Democrats versus Republicans

[drynoc]

If you want an unbiased view of the stimulus package, consult the market: on the day the bill passed, the market tanked; on the day the bill was to be signed (yesterday), announced well in advance, the market tanked again. The problem is that the market doesn't like politicians deciding who will suceed and who will fail. That is what the market is for. If you want stimulus, I got yer stimulus right here: cut personal taxes, eliminate corporate taxes (they are passed on to consumers, who are then double taxed, anyway) and minimize government interference in the business cycle. Why isn't this going to happen? Because it would annoy the greens and the unions, two key Democratic party contributors. Just as importantly, it would restore the power of the market, and the liberals don't like the market making decisions. Democratic politics is all about ensuring the success of certain groups, whether they contribute anything or not.

[PBzeer]

Funny that the most "shovel ready" jobs available aren't even in the "stimulus". Open up ANWR and offshore drilling and not only would you be creating high paying jobs, it wouldn't cost us taxpayers anything. Instead it would be a revenue source, rather than a drain. Not to mention all the ancillary businesses that would sprout up to serve all those new jobs.

But then, we know what's most important to Washington, and it damn sure ain't the country.

[captdave57]

what we can ask 4
Well read this:


Subject: the proposal






"The Proposal"



When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well. Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.
Our government should not be immune from similar risks.
Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.
Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people's staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)
$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion / yr)
The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?
We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.
Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)
Note:
Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.
Summary of opportunity:
$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
$282,100,000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
$7,500,000,000 reduct ion in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.
$8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)
Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then I assume you know what to do.


--
Sun shine & Fair winds
Captdave57

[sailaway21]

Ignoring the minor problem of the Constitution......

Getting to the underlying philosophy of the post, most attempts to equate business practice and government fail the acid test. Government is not at all like a business and this rightly frustrates businessmen. Of course, that's not to say we shouldn't have fiscal probity in our government, it's just a different kettle of fish from business. For instance, no business would regularly build a fleet of aircraft carriers at about a billion a copy and then fill them up with multimillion dollar aircraft, and then spend twenty years sailing around practicing with the thing. The businessman would consider the threat the carrier is meant to address and say, that's what insurance is for.

[sck5]

actually sway, they have been behaving uncomfortably similarly lately. Both business and govt. have been engaged in unsustainable practices that have resulted in huge debts. But while we get to fire politicians every 4 years it seems it is much harder to get rid of CEO's who engineer disasters.

[sailaway21]

It's not our job to fire CEO's, it's the shareholders duty. The vast majority of businesses are engaged in sustainable business practices else they'd, well, be unsustained. As for government's practices, I'd venture to say we haven't seen anything yet. Enjoy your tax increase, it's coming.

[camaraderie]

Sway...In theory that works. In theory CEO's/Execs are paid what they are worth. The reality is far different. We need some new laws. Perhaps a shareholder vote on TOP ten execs in every public company every few years.
Perhaps a limit on senior exec compensation as a multiple of average worker earnings. Impose this on all publicly traded companies and there would be a new sense of fairness...an end to crony board rooms...and a focus on the longer term rather than quarterly results.

[PBzeer]

NO, NO, NO. Congress has no business in the wage setting business. PERIOD.

But then, they don't have any business being in the bailout business either.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Sway...In theory that works. In theory CEO's/Execs are paid what they are worth. The reality is far different. We need some new laws. Perhaps a shareholder vote on TOP ten execs in every public company every few years.
Perhaps a limit on senior exec compensation as a multiple of average worker earnings. Impose this on all publicly traded companies and there would be a new sense of fairness...an end to crony board rooms...and a focus on the longer term rather than quarterly results.

Sorry, Cam. You lose me here, every time we have this discussion. While some CEO pay may be unconscionable, that is no reason to regulate it. And, with your quite extensive knowledge of market capitalism, just what is unconscionable? I recall your recent post on how employees could not be underpaid but of only their free will, and I agreed with it. The market should also be in charge of CEO compensation.

Your proposed solution reminds me of the NFL salary cap where it difficult for 32 owners to get on the same page as to what they can afford to pay. I trust them far more than I do the 535 individuals in Washington, DC who are the equivalent of Detroit Lions ownership.

[camaraderie]

If that is a response to me Beez...I don't want Congress to set any limits or be involved in wages per se.
But the social contract has been broken between business and labor. Fortune 500 CEO's now average around 350 times the wage of the average worker. In the 1960's it was 60 times the average worker. The wage multiple in other delevoped countries in Asia and Europe is far closer to our 1960's average. I simply suggest that we place a cap on the wage multiple...say 100 times the average wage. If the average wage is a poverty level 20k...the CEO still could pull down a couple of million. If the average wage goes to 40k...the CEO salary could double. I think there would be no shortage of talented volunteers for those jobs. The current compensation system only encourages the systematic destruction of jobs and the long term healt of our corporations. There is no oversight in far too many boardrooms.
What has happened is a total focus on the next quarters earnings and making the terms of one's personal bonus structure. Sacrificing the long term of the company for the short term...milking that for a few years and then moving on in the game of CEO musical chairs.
The corporation is at the core of a free society. It needs regulation.

Sway...saw your post after I composed this. I hope it addresses your questions. My opinion is that there is NO market force acting on CEO compensation. There is an oligarchy that is self centered and self supporting in far too many cases.