Michelle Malkin » 10 House Republicans for arbitrary salary control; Minority Whip Cantor votes “present” (!)

10 House Republicans for arbitrary salary control; Minority Whip Cantor votes “present” (!)

By Michelle Malkin • April 1, 2009 10:32 PM

Scroll for updates…

85 House Republicans, I shall remind you again, voted for the AIG/CYA confiscatory bonus tax.

Some of them have learned their lesson, but not all.

Today, 10 Republicans joined the Grabby Hands Democrats in passing the new “Pay for Performance Act” — to curb “excessive” employee pay at financial firms that receive government bailout funds, “a measure that could supplant [the] earlier effort to heavily tax executive bonuses.” The bill passed 247-171.

Here are the 10 House Republicans who think it is government’s job to determine what “excessive” pay is in every workplace except their own (full roll call vote here):

Bilirakis
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Cao
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Jones
McHugh
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen

At least this bonus-taxing bunch of appalling GOP turncoats is consistent in supporting radical government meddling.

Oh, and look who voted “present:”

Cantor

!!!!

As for those who had a change of heart: Sorry, you don’t deserve wine and roses for doing what you should have done in the first place. There’s no rational reason or fixed principle the rest of the class of 85 House Republicans who voted for the first bonus restrictions can give you for supporting that measure while opposing the new salary controls — harbingers of worse things to come. And they know it.

The 85 AIG bonus-taxing House Republicans, led by Minority Whip Eric Cantor, revealed their arbitrary and capricious commitment to fiscal conservatism. They can’t be trusted to stand for what’s right when the heat is on. And they shouldn’t be allowed to forget it.

***

Here is Cantor’s explanation:

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who caused consternation in his party by voting in favor of taxing AIG executive bonuses, voted “present” Wednesday on a second bill aimed at tackling bonuses.

In a statement, Cantor said he voted present because his wife works for an institution that could be affected by the legislation. He also criticized the bill as a “misguided” intrusion by the federal government into the private sector.

“This misguided bill gives the federal government unprecedented new power to dictate compensation levels for private citizens employed by companies,” Cantor said in the statement.

“However, I believe that every Member of Congress must take all of their responsibilities seriously, and since this legislation may affect my spouse, in accordance with House rules and with an abundance of caution, I voted ‘present’ and submitted my rationale to the official Congressional record.”

So, he voted “present” because the bill might affect his wife’s bank. But he voted “yes” on the AIG bonus tax…which also may have affected his wife’s bank, and which, by the way, received bucket loads of TARP money. Hmmm:

The earlier measure that Cantor supported would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses at firms that receive at least $5 billion in government aid. The measure, which is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate, would have applied to individual or family income exceeding $250,000. A spokesman for Cantor said the lawmaker’s spouse may not be affected by that bill.

Diana F. Cantor runs a Virginia-based subsidiary of New York Private Bank and Trust, according to ProPublica, a non-partisan investigative journalism organization. The New York bank received $267.2 million from the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program on Jan. 9.

Are you buying this (especially given his past weaseling on this issue)?

***

Best reaction to Cantor on Twitter:

@andylevy:

That’s weird – I was under the impression that the Whip was like a leadership position or something. Guess not!

I’d like to hear his rationale for why taxing bonuses at 90% is okay, but the PfPA is “misguided intrusion.” And I’d like that rationale to be something other than the fact that one doesn’t affect his wife and one does.

***

More: GOP Rep. Bilirakis tries to explain his rationale for sponsoring the bill…

“I have opposed each of the bailouts that have passed through this body, and I am a believer in free markets. Under normal circumstances, I would argue that executive pay is best left to the company and its shareholders. However, when companies are receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer monies, full disclosure can help guide our future legislative decisions on the use of taxpayer money,” Bilirakis said. “Policy makers and those we represent should have the benefit of this information.”

In addition to the database, a Bilirakis amendment was adopted which clarifies that an institution which is not a TARP recipient will not be subject to the requirements of the bill as a result of doing business with a TARP recipient.

“As we work together to force TARP recipients that refuse to voluntarily change their excessive and unreasonable compensation practices, we must be careful not to overreach and inadvertently restrict compensation at firms that are not TARP recipients,” Bilirakis said. “This language gives assurance to non-TARP recipients that it is OK to do business with those firms on taxpayer life support.

GOP Rep. Dana Rohrbacher also echoed this rationale in an exchange we had on Twitter last night.

The problem is that this bill neglects the real-world consequences of its effect. This is paving the path for Barney Frank’s wider power grab. And no matter how the Republicans might try to insulate responsible businesses from those consequences, the Left’s desired government salary control is here. Yes, I believe that taxpayer money should come with strings attached. Go ahead: Force them to disclose how they spend the money. But dictating compensation for the sake of mollifying the mob? Is that fiscally conservative? What do “excessive” and “unreasonable” mean? Who defines it?

If you don’t want companies spending our money on “excessive” bonuses, do not give them the money in the first place. Period.

Posted in: AIG

Printer Friendly

comments (95)

trackbacks (23)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On April 2nd, 2009 at 4:52 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

This reminds me a bit of the news that the case against Ted Stevens has been dropped.

My gut, about Stevens, if he had not had his problems, and his seat stayed Republican:

We had a Trio of Treason that killed the filibuster against Porkulus.

The 3 most obvious.

But if the GOP had one more seat, I suspect one of the RINOs, maybe Murkowski (she slips under the radar as a RINO because she was appointed to her seat by her Republican father), Voino, maybe even McCain, would have stepped up to be the fourth vote.

I figured before the elections the GOP needed to hold the Demonrats under 56 or 57 seats in the Senate to really be able to filibuster the worst Obama and Pelosi inspired crap.

I knew when it looked like the Dems had 58 seats it was probably over, no filibuster would stand.

The only possible difference, if the Dems had known they’d own 60 seats outright, plus the RINOs, they might have expelled Lieberman from the caucus and taken their chances.

Back to the House:
Cantor was supposed to be fresh blood, new leadership, a possible Speaker if the GOP ever got the House back.

Better look for different fresh blood, I guess.
#102

On April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

OT:

The results of voting for Hillary during Operation Chaos (plus McCain had already wrapped up the nomination)

Dear fellow Democrat,

Our fundamental right to vote is threatened by Republican partisan extremism and your action is urgently needed.

Sign the petition to protect our fundamental right to vote and speak out against Texas Republicans’ misplaced priorities.

Next Tuesday, April 7th, 2009 the Texas House Committee on Elections will conduct a hearing in Austin on proposed photo Voter ID legislation. We need you to be there to help defend our fundamental right to vote by testifying and speaking out. Texas Republicans remain focused on this bogus partisan photo Voter ID legislation and refuse to work on critical issues affecting hardworking Texans. If you are able to join us in this fight, please use this link to provide us with some information. We will equip you with the information you need to fight back against Republican efforts to suppress the vote and put partisanship over progress.

Even those who cannot attend the hearing can join the fight.

Visit our website to take action today.

This photo Voter ID legislation violates the most sacred right in our democracy. This is your chance to tell Republicans to set aside partisan extremism and get to work on real problems.

Thank you for signing the petition to protect Texans’ voting rights and joining us next week for the Voter ID hearing in Austin.

Your fellow Democrat,

Boyd L. Richie

Chairman

Texas Democratic Party

Yup, asking a voter to identify him/herself is a horrible violation apparently.

Anyway, I sympathize with the Third Party people over RINOs amuck in the GOP, but even an undiluted Republican Party will have a hard time defeating Democrat voter fraud, and if the votes are split, well, if Obama is dedicated to a one party totalitarian state, it won’t take too many electoral wins to achieve it, then it is game, set and match.
#103

On April 2nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm, Brian72 said:

Iowahawk has been nationalized! It’s come to this:

Under New Management

TWRA

An Official Announcement from Henry T. Falborne
Assistant Undersecretary, Humor Division
United States Toxic Weblog Recovery Administration
Acting Chief Blogging Officer, Iowahawk

USTWRA / FOIA reference G(6)-11.3007:b

Dear Weblog Stakeholder:

On March 7, 2009, David Burge, Chief Blogging Officer of iowahawk.typepad.com (herein after denoted as “Iowahawk”) presented written testimony before the official review board of the TWRA citing the Iowahawk Corporation’s untenable business model and requesting “some of that sweet bailout cash” for debt service and other financial relief. In his documentation, he said that unless such assistance were forthcoming, he would be forced to layoff two part-time Iowahawk employees listed as “Kyle” and “Pedro.”

The legislative charter of the TWRA, established by Congress and the President, specifies its principle goal as the preservation of jobs in the critically important blogging sector of the American economy. Thus the board invited Mr. Burge to present a formal proposal on March 11. After a brief negotiation period, Mr. Burge’s initial request of $6.3 billion was lowered to a mutually agreeable $750 and cab fare to the Greyhound station. In exchange, Mr. Burge agreed to (1) regularly submit the financial records of Iowahawk to TWRA oversight regulators, (2) cease outsourcing joke production to foreign subcontractors, and (3) implement a rigorous program of personal hygiene.

That is teh funnay!
#104

On April 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm, netherman79 said:

“… and since this legislation may affect my spouse,…”

???

Doesn’t he know he is married to his WIFE? Does he think his WIFE would be offended at being referred to as his WIFE?

What a moron!
#105

On April 2nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm, symrian said:

I haven’t seen a lot of bright side to much of anything lately, so I’m going to offer one now.

Go ahead. Let them pass the employee compensation controls. Let them fire CEOs at GM. But afterwards, when they try to bail out someone else, they’re not going to find many takers.

Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but perhaps Obama and Frank have found the solution to the endless bailout, however inadvertent it might be: a taste of strings to come.
#106

On April 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm, Member-VRWC said:

I don’t trust any federal politician or bureaucrat these days. Too many of them have talked out of both sides of their mouth for too long. All most of them are after is a continuation of the cushy ride they get on the backs of the citizens they are supposed to be serving.

For those few that really do talk straight (not you, Juan McCain), I’m sorry, but they’re just going to get lumped in with the crapweasels because I don’t see a single person in the House, the Senate, the Obama administration or any federal bureaucracy that is a “must-have” to move this country in the direction I want to see it go in.

There are a million people in this country that could do these jobs better than any of the bozos that are in them now, but the government is so entrenched we are stuck with the crapweasels we have.

TERM LIMITS are the only thing that could save this country now and that won’t happen.
#108

On April 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm, MuscleDaddy said:

Want to see a power-grab?

How about the President wielding Power he doesn’t even legally have?

– MuscleDaddy
#109

On April 2nd, 2009 at 9:35 pm, Papa Louie said:

“Pay for Performance Act” — to curb “excessive” employee pay at financial firms that receive government bailout funds

How are they going to enforced this act when the Fed refuses to disclose all the financial firms that got TARP money? Are they only going to target the companies they know about, or is Congress going to waterboard the Fed until they talk? I wonder who really has the most power – who would win in a fight between Congress and the Fed?
#110

On April 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm, WaterBoyz said:

OT

House passes the pork-budget.
20 Dems voted no.
176 Repubs voted no. (i.e. all but 2).
2 Repubs did not vote. (Gary Miller & Westmoreland).

We are sooooo screwed.
I don’t think that what the Dems have done will ever be undone.
#111

On April 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 pm, katablog said:

Senate is on it’s way to passing the same $3.6 trillion budget of the community organizer. We’re more than screwed. America is officially dead after today’s new world order, global economy, blah, blah blah.
#113

On April 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 am, Send_Me said:

They can’t be trusted to stand for what’s right when the heat is on. And they shouldn’t be allowed to forget it.

Yet another reason to stop voting Republican across the board and actually vote for what you believe, regardless of party affiliation.