Michelle Malkin » The power-grabbing Obama czar motto: Yes, we can!

The power-grabbing Obama czar motto: Yes, we can!

By Michelle Malkin • August 19, 2009 09:18 AM

My syndicated column today spotlights the pay czar’s power grab and the cover it provides both the White House and Congress for supporting, enabling, and rewarding the failures of the TARP bailout recipients in the first place.

Team Obama has provisionally approved the AIG CEO’s $7 million compensation package. Here’s Feinberg’s verdict on Weil, Gotshal & Manges’s request for an additional $45.2 million in legal fees for work performed for Lehman.

The pay czar’s power grab
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

Obama pay czar Kenneth Feinberg’s official government title is “Special Master for Compensation.” You’ll be happy to know that he’s really getting into the confiscatory spirit of his role. Asked by Reuters whether his powers included reaching back and revoking bonuses awarded to financial industry executives before his office was created earlier this year, Feinberg asserted broad and binding authorities – including the ability to “claw back” money already paid out.

Regulations governing his office explicitly limit his jurisdiction over contracts signed before February 11, 2009. But the fine print is no obstacle to Obama’s czars. “The statute provides these guideposts, but the statute ultimately says I have discretion to decide what it is that these people should make and that my determination will be final,” Feinberg claims. “Anything is possible under the law.”

Yes, he said “anything.” It’s not just senior executive officers who fall under Feinberg’s purview. “These people” also includes “the next 100 most highly paid employees” of all bank bailout recipients, who must file compensation proposals with their pay overlord by Friday.

But why stop there? The Troubled Asset Relief Fund has morphed from a toxic asset buy-up to a capital injection plan and back to a toxic asset buy-up. The money has been doled out to auto supply companies and life insurance companies. Congress wants to siphon off more of it to bail out bankrupt California and create a “national housing trust fund” to bail out low-income renters. Grabby-handed politicians have used TARP as a crowbar to pry open new areas for command-and-control meddling under the guise of saving the economy.

How much longer until the pay czar is determining all corporate pay he wishes to deem “inappropriate, unsound or excessive?” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank has yapped all year long about extending pay curbs to all financial institutions and perhaps to all U.S. companies.

Let’s remember that the Beltway hysteria over bonuses served as a convenient distraction from the responsibility of subprime meltdown-enabling lawmakers like Rep. Frank and Obama’s crony economic team. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner landed his previous job as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York thanks to heavy lobbying by his Wall Street mentors Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom sat on the New York Fed’s selection committee. Their cronyism had multi-billion-dollar consequences for taxpayers.
Rubin was also an executive at New York-based Citigroup, which Geithner regulated. Or was supposed to regulate. Instead, he helped foster Citi’s spending binge and engineered the teetering company’s $52 billion federal bailout. Which makes the Obama administration’s recent protestations about one Citi employee’s $100 million compensation package look like the very kind of manufactured outrage of which it incessantly accuses its political opponents.
Geithner also had a hand in the $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout and the multi-level AIG bailouts ($85 billion and $38 billion under President Bush and another $30 billion in March 2009 under Obama). Massive sums of that taxpayer money went to major financial institutions that had employed Obama’s moneymen and their closest confidants. Goldman Sachs, for example, raked in nearly $13 billion in December 2009 from AIG in federal TARP funds – and reported record profits this quarter with a bonus pool of more than $11 billion.

The “solution” isn’t to empower a pay czar to curb bonus payouts ex post facto. The solution is to stop dumping billions into failing companies in the first place.

As for private businesses (what’s left of them, anyway), this is a teachable moment, to borrow one of the president’s favorite phrases. Government strings are like sexually transmitted diseases: They attach forever. If a basket-case company is willing to take bailout money, it will pay an interminable price. The long arm of regulators can and will reach back and open sealed deals and signed contracts on a whim. The Obama campaign chant is the czars’ chant, too: “Yes, we can!”

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Uncategorized

Printer Friendly

comments (24)

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.

Comments

#1

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:37 am, RedDog said:

Once again: the only way to stop these people is to push for constitutional amendments limiting federal government size and power. We may have the opportunity in 2012, if not then America is finished.

Fighting them under the current system is doomed to failure. Using the healthcare metaphor, we don’t need “drug treatments” or “massages”, we need an amputation.
#2

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:37 am, Cowboy said:

We can only hope the American people come to their senses and start dumping their elected reps that are nancy pelosi and harry reid lap dogs. We’ve got to take this country back before they do any further damage.
#3

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:38 am, Milwaukee Mike said:

How long before someone declares shenanigans on the unconstitutionality of all these czars?
#4

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:38 am, iamsaved said:

The TARP wasn’t about saving the economy but a devious method to avoid the appropriations process in order to fund the liberals social agenda.

The Cash For Clunkers program has reimbursed automobile dealers only about 2 or 3 percent of what is owed them. Paperwork is returned to them for minor discrepancies.

I only wish the government would scrutinize where the TARP and Stimulus funds are going as closely as they are watching the dotted i’s and crossed t’s for the Cash for Clunkers.

Methinks this country is in deep trouble!
#5

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:44 am, RedDog said:

By the way. Do these people want to limit Hollywood pay? How many Hollywood bombs still pay their “stars” $20MM regardless? And what about all the tenured leftist “scientists” and bureaucrats on state and federal government payrolls who live large and then retire like princes?

These marxists have really got the chutzpah.
#6

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am, GraniteMan said:

Democrats, Liberals, Community Organizers , Bleeding Hearts and Obama are all pointing out “the cry of the poor” and how we should all pony up to improve their lives. But have you noticed where all the Stimulus, Energy (Cap & Tax), Health Care, Cash for Clunkers monies wind up? No one hears the cry of the poor due to the large #12 size shoe belonging to B. Obama pushing against the throat of the poor.
#7

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:48 am, Ragspierre said:

The Obama campaign chant is the czars’ chant, too: “Yes, we can!”

And it is HIGH TIME the courts of this country get involved and say, “No. You can’t!” Otherwise, there is little to stop this extra-constitutional run-a-way BIG BROism.
#8

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:51 am, GraniteMan said:

And it is HIGH TIME the courts of this country get involved and say, “No. You can’t!” ….Ragspierre said:

I’d rather do it at the ballot box. Sonia might move it the wrong way.
#9

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:55 am, Jet Jaguar said:

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:38 am, Milwaukee Mike said:

How long before someone declares shenanigans on the unconstitutionality of all these czars?

The Supreme Court, as usual, is silent on this. At least, I’ve not heard of anything they’ve said, pro or con. The perverted execution of our Constitution is so extreme that our Founders wouldn’t be able to recognize it in our nation today. A large part of the Declaration’s complaints against King George are being perpetrated on the People today, and it’s only going to get worse if we don’t put a stop to it.
#10

On August 19th, 2009 at 9:58 am, Pasadena Phil said:

So long as the GOP insists on playing nice in their role as Assistant Democrats, it’s up to us to do something about it. Let’s add pictures of baby duckies and fluffy bunnies to our signs so as to not offend sensitive Republicans like Lamar Alexander and John McCain.
#11

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:10 am, Flyoverman said:

The Supreme Court, as usual, is silent on this. At least, I’ve not heard of anything they’ve said, pro or con.

Someone has to bring a suite before them; quickly would be nice.
#12

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am, ThatSamIAm said:

Agreed, someone must file suit to remove all these czars. No way in hell should un-elected piss ants like this have power over anything.

Obama is creating his own dictatorship and nobody is trying to stop it. No way this is legal.
#13

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am, WarEagle82 said:

I think Feinberg’s belief that regulatory restrictions don’t apply to him (or any of Obama’s annointed team for that matter) is one big indicator that we are headed toward a very ugly resolution of the mess that is the Democrat party and the Federal Government.

The leftists don’t respect the ballot. They don’t respect the will of citizens. They obviously don’t respect the clear intent of the Constitution or other laws and regulations.

Getting their attention may require extraordinary means. And that should frighten everyone with an interest in liberty.

I just finished Levin’s book and while it was a good read full of good information it missed the mark. He gives us some great outlines of what we ought to do but he completely punts on the fact that the Democrats control all the levers of power and the GOP isn’t interested in actual conservative principles.

“Getting involved” is his best recommendation but by the time enough of us “get involved” the issue is likely to be resolved in a less than acceptable manner. The problem is that the GOP doesn’t want us conservatives involved with them.

My concern is that while we are organizing to “get involved” the leftists will have implemented their socialist agenda, created 20 million new permanent voters through “immigration reform,” ACORNized 20 million additional fraudulent votes, and effectively reduced us to serfs in our own land.

Why do I see an image of Nero playing the fiddle…
#14

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:35 am, graysonret said:

Obama is creating his own dictatorship

The Constitution will remain, as long as Obama and his congress can use it; twisting it and shaping it to their ends. He wants to control all of the economy and creating czars is a subtle way to circumvent the law. As long as no-one challenges him, he will continue to flaunt the law. It reminds me of an embezzler, who, realizing that he isn’t being caught stealing, gets bolder and bolder in his thefts. This quest for power and marxism has to be nipped in the bud now, or be prepared for another Castro or Chavez.
#15

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am, happyscrapper said:

Now, Waxman and another liberal senator have written letters to CEO’s of some large insurance companies, demanding to inspect their books and the salaries of their executives. Surely, that is NOT LEGAL!! These are private companies, not obligated in any way, have not taken any bail-out money, and are solvent. If the insurance executives cave to this unconstitutional power grab, we are screwed. Is the MSM reporting on this travesty?
#16

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am, battleaxe said:

Unfortunately, we need to repeal so many programs, some “untouchable”, that the USA may be doomed anyway. The “easy” programs that need repeal – TARP and Porkulus. The “untouchable” programs – Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, SCHIP, and basically all government subsidies and departments dealing with these useless programs. This will never happen, but imagine the deficit reduction and tax breaks if they did.
#17

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:09 am, Jet Jaguar said:

On August 19th, 2009 at 10:32 am, WarEagle82 said:

WarEagle, I see the danger, too. Once it becomes clear to the every-day working conservative that there is no hope of legally restoring the Founders’ principles, then there may be hell to pay. The horrific possibilities include: massive protests/riots/guerrilla violence resulting in a Federal crackdown or martial law; a serious secessionist movement; civil war. God help us!
#18

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am, Ragspierre said:

The Supreme Court, as usual, is silent on this. At least, I’ve not heard of anything they’ve said, pro or con.

The Supremes can’t just jump into politics. BUT we damn sure need some of the conservative and libertarian legal organizations to bring Federal suits opposing much of what BIG BRO is doing and has done.

If we get lower court rulings, that will at least TEND to set some boundaries.
#19

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:14 am, Ragspierre said:

This will never happen, but imagine the deficit reduction and tax breaks if they did.

NEVER, say never. We need to roll back the entitlement state, including the whole idea of “Agricultural Economics”.
#20

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:16 am, Ragspierre said:

The horrific possibilities include: massive protests/riots/guerrilla violence resulting in a Federal crackdown or martial law; a serious secessionist movement; civil war. God help us!

Please, don’t forget a tool that has been proven effective in the past, and can’t miss if it is supported by enough Americans….

Starve The Beast
#21

On August 19th, 2009 at 11:27 am, Roland said:

Our Constitution is for a moral and religious (Christian) people. It is unsuitable for governing any other.

We are no longer even remotely a moral and religious people (those here who might argue against that should reflect on the abortion death count, the constant brutal crime our poorest and weakest have to endure, and our electorate’s current choice of government). Our elites know that. So they are moving us to the more natural social/economic arrangement: fascism.

They call it ‘liberalism’ or ‘progressivism’ or even ‘socialism’ because those are terms are more acceptable to the stupid young hotheads, but it is what it is.

The whole world has been moving toward the fascism model for some time now. This is just the end game.

We just lived through the Golden Age of prosperity and freedom. The Brave New World approaches. The shackles are soft now. Soon they will chafe, and the whip will crack on our backs, and we will wonder how we got here.

We abandoned God. We sold our souls to people who told us it was okay to steal.
#22

On August 19th, 2009 at 12:13 pm, in_awe said:

I get tired of asking this question, but where are the lawsuits from the Conservatives on these issues? I get donation requests from a dozen conservative thinktanks every month; don’t any of them have legal standing to challenge these blatantly unconstitutional actions of this ~~regime~~ administration?
#23

On August 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm, cheapseat said:

it’s not that republican lawmakers lack anything except the gones to walk over and go toe to toe with barney fag and chuck sheister.
#24

On August 19th, 2009 at 1:17 pm, wdaveh72 said:

All of the focus of this so far has been on his ability to limit salaries or bonuses for the top 100.

Here’s a scary thought. How long before he extends this to determine that others aren’t making enough? Like maybe union workers at a company that received TARP funds. What’s stopping him from redistributing this money from the top to the bottom?