsibility for ANYTHING that comes out of his White House?

So now the question is ... how far will this go? Just the other day, Obama also announced plans to increase lending to small businesses and give them access to rescue funds. Will Kenneth Feinberg eventually have the "authority" to slash salaries of top executives at these small businesses that take bailout funds?

Let's take a closer look at this Kenneth Feinberg fellow ... how did he come to have so much "authority" that he is able to cut salaries at private corporations in this country? If you'll remember months ago, Congress decided that it wanted to crack down on millions of dollars in AIG bonuses. There was only one slight, teeny-tiny little problem - Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to do so. Maybe you've heard of a little something called the "Bill of Attainder"? This basically limits Congress from passing legislation that would single out or punish specific people or groups (or companies).

Then magically, Obama creates a new czar in his administration. This man would be a "special master on compensation." Ta-da! Now if the government wants to punish certain companies, all it has to do is call on its compensation czar.

Pretty clever, huh? And we're supposed to think that The Community Organizer is oblivious to all of this.

Let's say that you have invested a pant-load of money in some business. The business is failing. You want it to succeed. You want the best executive talent you can find to step in and save the business ... and your investment. Now just how helpful do you think it would be if you told the search committee looking for a new CEO that you were going to appoint some political hack to make sure that the new boss doesn't make too much money? Can you see that any extraordinarily qualified candidate for the job would tell you to take it and shove it where even the TSA couldn't find it?

Do you ever sit around and just wonder at the type of idiots we have running the show right now?

Of course we need a thread to talk about the pay caps for TARP fund recipients, right?

It is sad that government involvement in executive compensation has become such a normal concept. Two years ago, if an article like this had been written, I would have been spitting nails. And I am sure a lot of you would be doing the same. Now, I am still spitting nails, but there is not much I can do about it, is there? Not with the Democrats and Barack Obama in the driver seat.

The White House is working on its plans to rein in executive compensation. It will start with the firms receiving the largest sums of taxpayer money - AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, General Motors, GMAC Financial Services, Chrysler LLC and Chrysler Financial. The plan is as follows ... instead of being compensated with cash salaries, the government has decided to shift top employees' annual salaries into stocks that cannot be accessed for many years. This move is being described as "the most intrusive yet into corporate compensation." And trust me folks, this is just the beginning.

Remember ... the looters believe that all wealth belongs to them. They, and only they get to decide how the wealth is distributed .. and that includes how much we can earn for what we do.

Stolen from fark.com and used with love whenever TARP comes up. -ww

Yesterday we got a report from Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The report basically said that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (under the Bush administration) forced financial institutions into taking bailout money. Back in October of 2008, federal regulators chose nine of the nation's largest financial institutions and forced them to accept billions of dollars in taxpayer money. If they didn't want the money, too bad. They didn't have a choice. The report says that government officials threatened to take away their stock shares ... in other words - a government takeover of their financial institution. Wonderful, just wonderful. So this is how it works in a free market economy ... under Republican and Democrat presidents.

A few details to note from the report. We are coming to find that these nine financial institutions -- Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, State Street and the Bank of New York Mellon - were chosen not because they needed money, but because of their size and involvement in the financial system. They were big players, and the government wanted control

This is also where Hank Paulson got into some trouble. Recent news articles have reported that Paulson lied to the American public. Okay ... let's first nail down the definition of a lie. A person lies only when they utter a statement that they know to be untrue. Now, Hank Paulson assured us last year that these nine institutions receiving bailout money were healthy and that they were only taking the money for the good of the economy. However, it turns out that this was untrue and federal officials (including Paulson) knew it. The report says, "Senior government officials had affirmative concerns at the time the nine institutions were selected about the health of at least some of those institutions ... The Federal Reserve had concerns over the financial condition of several of these institutions individually and for all of them collectively absent some governmental action. And former Secretary Paulson noted concerns about the outright failure of one of the institutions."

Then the government comes along and tells these institutions that took bailout money ... under the threat of government retribution ... that they must submit to executive compensation restrictions. Restrictions that will only grow and expand with Democrats in charge.

Nice. Bureaucrats don't like what the executives of certain financial institutions are making. The institutions are healthy .. at least healthy enough to weather the downturn. But this doesn't matter to the bureaucrat class. They want something done about the money these people are making. So they gin up some rather dire threats and force these institutions to take government bailout money. Besides, the more people who accept the bailout, the more involved the government seems to be in rescuing the country from financial collapse. Then, as soon as the money is in hand the bureaucrats start setting executive compensation rates. Yeah ... that's the way it's supposed to work, right?

The European Union has decided that it wants to get involved in the private practices of American companies. You heard that right. Foreign countries are trying to dictate compensation levels for American companies. The EU is calling for the United States to pass legislation that would link top bankers' bonuses to performance in order to curb "an excessively risky bonus culture." EU financial ministers are encouraging the G-20 to come to some sort of agreement on how "bank profits and public money for banks should be used to build up capital buffers against potential losses and not to boost dividends or pay."

I'm sure this is an idea that will find many fans in the Democrat congress. Another nail in the coffin of free enterprise.

Besides the healthcare debate, Washington is also figuring out how to handle large executive salaries at companies that received bailout money. Not only do we have our pay czar Kenneth Feinberg; but Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs decided to chime into the debate. Baby Huey says, "I don't think the American people begrudge that people make big salaries, as long as they're not jeopardizing the good will of the public in doing so."

Oh, isn't that just so sweet! It's OK with the American people if private companies pay their executives big salaries ... but they need to make sure that they keep the good will of the public along the way. Fine .. so how do we determine whether or not a particular company still enjoys the public's good will? Does some political hack figure that out for us and let us know? Hardly. The public votes with their pocketbooks. If they feel good about the company, they become customers. If they don't, they don't. It is not for the government to decide.

Yesterday Barney Frank was being interviewed by CNBC about these executive compensation levels.  Between all the spit and mumbling, you quickly notice that Barney Frank is really irritated.  After all, he's two damned important to have to stand around and answer to the people.  Another explanation is that he realized he was being bested by the interviewer, Mark Haines of CNBC, and wanted to get the hell out of there.  He knows that he can't rationally explain why the government should be able to set any type of guidelines or regulations on pay levels at private companies.

 

So Barney Frank, the quintessential void surrounded by a sphincter muscle, throws a hissy fit and declares the interview to be over and rips out his earpiece.  Haines' response, "Fine, goodbye sir. We'll manage without you."  Ain't that the truth.

Last week, Obama announced that he was appointing a pay czar. Well .. he isn't going to exactly call this character a "Pay Czar," the official title will be "Special Master for Compensation. This is the guy who will be in charge of making sure that executives at evil financial institutions wouldn't make too much money At least, that is what we expected a pay czar to do. We are finally starting to get a better idea of what exactly the Obama administration had in mind. We will supposedly get all the details sometime this week. But here's a start ...

Any bank or corporation that has received two rounds of bailout money will be forced to submit changes in executive pay to be approved by the government pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg. Those would be companies like Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC.

Now do you really think that these pay restrictions will only apply to the institutions who have received two rounds of bailout funds? You're kidding me, right? Once the standards are set you can bet that the businesses and financial institutions will be under tremendous pressure to follow suit. This will apply to financial companies, US operations of foreign banks, and other private hedge fund companies and private equity firms. Even companies that repay the TARP funds in full will not escape oversight on their compensation structures. We are talking about the government setting the standards for an entire industry to make them more fair and comparable to other industries.

The principles currently being drafted by the Treasury Department will apparently allow regulators to tell banks when they need to change their compensation arrangements if the government feels it would "encourage too much risk-taking." What is defined as "too much risk" has yet to be determined. It will be a politically motivated government-style definition, though, and you can just guess what that will entail.

Here's a nifty little line that appeared in this article from the New York Times. Tell me that it doesn't make you do a double take ... to think that we once lived in a time when private companies like banks had the luxury of setting their own compensation levels! Here's the quote: "In the past, banks had free rein to determine the base salary and bonuses they awarded their employees." OMG! Can you believe that? Can you actually believe that there was a time in this country when private businesses could decide how to compensate their own employees? Just how backward were we? Any government-educated person certainly knows that this is a job for government, not the private sector.

Government setting private sector compensation ... change you can believe in.

Too late for me to construct much of a rant for the Nuze, but you can bet I'll be able to Boortztificate about this one on the air.

Our president, Barack Hussein Obama (Hey ... now he's proud of his middle name, so I can use it, right?) Has decided he needs a Pay Czar. The White House says that this person, one Kenneth Feinberg, will actually be called the "Special Master for Compensation." He is going to decide just how much executives for companies receiving bailout funds can make.

For now the Pay Czar will rule over companies receiving bailout funds. Well, you have to start somewhere I guess. But hold on ... this could only be the beginning. How about companies who receive special tax benefits from the government? Then how about companies who have contracts to do work for the government? After that we can expand the Pay Czar's responsibilities to companies who are deemed to be "too big to fail," and thus have to have their executive compensation levels monitored by the government.

Am I the only one out there reading Atlas Shrugged right now?

Tax cheat Timothy Geithner has decided that the government should not impose caps on executive pay at companies receiving bailout funds. Thanks for finally clearing that one up for us, Tim. But he does believe that the government should set policies that would discourage financial companies from rewarding excessive risk-taking.

He says, "I think we can bring about broader reforms of compensation incentives in finance as a whole," not just at companies participating in TARP. "We'll make it much less likely that people get paid to take large amounts of short-term risk at the expense of their firm and the system as a whole."

Now, of course, we need to figure out who gets to define whether or not risk-taking is "excessive." I guess that would be the government. And a quick question for you ... where would our country be today if our history were not full of people who were willing to take "excessive risk" for a fantastic reward.

The government wants to expand its role into how corporations govern themselves. Chuck Schumer will be introducing a bill this week known as the shareholder bill of rights. It will give shareholders more say on executive compensation and make it easier for them to nominate corporate directors.

The bill will do a few things:

• Confirm the SEC's authority to grant shareholders access to the corporate proxy
• It will require public companies to create a separate risk committee to ensure that risk management is given "appropriate oversight."
• The duties of the chief executive and the board chairman would be required to separate.
• Companies would also be required to get approval from shareholders for executives' golden parachute packages.
• Corporate directors would be subject to annual shareholder votes and must receive a majority of voters in order to remain on the board.

Shouldn't all of these guidelines be up to the shareholders and not the government? Maybe that's just my weird mind at work.

It's been a while since Americans have had a corporation that they could really rail against. It feels like ages since everyone raised their pitchforks over the AIG bonuses. Well, maybe the time has come again, as AIG makes its way back into the news. The original outrage, you may remember, came when AIG announced that it was going to pay $120 million in 2008 bonuses to about 6,000 employees.

You'll be happy to know that this $120 million isn't even close to the amount AIG will actually pay to employees in the form of bonuses for 2008. Try $454 million ... that's quadruple what Americans were outraged over before.

AIG's explanation is that this $454 million is the answer to a different question than what as previously asked ... this new figure "'reflects all types of variable compensation across all of our businesses,' while the $120 million figure he provided earlier reflected only bonuses paid to corporate headquarters executives and high ranking officers at its major businesses around the world."

So if it has been a while since you have let your wealth-envy really get the best of you .... Just remember that all of these evil people working for this evil corporation are going to be getting bonuses!

Well ... That is about what we expected from the G20 summit. World leaders pledged over a trillion dollars to poor countries. More seizure and redistribution of wealth. Other countries didn't bite at Obama's grand plan to stimulate the global economy by spending more money. Angela and Nicolas got somewhat of a compromise on their global financial regulators. The communiqué established the creation of a supervisory body to "flag" problems in the global financial system. Supervisory today .. regulatory tomorrow?

For all you wealth-envy types, you will be happy to know that the honchos managed to "bridge the gap" in terms of how far governments should go to regulate the market and curb what the political class deems to be "excesses." Obama says that world leaders have agreed on principles that would bring accountability and transparency to executive compensation at corporations. Note, please, that this communiqué wasn't limited to corporations receiving taxpayer bailout money. We are talking about Corporations ---Period. Obama says that company shareholders should be able to vote on executive compensation, implementing some sort of "shame function" into the establishment of corporate salaries.

"Shame." That is the word that our president would like to associate with evil CEOs and executive. If you receive compensation that is not in keeping with some politically set global standard, then you should be feeling shame.

Please tell me you don't actually think that this effort to control executive compensation is going to end with companies that receive bailout funds. Democrats - and some Republicans - know that wealth envy and hatred is at a historical high right now. They've been working for decades to bring us to this point - and now it's time to exploit. If these politicians can excuse limits on compensation based on the fact that the involved companies are receiving bailout funds, why not extend those controls to all companies with government contracts? How easy would it be to make the argument that any defense contractor should not be allowed to "unfairly" enrich top executives "at the expense of our men and women serving their country overseas." Once we have established the government contractor controls, we can extend the controls to any companies who supply goods or services to these contractors.

Smack down the executives with their high salaries and become a hero to the jealous class. There are far more people envious of highly compensated executives than there are people making a million a year. Count the votes and you'll see where this is going. The result will be executive and financial talent fleeing this country to work where the compensation matches the contribution.

Last week Barack Obama met with top executives of US banks. This was his message to the banks: bonuses are not acceptable.

That's right. Not just "excessive" bonuses or bonuses paid with bailout money. But bonuses. Period. They are unacceptable while other Americans are struggling to make ends meet.

On CBS's "Face the Nation" Obama said that he made sure the bankers knew that big bonuses during a financial crisis is "just not acceptable." He also told the bankers, "Show some restraint. Show that you get that this is a crisis and everybody has to make sacrifices."

Sadly, the American people will applaud this move. They just won't understand that the amazing financial minds that we need to turn these banks and other financial institutions around are simply going to go somewhere else .. perhaps to another country .. where they can sell their services in a free economy.

Perhaps we will find out what these people are capable of when they're working for our overseas competitors where their earnings are unrestrained.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Last week, all of America had their pitchforks ready for the roast .. of the evil AIG employees who received retention bonuses. The House passed a bill that would tax the bonuses at a rate of 90%.

Fast-forward one week later .. the House Financial Services Committee adopted a milder version of the bill. The new legislation allows bailout companies to pay bonuses so long as the government feels the compensation is not "unreasonable or excessive."

Oh. That makes me feel so much better. So it will be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and tax cheat Tim Geithner who will determine what is considered "unreasonable or excessive." We all know that government would make such a good judge of the unreasonable and the excessive ... like spending taxpayer's money on butterfly gardens, for instance ... or lobster sex.

Question: How long will it be before these power hungry DC Despots decide that their ability to regulate bonuses and executive pay for some financial institutions is so durned fun that it ought to be expanded to the entire private sector? Isn't having power fun!

Well it isn't often lately that we highlight to good news coming out of Washington. And even today, we are gonna have to dig deep. But here it goes ....

Democrats in the House have decided that they will not include controversial global warming initiatives in Barack Obama's budget. You may remember that by including it in the budget, reconciliation would ensure that Senate Democrats could pass the budget (and therefore global warming legislation) with a simple majority vote. But poor Nancy Pelosi really has her thong in a wad about this one, but her Democrat minions won't let her have her precious global warming initiatives in the budget bill. Special budget procedures WILL however be used to remake the healthcare system.

Let's try this one on for size ... legislation to tax the AIG bonuses at a 90% rate have hit a wall. The bill passed by the House last week will be pulled from the Senate fast track as people put down their pitchforks and re-read a little document called the Constitution. So if and when the Senate takes up the issue of taxing bonuses or targeting executive pay, it will probably look a heck of a lot different than what Nancy Pelosi and Barney "Sylvester" Frank concocted last week. Just for the record, here are the names again of the 85 Republican Representatives who thought it would be a good idea to support the AIG bonus tax legislation. But there does seem to be one stubborn Democrat in the Senate: Harry Reid. He is still saying "To hell with the Constitution, full speed ahead to tyranny!"

And RINO Arlen Specter must really be in CYA mode right now. He knows that he has an election coming up in 2010, and he knows that there are a lot of Pennsylvanians that would rather see Daffy Duck as their Senator. So Specter has decided that he is going to oppose the union card check bill. If you'll remember, the Democrats only needed one Republican vote to get this legislation passed, and the pressure fell on Specter who indicated that he would support it. And he has decided not to.

Just in case Harry Reid gets his way and the AIG bonus bill comes up pretty quickly in the Senate, here is something to note. The House-version of the bill would lead to the loss of one million American jobs. That is according to a senior economist at JP Morgan.

Michael Feroli, an economist at JP Morgan, concluded that the restrictions of compensation for companies receiving TARP money would put them "at a severe competitive disadvantage for talent relative to foreign banks which have not received such funds." Gee, ya think?

When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac want to pay out at least a million dollars in bonuses .. all of the sudden, it is OK for companies to dole out retention bonuses to keep their best and brightest employees. James Lockhart, the federal regulator overseeing Fannie and Freddie says, "there's a 'great risk' of key employees walking away if they don't pay out the promised bonuses. These Fannie and Freddie employee retention programs were established because federal officials believed top executives will play a critical role in ensuring the successful turnaround of the companies."

And the same doesn't go for companies like AIG?

The Obama administration is ironing out the details of his plans to increase government oversight of executive pay. I'm not just talking about the top TARP recipients .. I am talking about all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies.

The New York Times reports ...

Officials said the proposal would seek a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.

It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules.

The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could go beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.

One proposal could impose greater requirements on company boards to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to ensure that compensation was aligned with the financial interest of the company.

One of the most prominent phrases we heard in this AIG hearing yesterday was "give back." That phrase is such a mindless liberal talking point. You might have heard my discussion with a caller yesterday. I just hate this "give back" nonsense. I'm heavily involved in charitable giving. My wife has a 501C(3) charitable foundation. But I am NOT giving back. I'm giving. The money I give I earned. It was not given me. Therefore ... I am not giving it back. I'm convinced this whole "giving back" nonsense was created to cause people to subconsciously believe that whatever wealth a person might have was given them, not earned.

Did you happen to listen to those parts of the hearings yesterday where Slobbering Barney was demanding the names of the AIG employees who got the bonuses? These people committed no crimes .. yet here is the Imperial Federal Government demanding their names and sputtering about subpoenas. This is not only disgusting, it's chilling. You do something perfectly legal, and suddenly you have this politically powerful troll demanding your name.

Barney said that if AIG honcho Ed Liddy didn't turn over the names, he would ask his committee to vote to subpoena the names. Even though AIG employees are receiving death threats from the dumbmasses who couldn't tell their head from a hole in the ground .. Barney wants to make sure that we get those names!

But other members of Congress didn't seem to think this was a bad idea. Senator John Tester said, "Is there a downside? If they don't give the money back, they ought to have their names released." Senator Ben Cardin suggested that if the bonuses were not returned, the names should be given to the Justice Department and Eric Holder would decide if they should be released. Cardin said, "These bonuses have to be given back ... It's just unconscionable, and we can't allow that to happen. If necessary, we should take legislative action."

And let's not let this comment from Barack Obama go by the wayside. He said on the South Lawn yesterday, "People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses ... But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of that have existed for far too long." Just what culture is PrezBO talking about? The culture of capitalism?

There was so much more.

Perhaps the hokiest statement came from Rep. Paul Hodes, a Democrat from New Hampshire. He said that AIG stands for "Arrogance. Incompetence. Greed." How cute.

But moving right along ... AIG CEO Edward Liddy did ask that some of these bonus recipients give at least half of the money back. Those receiving retention payments of $100,000 or more were asked to return at least half of those payments.

Today in Washington we are going to have a Congressional beat down of AIG CEO Edward Liddy. He is going to appear in front of a House financial services subcommittee. And I think we can safely say that he is going to get a less than pleasant welcome. Liddy is going to have to defend the concept of abiding by the terms of your contracts with your employees. Look for Maxine Waters ask Liddy some questions ..

"What is a contract?" would be a good start. Mensa Maxine is so darn good at this sort of stuff. We'll also be treated to some posturing from the man most responsible for this mess ... and that would be Barney Frank.

So it turns out that AIG paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 of its employees. Eleven of those bonuses went to former employees. The contracts were written in March 2008, and they guaranteed 100% of their 2007 pay for 2008. They were not based on performance. Apparently the top individual bonus was more than $6.4 million, and the top seven received more than $4 million each. Did these people really earn this money? Possibly not. But they were parties to a contract .. and if the money had not been paid they would have most certainly sued for it.

Here's something I'm guessing you don't know. The Financial Services Division of AIG is headquartered in Wilton, Conn. In Connecticut they have a little gem called the "Wage Act." This law says that if an employee has to sue for wages payable pursuant to a contract they recover twice the amount that is contractually owed. That would have meant $330 million instead of $165 million. Add some attorney's fees on top of that. So ... you're running AIG. What would YOU do?

Now ... here is just a sampling of some of the comments coming out of Washington.

I'm sure that Chuckie Schumer would like to have his way with Edward Liddy. Did you hear what he had to say about these AIG bonuses? If not, here's a brief synopsis of what Chuckie had to say on the Senate floor:

"My colleagues and I are sending a letter to [AIG CEO Edward] Liddy informing him that he can go right ahead and tell the employees that are scheduled to get bonuses that they should voluntarily return them. Because if they don't, we plan to tax virtually all of it. He should tell his employees that if they don't give the money back, we'll put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so it is returned to its rightful owners, the taxpayers. So for those of you who are getting these bonuses be forewarned, you will not be getting to keep them."

He wasn't the only one who had something to say about these bonuses. Harry Reid declared on the Senate floor, "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money."

And slobbering Barney can't let a good wealth-envy moment go to waste. He's still sputtering about all of these bonuses asserting, "The time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company. And then say, as owner, 'No, I'm not paying you the bonus. You didn't perform. You didn't live up to this contract."

Oh and we're not done yet. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus says, "They're not going to get the financial benefit of those bonuses."

And Ohio Democrat Tim Ryan introduced a bill into the House that would tax at 100% bonuses above $100,000 for any company receiving bailout money. Ryan says, "We will use any means necessary ... It boggles my mind how these executives can be so unaware of what the American people are going through." Democrat Rep Steve Israel also sponsored this bill. Israel says, "If we can't kill the bonuses, we'll tax the bonuses." He says, "American families shouldn't be forced to reward these professional financial failures with extravagant bonuses that could buy fancy cars and yachts ... AIG may not like it, but since they had to come to the federal government for help, the federal government now has a say in how they spend taxpayer money."

Another bill introduced by Democrat Rep Gary Peters would "create a 60 percent surtax on bonuses over $10,000 to any company in which the U.S. government has a 79 percent or greater equity stake in the company. Currently, AIG is the only company that meets this threshold."

This is an absolute orgy of pandering to wealth envy. In the meantime the government cruises along operating a Ponzi scheme that makes Bernie Madoff look like he's selling brushes door-to-door. That would be Social Security. Someday we're going to face a meltdown over this soon-to-be welfare program that is going to make AIG and Madoff look like two-bit operators.

I mean, c'mon folks. Are you listening to yourselves? The outrage over these bonuses from the general population .. the very people that put Barack Obama in the White House .. is filled with mind-numbing wealth envy.

I'm reading just one story about America's reaction to these evil, greedy AIG executives. Here is some of the reaction. Are you ready?

Tess Beauchamp runs a restaurant in Lubbock, Texas. She isn't going to cut AIG any slack, "I think this country has a serious problem with executive entitlement .. I think it's outrageous. I think this country could stand a redistribution of wealth and not to AIG executives or corporate execs, for that matter."

Gary Jarvis of Herron, Illinois lost his job as a forklift driver. He says that AIG executives are "not going to bleed to death because I'm not sure that they've got blood. I think it's ice water that runs through their veins ... To me, it's just stunning to think they're not even ashamed of their disgusting greed."

And then we get this line from Maria Panza-Villa. She asks, "Wasn't Obama supposed to fix this?"

I've said it before .. but in 40 years of talk radio I've never seen the level of hatred and envy against the wealth as intense as it is right now. I propose that everyone out there who hates the rich quit their jobs and go get one from a poor person.

Holy flying pasture fritters! I don't think I've ever stood quite as alone as I did yesterday on this AIG bonuses thing. I don't think I had one call yesterday from one single person who agreed with me on this issue. That's fine. I believe I'm right .. and not being on the side of the majority won't bother me.

Here's the point I was trying to make yesterday. The American people have $165 billion invested in AIG. We don't have the money, so we are going to have to borrow it. From who? Well, perhaps from China! Maybe China will buy the treasury notes issued to back up this newly printed currency. So ... who do you want to pay this money back? How about your children and grandchildren? That would be just swell, wouldn't it? AIG fails, the $165 billion is shot to hell, and there's nobody around to pay it back except for future generations of Americans through increased taxes.

There is another option. Why don't we let AIG pay it back? Why don't we stand back and let AIG take reasonable steps to turn its fortunes around and once again become a profitable financial powerhouse? Certainly you see no problem with that! The question, of course, is just how do they do that? They do it with management expertise, that's how. They do it by retaining the best minds they can and putting those minds to work on solving AIG's problems. There is no shortage of competition for the type of business minds that can change the fortunes of AIG. There are other companies out there who could use that help .. and who aren't under Barney Frank's thumb. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the efficacy in allowing the best financial minds out there to gravitate toward companies that haven't received TARP funds while the companies that have borrowed so heavily from the taxpayers make do with second-rate executive talent. So how do the companies with the bailout funds keep the executive talent that will likely lead them to profitability? Well, they pay them! That's how. They live up to their contractual obligations. If they don't pay them, someone else will.

The issue here is not that AIG paid bonuses ... bonuses that amounted to less than 1/10th of one percent of the bailout money it received. The issue should be to whom those bonuses were paid. If they were paid to the perps who put AIG into this mess - and that's supposing the mess was caused by AIG execs and not by the federal government essentially forcing AIG investors and subsidiaries into making and buying hideously bad mortgages - then we have a problem. If the bonuses were paid to people who are working hard to solve AIG's problems and achieving some success, then no problem.

Let's take this angle. When was the last time you looked at the retirement plans for members of Congress? Some of these congressmen created the Community Reinvestment Act monster that coerced banks and lending institutions into making many of these subprime mortgages. These congressmen urged Fannie and Freddie to reduce their credit guidelines so that these quasi-government agencies to buy most of those bad loans. These congressmen and senators are going to retire with fat retirement funds that are completely safe while tens of millions in the private sector will retire with retirement funds decimated by this economic meltdown. Much of the problem was caused by the Barney Franks in Washington .. why aren't they paying the price like the rest of us?

New York Attorney General Cuomo (No relation to Perry) wants a list of people who got those AIG bonuses. What? Now we have crimes being committed here? The attorney general is going to investigate people who receive payments pursuant to a contract? Cuomo - clearly playing to the political message here -- says that "we owe it to the taxpayers to take every possible action to stop unwarranted bonus payments to those who caused the AIG meltdown in the first place." Cuomo is going to investigate who received the bonuses and who developed the bonus plans.

What in the hell is going on around here? Are we going to adopt a standard where contracts are only enforceable if they're popular with political class and the public? If that contract is unpopular what are we going to do? Sic the attorney general after the parties if they live up to its terms? Do you know where this is going to go? Well, what if you were some sort of a financial genius, and AIG or some other institution receiving bailout funds wanted to hire you to help turn them around. You're going to think: "Hmmm ... sounds like a nice opportunity. I can help those people and make some pretty good change in the process .. but do I want to be the subject of a criminal investigation by the attorney general if I accept a bonus? Do I want the president calling me greedy and telling the congress to pull out all of the stops to take the money I have earned back? I think not. I'm going to stay right where I am."

A lot of what we're seeing here is the anti-capitalist, pro-government left seeing an opportunity to demonize the private sector. The same politicians who are so adept at getting the public whipped into a frenzy over these bonuses seem somehow unable to gin up any degree of outrage over taxpayer money being spent on lobster sex and tattoo removal. At least there's a chance AIG is going to pay the money back. Let's see if some gang-banger gone straight offers up the money spent to remove his tats.

I, for one, am a lot more curious as to what Barney Frank's lover was up to at Fannie Mae while he was busy protecting that institution from President George Bush's attempts at reform, than I am in sending the New York Attorney general on a witch hunt for executives who received bonus payments pursuant to a contract.

Yesterday, President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner outlined their plan for small businesses. But before doing that, Obama wanted to make sure he had his say about these AIG bonuses. And not surprisingly, he believes that they are outrageous. Not only that, but he wants tax cheat Tim Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue" to block the payments.

Obama, of course, just had to use this occasion to play into the wealth envy. He used one of my favorite words ... "greed." He said, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed ... This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values ... All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules." What rules would that be, PrezBO? Abiding by your contractual obligations? That rule?

Here we have Obama wants to worry about fundamental values. Where were those values when he nominated a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the IRS? Willfully cheating on your taxes is OK. Getting a bonus for the work you've done pursuant to a contract is not.

The White House says that the Treasury Department will use a planned $30 billion infusion into AIG as leverage in order to compel the company to repay the bonuses of financial-products group employees. The infusion won't be final until the company and the Treasury figure out some sort of repayment options. OK .. here's an idea. The bonuses, as I've said, amounted to 1/10th of the amount of the bailout funds. So take this new $30 billion and reduce it by 1/10th of one percent. That would be $27 million Then everything will be square.

As I said ... Obama wasn't willing to put any of the blame on the government for any of the problems we're facing. I guess placing blame on the entity you believe makes America great isn't the right thing to do. For Obama and government fans everywhere the blame rests solely on capitalism and the evil private sector ... especially bank CEOs.

Terence Corcoran is a columnist and editor of Canada's Financial Post. He is one of Canada's leading business writers. Here's an excerpt from a recent column. If you voted for Obama this might mean nothing to you. Then again, you're never too old to learn:

"How convenient it is to blame bankers and CEO compensation for triggering the crisis, especially for politicians and regulators. Charging bankers with greed and incompetence gets politicians and bureaucrats off the hook for what is now clearly a global systemic failure. . . . [I]f the U. S. Fed sets low interest-rate polices, and the U. S. government, through agencies, is promoting and subsidizing mortgage lending, it is not the role of the bank alone to grasp the full systemic risk being created by the incentive structure created by policy. Nor can each individual bank be expected to understand the full range of risks being undertaken by all banks all over the globe. . . . Understanding systemic failure on this scale requires much more than name-calling and cheap accusations aimed at markets and bankers and capitalism in general"

Makes perfect sense to me. Much more so than blaming banks and CEOs for all that is wrong with our economy. Obama loves government. You don't blame your lover for your problems.

Because most Americans get their news from Entertainment Tonight, comments like these are bound to get more media attention than people who .. dare I say .. know what they are talking about. And this comment comes from actor Sidney Poitier, who believes that the government should cap all CEO salaries in the United States. The Obama administration plans to cap CEO salaries of any bank receiving bailout funds at $500,000 a year. We are talking about taxpayer money. But according to Hollywood, this cap should apply to all CEOs, including those in Hollywood.

According to the Hollywood social elite, capitalism is evil. Working hard at creating or running a business and making a profit is considered evil. It is the government's role to redistribute this wealth by capping CEO pay so that there will be more money out there for people who don't have a job or who don't have the job skills or work ethic to make the big salaries. Does that make ANY sense? What people in this country fail to realize is that these CEOs run businesses that provide jobs which provide paychecks. People also need to understand that if the people with the skills to manage large businesses can't be paid what they're worth in our economy, they'll simply find another economy in which to sell their services. I guess you can't expect those educated by government to understand something this complicated.

But don't go telling that to the average American, who is more inclined to take political advice from George Clooney and the likes of Sidney Poitier.

Meanwhile, what does Wall Street have to say about the pay restrictions? Well, as you can imagine, the financial industry is less than thrilled.

We already knew that Barack Obama wants to limit executive pay to $500,000 for executives of companies receiving bailout funds. As Obama put it, the compensation restrictions would only apply to banks that receive "exceptional assistance."

But thanks to Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, that is not exactly how it is worded in the government enhancement bill that will be signed into law tomorrow. The bill will limit executive bonuses on all banks that receive bailout money .. not just those receiving "exceptional assistance." The rules written into the stimulus bill also apply retroactively to companies that have received TARP money. And when it comes to those evil corporate bonuses, Chris Dodd has a plan for those too .. although any bonuses included in contracts before February 11th will not be affected.

Here's the deal:

"Under the new restrictions, top executives can only collect bonuses no larger than one-third of their annual salary. And those bonuses must be given in the form of restricted stock options that executives could not cash in on until their company's bailout money was repaid to the government ... In terms of how many executives would be impacted by the rules in the stimulus bill: The restrictions would only apply to the highest-paid employee for companies receiving less than $25 million in government funds, but they would impact senior executives and at least the 20 next most highly paid employees at companies receiving $500 million or more in TARP funds."

Now the Obama administration says that it wants Congress to change parts of the executive compensation provisions included in the stimulus. Obama is apparently angry that Chris Dodd is trying to "one up" him with even more restrictions on executive compensations.

Whatever happens with the bonus provisions of the bill one thing is certain .. these restrictions ill insure that the affected companies cannot go into the marketplace to find the best available executive talent to bring their companies back to profitability. But the wealth-envy crowd will be happy.

Barney Frank is becoming more of a laughing-stock with each passing day. Well ... maybe not to people educated by government. It's hard to take the guy seriously with all those marbles in his mouth .. but when we can actually focus on his words, he is becoming increasingly comical. Get a load of this. This is the latest from the mind of Barney Frank. He had this to say to financial industry CEOs during the House Financial Services Committee hearing:

Let me ask you, on the incentive, and I'm glad to see that you're not, many of you are not taking bonuses. But I have to say this: if you believe in bonuses, then is that something bad? I mean, I guess, you've gotten bonuses over time. If in good times you were told you weren't going to get a bonus, what part of your job would you not do? I mean, if you weren't getting a bonus, would you like leave early on Wednesday? Or would you take longer lunches? Would you bypass a certain class of investors? I guess that's, you say, and somebody said, well, your incentive comes in shares that align your interests with that of the company's. Here's one of the problems: why in the world do some of the most highly-paid talented people who have jobs that are fun. Let's be clear, not always fun, this is not amusement park time. Why do you need to be bribed to have your interests aligned with the people who are paying your salary? And this is part of the problem. I know it's a problem at the lower end who get bonuses and that's been built into their compensation. But at your level, again, why do you need bonuses? Can't we just give you a good salary, or give yourselves a good salary, you're in charge of that -- and do the job? This notion that you need some special incentive to do the right thing troubles people.

Make no mistake .. Barney Frank is, at his core, a raving anti-capitalist. His rant against the concept of bonuses is designed to pander to the wealth-envy crowd, a cabal that has gained followers and strength that I've never seen in my 40 years of talk radio. Slobbering Barney will be one of Obama's main allies as we move to a government-controlled (that would be "fascist") economy.

We'll have to check with Jamie Dupree to see if this made it into the government growth agreement between the House and Senate. But in the version passed by the Senate, financial institutions that have received bailout money and paid executive bonuses would be required to compensate the taxpayers.

The amendment included in the bill would penalize companies that paid bonuses of more than $100,000 to executives after the company received bailout funds last year. The companies would be required to repay any portion of that bonus over $100,000 within four months or be hit with an excise tax of 35% on the portion above $100,000.

This amendment, by the way, was co-sponsored by Republican Sen. Olympia Snow of Maine. It is estimated that it could raise as much as $3.2 billion.

Let me say this again ... and I'll try to write more slowly so the government-educated among you can understand this.

We'll form this wonderful lecture on the economics of bonuses as a question:

The Dynamic Investment Bank is having a rough time. Projections are that DIB will lose about $5 billion dollars this year and will have to lay off as many as 2000 employees. You have a well-earned reputation as a financial turn-around artist. Many companies are trying to hire you. You tell DIB that there is no way you can avoid any losses this year, and some layoffs are inevitable. But you do think that you can save the company a lot of money and a lot of good employees. Here's the deal you want. In addition to a good salary, at the end of the year you want one-quarter of one percent of the amount by which you reduce that projected $5 billion loss. DIB agrees. At the end of the year the company has lost not $5 billion, but $2 billion and is on its way to profitability next year. What's more, you only had to lay off about 400 employees.

Now ... you have earned a bonus of $7,500,000. Should you get it? Should that revolting Barney Frank have the option of penalizing DIB if the bonus is paid?

Judging by the comments surrounding this story, it has the wealth envy crowd pretty riled up. As you may know, Circuit City is going Tango Uniform. The last of its stores are in the process of being liquidated, and the company says that incentive bonuses are needed in order to keep the 154 executives around before the company is dissolved. So Circuit City has proposed that 16 of its executives split $2.3 million in bonuses if they achieve all of their targets and stick around until the deal is done. Then, and this is what really gets to people, Circuit City wants $750,000 to give as discretionary bonuses to non-management workers. We are talking about a company with tens of thousands of employees.

The only good bonus is a bonus that shows up in YOUR paycheck.

Earlier in the week, I told you about the brain-dead idea from Missouri Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill. She wants to put a limit on the executive compensation that can be paid by any company that is receiving bailout funds. That cap would be set at $400,000 a year, the same salary as President Obama.

It seems like the Obama folks rather like the idea! We're hearing this morning that Obama and the Democrats are now devising new executive compensation restrictions on banks that receive bailout funds. We are told to expect the exact details as soon as this week. Reports are that executives would be limited to $500,000 in annual compensation under the new rules. There would also be prohibitions on severance packages for certain top level executives and bonuses will be in the crosshairs as well.

These new rules are certain to do two things. First, as I explained earlier this week, the new rules will make it tough for these financial institutions to recruit or to keep the executive talent they so badly need to turn their companies around so that they can once again become profitable. As these rules loom on the horizon you be assured that many of the top executives in these companies are looking to bail - and head to industries where the government isn't limiting their compensation. Secondly, people wallowing in wealth envy will think that this is just wonderful .. those evil rich people are getting just what they deserved .. and Democrats will gain their undying loyalty.

I know that things are rough out there, but this is when we need to be even more wary of this "spread the wealth" mentality. People are more likely to buy into the rhetoric when they are down. Just remember that it sounds good in principal (if you're not all that fond of little inconveniences like property rights) but the realities are far, far worse.

Here's what I mean, folks. How many of your saw Barack Obama on Meet the Press this weekend? I'm going to give you a few quotes from Obama, and you tell me that this guy isn't dangerous for our economic prosperity ... not to mention freedom:

"I think the important principle, because sometimes when we start talking about taxes, and I say I want a more balanced tax code, people think, well, that's class warfare. No. It turns out that our economy grows best when the benefits of the economy are most widely spread. And that has been true historically."

Here's the clip or watch it here:

Know what? I would like a more balanced tax code myself. For one, I would like for more people to actually pay income taxes. How's that for balance. Right now 43% of income earners pay no income taxes at all ... and what little bit the next seven percent pay (bringing us up to 50%) amounts to about three percent of all income taxes. In the meantime the top one percent pay about 39% of all income taxes while earning about 19% of all income. That's not balanced ... so more balance sounds fine to me.

Now another Obamamabit:

" ...part of what I'm hoping to introduce as the next president is a new ethic of responsibility where we say that if you're laying off workers, the least you can do when you're making $25 million a year is give up some of your compensation and some of your bonuses ... That kind of notion of shared benefits and burdens is something that I think has been lost for too long, and it's something that I'd like to see restored."

Here's the clip or watch it here:

Restored how? By government edict? What are we heading for here, government control over executive compensation? Maybe government control over ALL compensation. Yeah .. that's the ticket, isn't it? We'll let the private sector continue to own and operate the businesses, but we'll put the government in control of setting all salaries.

By the way ... do you know what you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government. No, it's not socialism. Under socialism the government owns the businesses. And it's not capitalism. Under capitalism ownership and control is private. So ... what's the word? A very few of you know ... and the rest of you are about to find out. It's the "F" word. Fascism. So .. what does that make Obama?