October 26, 2009

Pay Czar Proves Pitchfork Thuggery Slope Done Slipped

Bullying of CEO Ken Lewis and pay “guidelines” for non-TARP banks prove ObamaDems don’t care if TARP funds are repaid

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at PhotobucketDeVine Law had planned to weigh in on the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of executive branch “czars” since dueling Pro & Con (Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson vs. David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Lee A. Casey) columns on the subject appeared in my October 1 edition of the AJC.

I concluded, at the time, that Rivkin/Casey had the better argument in the all-Republican debate that President Barack Obama’s czars did not exercise the ”significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States” that U.S. Supreme Court precedent determined is required for U.S. Senate confirmation under the ”appointments clause” of the U.S. Constitution.

But as the end of October approaches I am persuaded that the Halloween masks of Czar#1 (Obama) thru Czar#33 (and counting) need to be removed, given the specter of thuggish Czarist “pitchfork” threats against TARP and non-TARP companies, akin to those leveled in the Chicago Way against Bankers last April:

“These are complicated companies,” one CEO said. Offered another: “We’re competing for talent on an international market.”
But President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation, and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”
“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

 Persuasion, Coercion and Lawmaking

The “czar” that made the above thuggish mobster-type threat against Bank of America’s (BAC) CEO Ken Lewis, after he jokingly complained about rumours of draconian cuts in executive pay, didn’t have to be confirmed by senators. He was chosen by the Electoral College!

Lewis, who had already agreed to work for $2 for 2008-2009; invested millions of his own money in stock after the credit crunch and who was coerced to go thru with the Merrill Lynch deal after learning of their massive debt; has now been rubbed out by Obama’s pitchforks and forced to resign.

It seems that Lewis committed the unpardonable sin when he miraculously turned the Merrill deal into a profit-maker for BAC, thus frustrating the Obama-Geithner goal of nationalizing the banks. Earlier this year, Lewis also tried to return all of the TARP funds that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Obama’s Tax-cheat Treasury Chief-in-waiting had forced BAC to take, alleging the bank was “insolvent.” The problem with that allegation is that BAC has never missed one payment to creditors.

Therefore, before Obama had appointed the first czar, this government had already crossed the line between persuasion from the Bully Pulpit of the executive branch and its execution of the laws responsibilities to the usurpation of the lawmaking responsibilities of Congress and the coercion of Judicial mandates interpreting the law.

One might want to go back as far as the Fannie Mae gangs of Democrats that coerced banks to make loans to those that could not afford them since the late 1990s for earlier coercions as well. One might want to re-visit attempts by President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain to break democrats’ filibusters that kept Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with the czar-like power to guarantee the toxic loans that, combined with Democratic Party policies after they took over Congress in 2007, that introduced us to the Great Recession Obama’s Rahm Emmanuel now uses as the crisis to justify the end of the rule of law and free market capitalism, but I digress.

Special Master please, not Czar

I chuckled two weeks ago when I saw that AIG was “asked” by Kenneth “Pay Czar” Feinberg, to reduce scheduled contractual bonuses. Asked? Then the chuckle reached belly-laugh this past week when Feinberg “announced” that all TARP recipients pay would be cut by 90%. No word on AIG et al’s answers after being asked and no word if pitchfork releases were threatened.

Feinberg says that these cuts are a “balance” of public outrage vs. making it more likely that the TARP companies pay back the loans from the taxpayer. He also “hopes” that the best employees of these companies won’t leave for better pay with non-TARP companies.

Feinberg was appointed by President Obama as “Special Master” on executive pay, and Feinberg insists that he not be referred to as a “czar”. But “master” is a term of art used by the Judicial Branch to refer to judges that make impartial  decisions based on law and equity.

We missed his judicial appointment and the only jury we saw was one man with large ears not listening to We the people, nor the Congress. Had Obama been listening, he would have remembered the U.S. Senate’s refusal to pass the 90% tax on AIG months ago and had he been listening to We the People, he would have washed away that Big Government Kool-Aid taste with Party Tea.

So you see, whether Obama’s czars are unconstitutional or not (even if the Roberts-Alito Supreme Court would declare them so), the problem of the ongoing transition from a Republic and the Rule of Law to Obama’s preferred rule by men won’t be solved.

Not a Slippery Slope? The slope done slipped.

We are also told by Master Feinberg not to fear a slippery slope that would have the federal government determine salaries in non-TARP funds-receiving companies. Yet, the very day cuts of 50-90% in TARP company pay are announced, Obama’s government issues suggestions for ALL banks and the FEd has now followed.

All this comes after Obama took over GM and Chrysler that now function as premium day care for the UAW workers with no work to do making cars no one wants to buy.

Had they cared about “saving” GM and BAC, (and about taxpayer money being paid back) they would have let GM survive in bankruptcy and let BAC pay their money back months ago. So the Obama motive in the present circumstance is made clear by their takeover of GM and refusal to accept BAC’s money: Obama wants to own BAC and keep GM as a permanent taxpayer funded Democratic Party operation.

Feinberg speaks of having CEO and other executive pay tied to long-term stock options, and  that would be fine if Boards of Directors weighed such a choice in the free market against similarly-situated firms with whom they compete.

But Obama, like czars, mobsters and Chavez-like dictators, eschews competition. He prefers to clear the field with Valentine’s Day brass knuckle massacres akin more to Halloween tricks after he takes the treats.

He was ACORN’s lawyer after all, even if he is loathe to admit it, and we can’t count on clearing any more ACORNs absent prostitution ring revelations.

We the People must wield votes in 2009-2012 like pitchforks

Don’t count on any action from a Congress, either, as some of their Blue Dawgs try blocking the cap and trade energy tax assault on the poor and middle class as Obama uses executive bureaucratic interpretations of the law to begin imposing such tax without their Blue Dawg representation.

We face a lawless gang in Washington whose czars may not face Senate scrutiny, but whose head Czar and his party ObamaDems will face We the People scrutiny in Novembers hence.

It has always required courage for conservatives, branded by the Drive-bys as criminals for being Republicans, to oppose the liberal status quo. The Chicago ways of Obama has made a Rush-like courage even more necessary given his pitchfork intimidation tactics.

Fortunantly, when the pitchfork thug ObamaDems slipped down the slope, they landed on Tea Partyers heads, who are poised to play Eliot Ness.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns and Race 4 2012 website.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

by @ 11:20 am. Filed under Issues
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2009/10/26/pitchfork-thuggery-slope-done-slipped/trackback/

6 Responses to “Pay Czar Proves Pitchfork Thuggery Slope Done Slipped”

  1. Molly Says:

    Buchanan blog: Lindsey Graham attempting to destroy Ron Paul’s audit the Fed bill.

    “If you want to stop the war machine, you have to stop the money machine”
    -Tom Woods

  2. Aron Goldman Says:

    Fox News Special Report Roundtable on TARP Pay Cuts
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/22/roundtable_on_tarp_pay_cuts_98853.html

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I have no objection in principle at all about these cuts in pay. This is not intrusion into free enterprise. These enterprises are not private or free. They are wards of the state. They ran themselves into the ground, and they are now partially or largely owned by the government. So the government has every right to intervene and dictate salaries.

    But the question is a practical one. Is it smart if you’re a shareholder in the company, as we all are, and thinking of its future and the ability to repay the loan, is it smart to institute a cut this drastic?

    The obvious danger is that if the cut is too large, it will induce the people who run it and who presumably know how to run it to go elsewhere.

    So, to me, it is a practical decision, and the fact that Obama was hands off on this and he left it in the hands of someone whose expert in this area I think is the right decision. Obama is not an executive. He is not a businessman. He ought to leave it to Feinberg, who in these negotiations has become expert, so I think it was handled the right way.

    BRET BAIER: Mara, the companies who took bailout funds and repaid those loans do not have the stipulation of a cap, and there are actually some out there that think they should.

    MARA LIASSON: Well, they paid their bailout money back with interest, and that was supposed to be kind of the punishment, and they fulfilled that contract.

    I think that legally these are the only group of companies that the government could do this to, and I agree with Charles. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

    And I think the more important thing is getting regulations in place that will not have these companies get into this situation again. And maybe, as Ken Feinberg said in that cut we just played, that they will just have to do with how they are compensated.

    In other words, why shouldn’t an executive pay be tied to the performance of their company? That just seems like the most basic thing. Every small business owner’s in America pay is tied to the performance of their company.

    BRET BAIER: Fred, besides the concerns Charles raises about the possible brain drain at these companies, are there fundamental concerns about how this has all come together?

    FRED BARNES: Yes, I certainly have them. I don’t know why they are pooh-poohing this thing for another day at the office for Ken Feinberg.

    This is unprecedented. We haven’t seen this before where they are coming in and telling people how much they can make. Look, if you’re really interested, Bret, in stopping these companies from taking excessive risks, there are ways to do that. Have them raise their reserve requirement, you know, they have to have more cash on hand.

    One of the problems that so many on Wall Street got in so much trouble is because it was 30 or 40 to one, in other words, how much they had laid out in investments and loans and that one was how much they had in reserve. So if you’re really interested in that, well, in the risk factor here, you don’t cut their pay. That won’t have any effect. Really, come on now. There is a good way to do it. And the second thing is this could go well beyond what they have done with these seven companies. Increasingly a part of the liberal agenda is to force American executives to be paid less. It offends them. It ideologically offends liberals. And right now, they don’t have the legal authority to do that. They can do it with these firms. But just think about companies that are defense contractors. I mean, they’re in the hock for all these government contracts and so on. And what about the companies that participate in the Medicare prescription drug program, and they’re allowed to come in…

    MARA LIASSON: … it is different than being owned by the government. We own big chunks of these companies. The taxpayers own huge amounts of AIG.

    FRED BARNES: They can legally do this now, but – Mara, you have heard it. Charles, you have heard it. You hear them on Capitol Hill talk about it, Barney Frank talk about these executives, executives for American corporations, they think, liberals think make too much money, and they would like to have them make less.

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If and when that happens, I will savage it, as you have savaged today’s cuts.

    But you say it is unprecedented. Well, the situation with these companies is also without precedent. We have never had huge institutions go bust and be saved by the government, which essentially owns it. There is nothing wrong at all in principle with regulating a company that you own. It’s not an attack on -

    FRED BARNES: I understand that.

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It’s not an attack on private enterprise. This is not private. It’s quite simple.

    FRED BARNES: But Charles, this is not just something done because it is good for the company and it will cut down on excessive risk. This is ideological punishment. That’s an element in there.

    BRET BAIER: A camel’s nose under the tent, a phrase that Charles has used before, but not in this instance.

    CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If the tent starts moving, I will be here to object to it.

  3. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:

    Club for Growth: Hoffman leads all candidates in NY-23 race.

  4. OHIO JOE Says:

    Haha, good old Tommy Boy beat you to it Kavon.

  5. FredsFighter Says:

    Thank you for the balance, Aron.

  6. Aron Goldman Says:

    NYT condemns what it calls “Obama’s cover-up”
    A leading pro-Obama outlet says he “has clung to Bush’s expansive claims of national security and executive power.”
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/26/obama/index.html

    The Cover-Up Continues
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26mon1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

The Candidates





























Featured Archives


Race 4 2008 Interviews

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Facebook


Join Race 4 2008 on Facebook

Site Syndication

Twitter

Main

Meta Data

Design and Hosting By