Frankly Vile

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has, as must be expected from his sort, championed legislation in the US House of Representatives that dramatically increases the government’s control over those firms in what used to be until recently the private sector which have received any federal financial assistance under any of the various bail-out programs of recent months.

It’s called the Pay for Performance Act of 2009 and it’s one the most vile, pernicious, draconian, and un-American pieces legislation that our nation has been unfortunate enough to experience.

Barney Frank and the Liberals in the House Financial Services Committee, angered over the dwindling – shockingly, even President Obama backed away from it – support for the confiscatory tax bill on the AIG executives who received bonuses, drafted and passed the Pay for Performance Act of 2009 which is, in many fundamental ways, even more draconian, invasive, and punitive that the original AIG bill.

From the Washington Examiner:

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”

— Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent

This abomination was first introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fl) and supported by Rep. Jim Himes (D-CN). Formally known as the Grayson-Himes Pay for Performance Act of 2009, it will be voted on by Congress in this week. Given the makeup of the House, it will most likely pass – as will all such bills that either increase government control of the private sector or support the class warfare efforts of the Liberals.

You can read the full text of the bill (H.R. 1664) here.

So now the Liberals want to control all the compensation packages – and effectively all the terms of employment – for any financial firm that has received or will receive funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) or the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

The Liberals will deny the charge that the government will control the terms of employment, but you can’t create performance-based standards without including the low end of the spectrum.

I think that America can reasonably expect that any of the skilled workers and executives at these firms will be rethinking their careers at this point. With the government controlling their wages and even their continued employment, I think they will leave the troubled firms as quickly as possible. This will likely lead to those firms’ final collapse, which will allow the government to seize them as was done during the Great Depression. Just don’t expect them to be returned to the private sector later this time.

On the bright side – this sort legislation will have the positive effect of causing any corporation to twice or more about accepting one iota of financial “assistance” from the government in the future. Additionally, healthy firms – those not in line for the federal dole – will be able recruit the best and the brightest – since they’ll still be allowed to offer competitive wages and benefits – from those companies mired in the federal assistance trap and eventually drive them out of business.

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

13 Responses to “Frankly Vile”

  1. Phil Says:

    Don’t you think you should find a more credible source than a contributing editor from the National Review? Kinda biased don’t you think?

    Or at least don’t quote Byron York who bases his political opinions on fairy tales like Santa, the tooth fairy, and the idea that “minority homeowners” caused the global crisis.

    I mean really? Minorities?


  2. Steve B Says:

    You said it. the only way to stay autonomous in the current political climate is to stay as far away from bailout or stimulous funds as possible. Like several state governors did, only to have the Feds threaten to impose sanctions and penalties if they didn’t accept the blood money. They WANT us beholden to them, and get cranky when we won’t play along.

  3. jonolan Says:

    Interesting, Phil. Off topic, and useless, but interesting. I suppose you didn’t notice the link to the text of the bill, which does not nothing to contradict York’s statement?

    No, of course, not – or at least your sort wouldn’t mention it. Truth has no place in the minds or mouths of Liberals. It’s all about hating anyone who has made some money.

    Damn, does all of your breed want a handout so badly that you’d be willing to endorse anything the government did as long as you got your check?

    That’s not just un-American, it’s subhuman.

  4. jonolan Says:

    Steve B,

    It about sums it up. Little of this is about helping the economy; it’s about reshaping it into a more government controlled model from corporations down to the individuals.

    Of course the Liberals like this. They and their shills aren’t interested in personal responsibility and seem incapable of success on their own merits, so they turn to the government to force Americans to pay for their upkeep and vices.

  5. Susanne Says:

    Every day I am more amazed at how our government is expanding … and we are allowing it.

    Thanks for your posts!!

  6. Phil Says:


    The source of your information, and how they frame it, is very important. I doubt you would accept Nancy Pelosi’s framing of the bill, even if I provided a full link to the bill.

    Anyways, the bigger point here seems to be the flawed business tactics these corporations and banks are using which inevitably lead them to ask the government for money.

    Its pretty silly that you blame the govt for wanting to have some say in how taxpayer money is spent. Again, if big business doesn’t like the terms of the loan they shouldn’t have taken govt money. Its a pretty silly point.

    What’s even worse, is that you know and , allegedly, agree with this point. But instead of sharply critisizing GM or Goldman Sachs, who made the poor business decisions and then choose to “get in bed” with the govt, you emphasize your prejudiced beliefs that the govt is a boogieman and is forcing these “poor” companies to do things they don’t like.

    I know this is hard to believe, but democrats haven’t been waiting for some perfect opprotunity to seize the “means of production” in this country. All parties involved, private businesses and the govt would be a lot happier if the economy wasn’t crumbling and businesses didn’t require billions of dollars in emergency funds.

    Maybe repiblicans should think about that before bitching about barney frank’s bill being “mean”

  7. jonolan Says:

    Yes, Phil; for some reason – perhaps racially motivated based on your comment – you detest both the Examiner and Mr. York. So, because of your prejudices, the source – despite being verified by the actual bill – matters, at least to you and your kind, because you can use it to try to discount the facts of the matter.

    Identify, Personalize, Marginalize. Yeah, we get that, Phil. It’s the same tactic that has been used by America’s enemies for decades.

    Of course intelligent, clear-headed, right-thinking Americans need only look back on the last four decades of Liberal mouthings to see that they have, in fact, waiting for “some perfect opportunity to seize the “means of production” in this country.”

    Sadly, you and your masters been given that opportunity. 🙁

  8. Phil Says:


    Im kind of flattered that you’re so obsessed with me. But trust me, just because I can make good arguments that you have a hard time responding to doesn’t make me some secret liberal agent.

    Still, like I said, its flattering.

    By the way, did you just accuse me of being racist towards Byron York, whom I regularly read at National Review?

    Sounds like you’re grasping at straws here

  9. jonolan Says:

    You’re the one who keeps coming here and commenting; I rarely post on your blog. So I think the comment of obsession is misdirected.

    You’re also the one who disparaged Mr. York and based your insult on minorities. As you said, “the source of your information, and how they frame it, is very important.” It’s a logical assumption that your problem with York has a racialist basis, at least within the evidence you’ve provided in “conversation.”

  10. Phil Says:

    You’re also the one who disparaged Mr. York and based your insult on minorities. As you said, “the source of your information, and how they frame it, is very important.” It’s a logical assumption that your problem with York has a racialist basis, at least within the evidence you’ve provided in “conversation.”

    No, I just think that anyone who really thinks that this financial crisis was caused by “minority homeowners” has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about. There was no racial twinge involved, and I really don’t think you have any basis for those comments. I could’ve unpacked the implications behind accusing minority homeowners versus homeowners in general but I didn’t because its not germane to this discussion.

    Like I said, you’re 100% grasping at straws there buddy. But if you want to continue calling me a racist, ironic considering several people pointed out the racist undertone of your “black people are criminals with baby mama’s” blog post, then go for it. But you’re seriously just making yourself look bad on this one.

    You’re the one who keeps coming here and commenting; I rarely post on your blog. So I think the comment of obsession is misdirected.

    Funny considering you posted on my blog five minutes ago.

    Anyways, I enjoy reading political opinions from people who disagree with me. Especially non media types, so I read your blog along with a lot of other conservative blogs.

    I also enjoy debating with people with ideas other than my own so I comment. And you respond. Always.

    Is that obsession on either of our parts? No. Is the fact that we’re having a conversation about this kind of… you know… sappy, yes. Thanks for bringing it up.

    But that wasn’t my point. My point is that instead of responding to my arguments you just talk make snide ad hominem remarks: “oh you’re a liberal” “oh you’re anti-American” “Oh you’re just misrepresenting what I said” and other comments inferring that i’m a nefarious liberal who’s been trained by the secret liberal alliance to “Identify, Personalize, Marginalize.” like the rest of America’s “enemies.

    Umm righhhht.

    just because you can’t respond to a well crafted argument I make doesn’t mean that I’m using Jedi mind tricks to dupe you. Sorry, I’m just a better debater than you are.

    Anyways this line of conversation is lame so I’m done with it. You can have the last word.

  11. jonolan Says:

    ‘Bye, Phil. Don’t feel the need to hurry back. Really, I mean that sincerely – and in return I’ll fail to return to your blog. I’m really sick unto death of putting up with your lies, misrepresentations, and overwhelmingly condescending attitude as you try to ape your betters.

  12. Phil Says:

    That’s not at all what I said Mr “You misrepresent what I say”.

    Anyways, stop being so emo just because I’m a better debater than you. I come here for the political discussion not to fuel your inferiority complex. So maybe we can focus on the issues now?

  13. Bust Yo Bubble | Reflections From a Murky Pond Says:

    […] use confiscatory taxes and/or windfall profits taxes to ensure that there is little or no point in seeking to maximize […]

Leave a Reply