Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Top Ten Possible Letterman Reactions to Fallout Over Willow Palin Rape ‘Joke’

by John Nolte

10. Listen, I didn’t know Willow Palin was 14. She was born in 1995. I thought she was still 13.

9. Why’s everyone so mad? I wasn’t making fun of Barack…?

8. I understand some offense was taken over my remarks last night. If that’s the case, I’d like to offer an apology to A-Rod. Tonight on the show, we have…

7. Careful buddy. You’re criticizing the guy who almost got the “Tonight Show.”

6. I’m a comedian and therefore not responsible for anything I say … ask Jon Stewart.

5. See, you all spoiled it. The plan tonight was to come out and tell a similar joke about Barack Obama’s daughters. But you can forget it now…

4. Everyone just needs to relax. Page, six, paragraph seven of the “Democrat Handbook” clearly states Republican children are fair game. Or is that the “Mainstream Media Handbook” … I get them confused.

3. It’s just been brought to my attention that during the campaign Barack Obama declared Sarah Palin’s children off limits. So, I would just like to say that this will never happen again and I hope the President will accept my apology.

2. Would you believe I was hoping to be Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World”?

1. If what I said was so wrong, why haven’t feminists complained?

…Anyone else care to predict?

BREITBART: Know thy enemy: This is not your mother's Democratic Party - Washington Times

BREITBART: Know thy enemy: This is not your mother's Democratic Party - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis

BOLTON: Obama continues Bush's 2nd term -- badly - Washington Times

BOLTON: Obama continues Bush's 2nd term -- badly - Washington Times

Shared via AddThis

Friday, June 5, 2009

Pay Czar??? Who is going to do something about this?

JUNE 5, 2009

White House Set to Appoint a Pay Czar

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to appoint a "Special Master for Compensation" to ensure that companies receiving federal bailout funds are abiding by executive-pay guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

The administration is expected to name Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, to act as a pay czar for the Treasury Department, these people said.

Associated Press

Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw payouts to 9/11 victims, will keep tabs on executive pay at companies in bailout.

Mr. Feinberg's appointment could be announced as early as next week, when the administration is expected to release executive-compensation guidelines for firms receiving aid from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Those companies, which include banks, insurers and auto makers, are subject to a host of compensation restrictions imposed by the Bush and Obama administrations and by Congress.

Wall Street has been anxiously awaiting more details on how the rules will be applied. "The law is confusing and a bit ambiguous, and so we're looking for certainty as to how to structure pay incentives," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association.

The move comes amid a series of sometimes-overlapping efforts to curb pay at financial firms following perceived industry excesses that led to the lending boom and bust.

[Pay Czar]

The Obama administration earlier this year issued guidelines that include limiting salary for top executives at some firms receiving TARP funds and requiring that additional pay be in the form of restricted stock, vesting only after the company repays its debt, with interest, to the government. Congress then chimed in with even tougher rules curbing bonuses for top earners at firms receiving TARP money. As part of that effort, lawmakers barred those firms from paying top earners bonuses that equal more than a third of their total compensation.

The White House has been wrestling with how to marry those two efforts, which in combination are more punitive than administration officials had intended.

The government is also pursuing a separate revamping of financial-sector rules that could change industry compensation practices more broadly. For instance, the Federal Reserve is considering rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank.

Mr. Feinberg is expected to focus on pay restrictions related to firms receiving TARP bailout funds, helping companies to interpret the rules and ensure that they are being followed.

For instance, companies have been confused about whether to pay 2008 bonuses, since restrictions on incentive pay didn't go into effect until early 2009. Some firms have made the payments while others have held off. Many firms are also unsure whether the "top earners" targeted by Congress include rank-and-file employees or just executives.

Mr. Feinberg will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, but he is expected to have wide discretion on how the rules should be interpreted. Firms likely won't be able to appeal decisions that Mr. Feinberg makes to Mr. Geithner, according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Feinberg, founder and managing partner of the law firm Feinberg Rozen LLP, spent several years overseeing payouts totaling more than $7 billion to victims of the 9/11 attacks. He personally reviewed every claim, approving or denying awards and allocating sums to be paid out of the Treasury.

Write to Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Levitt disguises his left wing views as economics, again

By: Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online

A couple weeks ago, I complained how the Left thinks it's an incredible insight into, and damning indictment of, the nature of capitalism that it undergoes periods of crisis. My response, in short, was So what? Everything under the sun goes through periods of crisis. That is the nature of things.

Here's another example of the same sort of thinking. Steve Levitt observes that "In a market economy, there are inevitably winners and losers."

Shocking!

In every sphere of life there are inevitably winners and losers. In nature the bunnies are losers to the owls. The salmon are losers to the bears. In sports, there are winners and losers. In science, winners and losers. In families, winners and losers. And in every economic system that has, or ever will be, conceived of, there will be winners and losers. Does Levitt mean to imply there are no losers in socialism? Communism? How about in social democracy or corporatism or, I don't know, feudalism, or mercantalism or anarchism? It seems obvious to me that these systems created plenty of losers, particularly in the form of dead people.

This sort of comment reminds me of the Simpsons where Millhouse ominously observes of the kids in Shelbyville that they like their candy for "the sweet, sweet taste."

That's why everyone likes candy!

Likewise, everything creates winners and losers.

Or to be more accurate, nothing — nothing — prevents the inevitable creation of winners and losers. All any economic system can do is redistribute who gets a W and who gets an L. One of the many great and wonderful things about capitalism is that it creates endless opportunities for do-overs and second, third, and fourth chances. Capitalism may not take as much of the sting out of losing as European social democracy (You failed! Here's two years of paid vacation!), but it offers something better: another bite at the apple. One of the things European business gurus admire most about America is that we consider failure to be "experience." In Europe, you often only get one crack at the apple as an entrepreneur and if you fail, that failure stigmatizes you.

Levitt goes on to say that people who worry about the poor don't like markets very much. This is hubris masqerading as sociology and ingratitude posing as compassion. But we can discuss that another time.