That old canard.
A random article became interesting because of the recent Wisconsin fight over public-sector compensation. UnitedHealth CEO makes 48.8 million.
This article sparks many interesting questions. They are:
In light of consistent corporate malfeasance, stemming from the good old days of Enron/WorldComm/Arthur Andersen, and into the recent past of Lehman Bros./Bear Stearns/AIG (among others), the level of vitriolic defense in service of executive compensation is puzzling.
With the recent collapse of the financial sector, executives were largely insulated by the Treasury Dept. and President Obama, citing "market stability" as the main reason why they didn't put the screws to too many people. The market wouldn't like chief executives getting jettisoned, and we had to think about the "bigger picture" or something.
The corresponding bailout of the auto industry didn't receive the same sort of protection, for some reason. I don't know. Maybe someone has the information on that, I haven't looked into it.
Most interesting, the Tea Party claimed to have galvanized over just this issue of corporate welfare. But I'm not seeing it. The rank-and-file of the GOP and Tea Party will go to the mat in defense of corporate executives. They do it every time. Even when they spend two months hollering like children about teacher pay, they turn right around and form a human shield for corporate executives.
And indeed, if the logic of Scott Walker is to be believed, severe cuts should be made to executive compensation. It isn't fair that other people make more money. It is doubly unfair if they are making more money than us in a recession. It is triply unfair if they are making more money than us when there are budget issues.
Where exactly does the money come from? As we saw in Wisconsin, proud Tea Party members explained how they were sick and tired of "paying for public sector employees". As if public sector employees didn't pay taxes or something. As if now they pay taxes, in spite of their earlier rhetoric about how "poor and middle-class people don't really pay taxes" was all of a sudden forgotten. Or, I mean to say, only Tea Partiers actually pay taxes to pay for public sector employees. How that works is beyond me.
Tax-Enough-Already has always been a bewildering rat's nest of contradictions and cognitive dissonance. Either you really pay taxes or you don't. Either you're sick of paying so many taxes, or you don't really pay very many taxes at all. Which is it?
While the mechanics are different, the level of paying going on for corporate failure outstrips public-sector compensation by the trillions of dollars. If you are so pissed about teacher's unions, why aren't you proudly explaining just how much more sick you are of paying for corporate failure? And then, if you do explain it, why are you always so curiously absent when it comes down to it?
This article sparks many interesting questions. They are:
In light of consistent corporate malfeasance, stemming from the good old days of Enron/WorldComm/Arthur Andersen, and into the recent past of Lehman Bros./Bear Stearns/AIG (among others), the level of vitriolic defense in service of executive compensation is puzzling.
With the recent collapse of the financial sector, executives were largely insulated by the Treasury Dept. and President Obama, citing "market stability" as the main reason why they didn't put the screws to too many people. The market wouldn't like chief executives getting jettisoned, and we had to think about the "bigger picture" or something.
The corresponding bailout of the auto industry didn't receive the same sort of protection, for some reason. I don't know. Maybe someone has the information on that, I haven't looked into it.
Most interesting, the Tea Party claimed to have galvanized over just this issue of corporate welfare. But I'm not seeing it. The rank-and-file of the GOP and Tea Party will go to the mat in defense of corporate executives. They do it every time. Even when they spend two months hollering like children about teacher pay, they turn right around and form a human shield for corporate executives.
And indeed, if the logic of Scott Walker is to be believed, severe cuts should be made to executive compensation. It isn't fair that other people make more money. It is doubly unfair if they are making more money than us in a recession. It is triply unfair if they are making more money than us when there are budget issues.
Where exactly does the money come from? As we saw in Wisconsin, proud Tea Party members explained how they were sick and tired of "paying for public sector employees". As if public sector employees didn't pay taxes or something. As if now they pay taxes, in spite of their earlier rhetoric about how "poor and middle-class people don't really pay taxes" was all of a sudden forgotten. Or, I mean to say, only Tea Partiers actually pay taxes to pay for public sector employees. How that works is beyond me.
Tax-Enough-Already has always been a bewildering rat's nest of contradictions and cognitive dissonance. Either you really pay taxes or you don't. Either you're sick of paying so many taxes, or you don't really pay very many taxes at all. Which is it?
While the mechanics are different, the level of paying going on for corporate failure outstrips public-sector compensation by the trillions of dollars. If you are so pissed about teacher's unions, why aren't you proudly explaining just how much more sick you are of paying for corporate failure? And then, if you do explain it, why are you always so curiously absent when it comes down to it?