Last week, Slobbering Barney (a man who has never worked in the private sector during his entire life) passed a bill through the House called the Pay for Performance Act that would allow the government to set compensation restrictions on all employees of all banks receiving bailout funds. Here comes the law of unintended consequences. Now we have the Obama administration is apparently trying to figure out ways to get around these restrictions. Why? Because some banks out there are trying to pay back their bailout funds while others are sending the signal that they don't want to get into the bailout process at all. Obama wants to control the banks. In order to control the banks he needs this bailout connection. Essentially it's a "you take my money and I own you" deal. Barney's wealth-envy based restrictions are a problem here.

So .. what do you do as president if there's a law in the way of your agenda? Simple. You figure out a way around the law. What do you think we're operating here? A system based on the rule of law? Get serious. So here's the plan. Sources indicate that Obama can get around the rules by not providing direct aid to financial companies. What you do here is set up some special entity that will act as a middleman. The government pays the middleman, and the middleman then sends the money off to the financial institution. Since the financial institution isn't getting bailout money "from the government" the Barney restrictions don't apply.

Is this legal? Heck, that doesn't really seem to be an issue any more. What does legality have to do with it? Where is the Constitutional authority for the government to seize these banks in the first place? Questions of legal and illegal have come to only apply to the private sector. As Mark Levin says in his book, we're now in what you might term a soft tyranny. The Constitution is only in the way. For the time being questions of legality don't apply.