April 2, 2009
The Great Dictator, part (C)
If you want a picture of the future, imagine an iron fist clutching a smiley face -- forever.
The first two posts of this miniseries were:
We ended the last segment with a tease:
The final step of a liberal fascist takeover of the industry would be to control the wages of all employees, to be able to set them however they want.
But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The author of the article, Byron York, is the former White House correspondent for the National Review; he now writes for the Washington D.C. Examiner. York describes the legislation that Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA, 100%) has approved:
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."
There really is no other way to describe this than a fascistic economic policy, where by "fascistic" I mean corporate socialism, similar to that developed most extensively by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. (Adolf Hitler did not invent it; he admired the economics of "Il Duce" so much, he copied them in his "Third Reich".)
Before moving further, it's important to note that fascism, while it has the stench of racism, antisemitism, and warmongering for conquest, is not strictly defined that way. An administration can be fascistic even if it has not the slightest whiff of any of those qualities. That said, however, the current administration is an open and unapologetic fan of race-based preferences; is packed to the gills with ardent foes of Israel who too often slop over into naked Jew hatred (using the code phrase "the Israel lobby"); and fecklessly threatened to invade Pakistan even before Barack H. Obama was elected; it can hardly be said to be anti-racist, philosemitic, or pacific.
The bill was actually authored by freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL, not yet rated), most famous until now for filing lawsuits against Halliburton; the fair-minded and non-prejudicial Grayson offered this unique reason for House members to vote for the bill:
"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."
These are not the words of a man who has any love of the free market, individualism, limited government, or Capitalism whatsoever. I venture to say that Mr. Grayson veers perilously close to totalitarianism... and he might not even mind the label.
Too often a false contrast is made between the impersonal marketplace and the compassionate policies of various government programs. But both systems face the same scarcity of resources and both systems make choices within the constraints of that scarcity. The difference is that one system involves each individual making choices for himself or herself, while the other system involves a smaller number of people making choices for others.
It may be fashionable for journalists to refer to “the whim of the marketplace,” as if that were something different from the desires of people, just as it was once fashionable to refer to “production for use, rather than for profit” -- as if profits could be made by producing things that people cannot use or do not want to use. The real contrast is between choices made by individuals for themselves and choices made for them by others who presume to define what these individuals “really” need.
We must contrast the clarity, logical development, and true love of freedom found in Sowell's argument with the crabbed, self-serving, power-mad, authoritarian, arrogant, condescending, ill-informed, adolescent wish-fulfillment of Barack Obama, Timothy Geithner, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%), Majority Leader Harry "Pinky" Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 70%), and every other member of the liberal cabal that wants to hijack our country and turn it into Sweden. Or into fascist Italy of the 1920s, 30s, and early 40s.
Thomas Sowell is above all an American man who loves the American experiment... while the Obamunists are from Venus, I think. Barack Obama despises everything that the United States is right now; he will only love his country when it's no longer our country, but just an extension of the EU and the UN.
But always with a smiley face. Never forget the smiley face... that's the distinction that makes one a compassionate liberal fascist, which makes all the difference.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 2, 2009, at the time of 5:07 AM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3558
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Great Dictator, part (C):
» 偉大なる独裁者を目指すオバマ王 from In the Strawberry Field
オバマ王がアメリカを独裁政権王国にチェンジ・変革しようとしているという話はこれまでにも何度もしてきたが、最近のオバマ王のやり方を見ていると、その変革が急速に進んでいることを肌で感じる。カカシはオバマ王が皇太子の頃は、彼は単なる無能で経験不足な政治家だとおもっていた。それはそれで国がきちんと起動しないという点において危険ではあるが、独裁者としての野心を持った男が国の総裁としての権限を持つことほど危険なものはない。 オバマ王は、先ず銀行や証券会社といった金融企業に対し大幅な政府の介入を企んでいる。私はこ... [Read More]
Tracked on April 2, 2009 10:06 PM
The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael
The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.Would it be unseemly to assume that any company that takes advantage of a tax cut would be seen, in the eyes of these new fascists, to be a company that has received a capital investment from the US Government?
I mean, if spending more is a spending 'cut', one could construe a tax cut as an investment by the Government.
Thus, any company that hasn't paid it's Gross Taxes would fall under the power of this proposed Legislation. All neat and legal.
...or am I just being paranoid?
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
You are, but as they say, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean no one’s following you.
I think I’m getting paranoid too.
The following hissed in response by: Ken Hahn
So far the Obama administration has managed to get most other nations to agree to allow us to continue bribing them. If the money holds out Obama may someday accomplish something.
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
No problem. China's money supply is inexhaustible, right?
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved