News-Record.com

I don't disagree, Doug, but let's be fair. Under normal circumstances, of course it'd be better to let the market determine executive pay. If direct federal limits on executive pay were permanent (and I realize that this is precisely the concern of principled small-government conservatives), it'd be a bad idea. I'm not sure it's a great idea even as a temporary measure, because it seems to be driven by economic populism rather than economic logic. But these are extraordinary times, and there are very few policy options that are free of problems.

P.S. Yes, I know your tongue was firmly in your cheek while writing that post.

The university scientist question is one of the most serious issues in science policy. The current policy is the 1984 Bayh-Dole act which, for the first time, allowed universities and government-run labs to spin off companies to profit from some of their patents. The idea was that this would encourage more innovation from these areas. A lot of people believe that this has caused universities to become too cozy with business and to be concerned with money and product development instead of basic research and education.

As to the broader point, money usually comes with strings attached. That's the way of things.

I do find sadly funny the argument that they need high pay to attract the best people, as sound as it theoretically is. If those running the banks are the best people then God help us.

Hagan "appears to be an active and effective leader?" If you mean thate she voted to confirm a tax cheat to run the IRS, and would have voted to add an even bigger tax cheat to the cabinet had he not withdrawn, she voted to confirm an Attorney General who pushed for the pardon of the Puerto Rican terrorist group responsible for the deaths of some, and who, unethically bypassed the normal pardons process for March Rich a fugitive on the FBI's most wanted
list after Rich's wife gave about a half million dollars to the Clinton "cat house and ranch, also known as the Clinton Library.

Want to take a bet on how she'll vote on the massive spending package now supported by 37-38% of the people now that they actually know what's in the package. Yeah, she's off toa good start, unless you foolishly believe that her job is support her party rather than the people!

Finally, I thought I was going to be depressed by the O'Bummer presidency. I was wrong. He's a hoot. Great move letting Wide Eyes Pelosi, we're losing 500 million jobs a month, to write the "emergency" stimulus pacakge. It sure has stimulated a mountain of "bipartisan"
opposition.

I think it's more the disconnect between CEO compensation and bonuses and the performance of the company. You'll find many examples of CEO's running the business into the ground, floating off with parachutes and bonuses, while the employees 401K goes plop and guys lose their jobs.

Savage, you're right. That sort of thing understandably ticks people off, so a measure to clamp down is bound to be popular. I just wanted to suggest the possibility, in more or less tongue-in-cheek fashion, that there can be unintended consequences -- at least if you apply this same approach to all similar situations.

Tony, don't you think you're being a tad unfair to Kay Hagan to assume she would have voted to confirm Daschle and assuming she will vote for the stimulus bill?

That bill is changing hour by hour, so no one knows at this point what any senator will or won't do or what it means.

"Want to take a bet on how she'll vote on the massive spending package now supported by 37-38% of the people now that they actually know what's in the package."

Nice trick to dismiss those who disagree with you. Actually the misunderstanding is evident in statements like "this isn't a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill." That's like saying "a Corvette's not a Chevy, it's a car." Government spending is what stimulus means. Would you prefer the $6 trillion price tag of Jim DeMint's plan (that's how much his proposed tax cuts would cost)? This tax cut dogma from the right has done enough damage.

Other than regulating this dis-conjugation, the government should have no say in what guys in private industry get paid, although you could argue one cannot have one without the other.

The government should indeed have no say over what private execs get paid... unless those private execs ran their companies into the ground and are now depending on government money as their lifeline. If the game we're playing is privatize-the-gains-but-socialize-the-losses, then it's fair for government to have its say when it's covering the losses. Maybe the government shouldn't be bailing anyone out, but that's a different argument.

The line was crossed back during the Clinton admin. when Housing Sec. Cisneros put pressure to increase minority home ownership. They went to the banks and said loosen up the reins, with the implication that the defaults would be covered by the gvt. The bankers saw this as a win-win. They collect all the up-front loan-financing charges but Fed bails them when the loans go bad.
There was a disconnect between what the bankers were doing and the sucess of the loan.
This is partly why the bankers feel they are still owed bonues etc. because they see the Feds just now holding up their end of the sub-prime deal.

Tony, you had might as well forget it. Liberals know everything.   If you will notice this paper blast every thing Burr does, and praise everything Hagan does.   Just like the SCHIPS bill, they ignored facts,and praised Hagan.    According to Reynolds , this will cost NC 3000 jobs.   King Obama , drops charges against the terrorist that helped blow up the Cole, and killed 17 Americans, the liberal media replies, this will show the terrorist we are nice guys and they will like us. What it shows is we have a gutless president, that cares more for terrorist, than he does for our troops.
Tony, have you noticed that the liberal media,that demanded the closing of GITMO, are now concerned they may be their neighbor!

From the Columbia Encyclopedia:

"Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities."

Perhaps there should be a re-thinking of the the tendency to call the present government Socialist.

Yeah, there should be a re-thinking of the tendency to call the present government socialist, but not because of W J Ellis' sly implication that it's really fascist. That re-thinking should take place because calling the U.S. government socialist (or fascist) is dumb.

Governments of all stripes interfere in the economy, with the difference being mostly about which constituency is favored by the intervention. Republicans have their favored constituencies and so do Democrats. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that only Democrats (or liberals or whatever) want to intervene.

In case no one's noticed, our economy is facing a singular and historic challenge, and the usual partisan gibes are misleading and wrong-headed. Unusual measures are necessary. Typically, the government doesn't partly take over companies. Typically, it doesn't inject huge sums of money into the economy. But both of those actions were taken by President Bush. Say what you will about Bush, but when the crisis happened he realized that we were in a nonpartisan moment and that extraordinary measures were needed.

And so now President Obama has had to do something that would normally run counter to American values of capitalism and free enterprise: he's capped the compensation of executives of companies while they suck at the federal teat. It's an amazing thing, but probably necessary... unless we'd decided not to bail anyone out. I don't know if we can unscramble that egg at this point, but if it's so very awful for the government to temporarily cap some executives' pay, so bad that it causes us to gnash our teeth about irrelevant issues like the USS Cole and decades-ago legislation, about villians both imagined and real, then whoa, I guess we shouldn't have bailed anyone out. Unfortunately for those with that point of view, it's too late.

Don't get me wrong--Obama's made it clear that he agreed with Bush's actions. But not only does Obama have to deal with the deep recession he inherited, he also has to deal with the policies he inherited.

"Singular and Historic challanges." More distortion from the damaged liberal mind. I know that the idiot Pelosi says we're losing 500 million jobs a month, but O'Bummer didn't inherit 12% inflation, 21% interest rates, 10% unemployment, and having to deal with 53 Americans held hostage for more than 440 days!

Poor O'Bummer inherited 7.5% unemployment, extremely low interest rates, low inflation, and no hostages being held overseas. For even more perspective take a look at our economy when the Demo-Rats took over the congress in January of 2007. Look at where the Dow was. Unemployment was less than 5%. Inflation and interest rate were low. Our budget deficit, in relation to GDP, was at historic lows.

Reagan didn't take to the airwaves daily to complain about the mess he inherited, and he didn't daily tell us how bad things were and how long it might take to fix them! Reagan's message were always of optmism and HOPE, not the pessimism we get daily from O'Bummer as he tells us it's not his fault!

Unemployment during the depression hit 25%!
1n 1938, 9 years after the crash, unemployment was still around 17%. So for those who say that we're now facing SINGULAR and HISTORIC challenges, read your history books.

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, the comedy stylings of tonymo!

Once again the hit and run comments of Andy Brod! It's easier than trying to defend the usual liberal distortions.

Reagan didn't take to the airwaves daily to complain about the mess he inherited, and he didn't daily tell us how bad things were and how long it might take to fix them!*tonymo

What genric conservative republican tonymo forgot to tell you is that Reagan expanded the Military Industial Complex by a Trillion dollars and funded it though phony credit purchase as investments in American T-Bills notes from the Chinese and Asia Markets to expand our National Debt for the first time over a Trillion Dollars.

In short, America was issue a start-up first time credit card from the Chinese to start the massive debt of the United States and it's coming collapse of the worthless paper currency system that only Establishment minded Corporate and Government fools who believe that it has wealth behind it......

Doug:

Pay for university researchers isn't capped, but the government funding for them is. The caps that the National Institutes of Health will pay are listed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm . The caps have been in place since at least the early 1990s.