Limiting Compensation

Lately I have been amazed at all the talk about limiting executive compensation. I understand the frustration that some people have expressed over companies that are mis-managed and now have been unwisely bailed out by the federal government, giving large salaries and bonuses to their execs. I also understand the politics of class warfare that so many in D.C. have exhibited expertise in. They always play one class, one race or one sex against the other... seems they use a divide-and-conquer strategy to take more power away from "We the People". They are so eager to limit the income and opportunity that is available to others while making sure that the sky is the limit for the income and excess that they enjoy. I have even heard of some of the brilliant Hollywood crowd getting in on this act.

Aside from the fact that I think this is the worst idea possible in a supposedly capitalist society, maybe we should take a look at their ideas, and even make this a universal application of limiting income. First of all, maybe we should limit income to, say $75,000 annually for anyone in an elected office for the state or federal governments. This would make sure that they are much more in touch with the middle-class that they all say they want to represent. Oh, and of course we would need to eliminate any form of contributions for the maintenance of multiple households, use of any government vehicles or any government paid expenses other than the normal office expenses... you know, things like stamps, stick pens, staples and printer paper. They could all be enrolled in the wonderful Social Security Program and be provided with a modest private provider group health plan similar to what would be provided at a comparable paying private sector job.

Then we could move on to the sports industry. Oh, God forbid we mess with these celebrity superstars! Since a corporate executive has quite a bit of responsibility for the salary that they would be paid under this plan, we must adjust the athletes salaries accordingly. Maybe $100,000 a year would be fair for the best of the best... after all they probably do work more than our elected officials! With the remainder of the multi-million dollar salary that is paid to way too many of these, we could provide free benefits to all the illegal aliens that politicians love so much.

Next would have to be Hollywood! These folks are always so outspoken on how the rest of us should live while they indulge themselves like a divine aristocracy too good for the common folks in fly-over country. How about, in addition to a salary cap of $50,000 per movie, we also hold them accountable for the results of their effort. We need to be fair about this, so perhaps if they make a movie that is a blockbuster at the theaters they get to be eligible for a small additional bonus of say, $1,000 per $1,000,000 of box office revenues. That sounds fair! Oh, but on the flip side is the condition that they loose money if the movie gets poor reviews! We can appoint a 3 person panel to review all films and all starring actors/actresses lose $2,500 for each bad review. That limits them to just $7,500 of risk if they put out a really bad movie... of which there are plenty. This makes it fair for everyone!

Writing this has got me so optimistic about the possibilities that are available when we allow the government to decide how much someone in a free-market society gets paid! I need to come up with something really special for those who just want to save the planet like Al Gore... they are so nice, I am sure they will want to give it all away, except of course for what is needed to maintain their eco-friendly, all natural, mud and straw huts! This is going to be so much fun!