Where's the Equity

I believe the government should have never gotten involved in the bailout of AIG or fiancial institutions. But they did and while I believe president Bush (and maybe treasury secretary Paulson) thought they were doing something necessary I also believe that many liberal congresspeople involved in banking and finance were chortling gleefully behind closed doors. The reason for their raised spirits? They saw a way to grab a huge amount of control in the private sector - especially in the financial arena that has tentacles all throughout the economy. So the way was clear.

There were more than a few local and regional banks (and a couple of large ones) that didn't need bailout money. Some of them took it because it was offered and who turns down money? (Big mistake as it turns out.) Many of the smaller banks did not want to take the money but they were subjected to a lot of pressure to do so. One of these banks execs said (and I paraphrase), "We finally agreed to take it because we were getting such a hard sell we were afraid we would end up on some bad list if we didn't." Amidst all the feeding frenzy at the trough this went pretty much unnoticed and unreported. The uberlibs were smiling more and more. They were having and A Team moment (loving it when a plan comes together).

So yesterday, February 4, 2009 the "coup de gras" was delivered. President Obama issued an order that caps executive salaries at any company that took TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money. This edict does not need congressional approval (though it probably wouldn't have any trouble getting it). So now the democrats can tell the private sector what they can pay for executive talent and I am sure with this leverage they will be making other suggestions (read decisions) for these institutions as well. And a lot of banks that were solvent were caught in the net because they were intimidated into taking some of the money. Bet now they wish they hadn't.

So I now get to ask the question "Where's the equity?" And here's what I mean. The reason Obama and the congressional democrats give for limiting the executive salaries and dictating what they do is that they have cost the American taxpayers billions. If that is the case then why isn't it alright to demand that people on public assistance who have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars do certain things for the money they have taken? It seems to me there is no difference. But if anyone tries to hold those people accountable for their bad decisions and bad behavior then they are vilified for being uncaring. If corporations are to be held accountable for spending taxpayer money on business meetings at fancy hotels after taking taxpayer money why is it wrong to ask that individuals who are taking taxpayer money be held accountable for using food stamps to buy better food in the grocery store than many working people can afford?

If anyone has an answer I wish they would let me know.