I’m glad someone else sees this as well………..
Pay Czar compensation limits unconstitutional
Many Americans think it’s great that somebody in the government is finally doing something about excessive executive pay. The recent forced pay cuts for executives at AIG, Bank of America and other companies that accepted TARP money strummed a populist chord and brought many cheering to their feet. (They are not trying to apply this to companies that didn’t even get TARP money……the government can’t do that!)
In the meantime, Barney Frank and others in Congress have proposed expanding federal oversight to companies that never took any government money. They argue that the feds should exert control over any company that may pose a “systemic risk” to the U.S. economy. (What? ….this is a free market system…..not communist!)
This represents a huge overstep of government power and a threat to basic liberty. Pay regulations place the government between employer and employee, destroying the sanctity of the private contract.
The founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty posed by a powerful government and devised a system of checks and balances to limit federal power. The Obama administration circumvents these checks by utilizing “Czars” appointed by the President without Senate confirmation or oversight.
Obama is not the first president to utilize “Czars”. The Bush administration had them as well. But the power wielded by these unaccountable appointees continues to grow. Unconstitutional actions by previous administrations do not justify the continuation of those policies and certainly shouldn’t spur us to expand such practices.
Michael W. McConnell, a law professor at Stanford University Law School and a former federal judge, wrote an outstanding piece on the constitutionality of the “Pay Czar.”
“The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg’s executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.”