You can't secure what you don't acknowledge.SM

Friday, March 20, 2009

How about enacting a policy to punish someone?

Imagine if someone at work ticked you off and you had the ability to enact a new IT/security policy that only affected that person. Something like no more Internet access or pay-per-use fees for laptops or, say, complete oversight and scrutiny of the person's every action when they're using the computer.

Sounds absurd doesn't it....Well, it is and so is this ridiculous new law our House passed yesterday that will tax the AIG bonuses at 90%. What you won't hear much about (do I need to say why?) is that passing a law without due process is unconstitutional. This law isn't to raise tax revenues but rather punish people for something that isn't politically correct. These bonuses were valid pursuant to a legal contract! Oh, I forgot. Contracts, the law, and our constitution don't matter much these days. It's all mob rule. Let's hand the taxpayers their rear ends, blame it on greedy corporations, and then come running to the rescue. Just wow.

Since when did the politicians (esp. Frank, Pelosi, and Obama) become concerned with using our tax dollars wisely anyway!?

Gotta love our "leaders" and the minions that voted them into office. As I (and many other small business owners) currently sweat and toil to find a way to pay Uncle Sam even MORE taxes for 2008 - way more that I've already "contributed" in the form of estimated tax payments - to support their political wealth redistribution the more I realize just how much this stuff makes me sick.

Anyway, you know passing a policy to punish someone wouldn't work in the real world of business....only in the fantasy land of government control could it be done.

Sorry - I just had to get this off my chest. Now, back to work...


  1. Definitely unconstitutional -- and certainly ridiculous and knee-jerk -- but let's not pretend contracts are inviolate. The bailouts to the auto industry were contingent on contracts being renegotiated; perhaps the much larger bailout of AIG should have been as well.

    Additionally, there is a perfectly legal method to break contracts -- it's called bankruptcy, and AIG should be in it. Had the government not bailed them out (in the process effectively bailing out several european banks which were owed billions by AIG), those bonuses wouldn't have made it through bankruptcy proceedings anyway.

    The outrage is deserved, on the one hand, but silly on the other. 165 million is a hell of a lot of money, but it's also less than .1% of the bailout. (But so were the "pork" earmarks in the stimulus package that raised an equivalent degree of ire just a few weeks ago)

    The concept of "wealth redistribution" is a bit off -- every party does it. It's just a matter of who it goes to. Outrage against government waste is justified, but there probably hasn't been a government ever that didn't have some of that going on. Maybe if McCain had won in 1999, when he was still strong enough to act according to his principles, we wouldn't be where we are now. But he didn't, and we are where we are. At least here we'll get some infrastructure improvements out of our tax money.

  2. The most frustrating thing about this is that our country was specifically designed to eliminate a lot of this type of government abuse....but it doesn't matter. America used to be a constitutional republic - now's it's a "democracy". Apparently mob rule will always prevail, people will be people, and politics will always be politics.

    There's really no reason why we can expect to be any different than Europe, Canada, China, etc. given enough time.

  3. Couple more points that support this: many people don't want to think for themselves nor do they want to accept personal responsibility for their actions...Two critical elements necessary not only for a well-functioning society but also for succeeding in our careers and in business overall.

  4. Well put. you should see Milton Friedman response to spending money.