Man, I was very excited to see Obama proposing that CEOs of bailed-out companies get a ceiling on their pay. You know, that's unheard of in this country and definitely just talk of actions of this magnitude were squelched during the Reagan, Clinton (yes Bill Clinton, I said it) and Bush years. You'd think though from the talk on right-wing radio that we were asking for extreme socialist change. We're not and we're definitely not extremists.
From what I've gathered over the last couple of years of watching the political process in this country is that those of us who align ourselves with the Democratic Party and progressive ideology are not extremists. Certainly we have some of those people in all groups out there. Extremists I don't feel make up more than 5% of our group. The rest of us are hard-working (and I mean really hard-working) people who want things for themselves and their families. We're not interested in the "extremes" of fancy cars, clothes, extravagant vacations, jewelry and any other outrageous luxury. We're interested in making enough to a point where we can reasonably save for a rainy day, provide adequate healthcare for us and our children, go for a modest week-long vacation once a year, buy a modest fuel-efficient car, set aside for at least a start for our children's education, put enough groceries on the table, maybe be able to go out to eat once every couple of weeks and save enough money for our retirement.
While some may not see these as necessities, they are definitely far from being "extreme requests". Those of you who are opposed to "redistributing wealth" are invariably under the illusion that you have earned all of your money and those of us who work very hard for little deserve less. Where is the logic in that? Would any of those who bring in exponential amounts of money be able to do that if they didn't ride the backs of those who slave away in their offices, calling rooms, factories and warehouses?
I think the Government has partially restored my faith in the new restriction on CEO's pay for those companies who receive bailout money. Still I don't think it goes far enough. Indeed, the CEOs of those companies who are affected even less from the recession should be made to take a paycut and be forced to distribute the excess to the employees who make these companies what they are. Those who are opposed to "redistributing wealth" are usually under the illusion that they have earned all of their money and those of us who work very hard for little deserve less. Where is the logic in this? Would any of the CEOs who bring in exponential amounts of money be able to do that if they didn't ride the backs of those who slave away in your offices, calling rooms, factories and warehouses?
I would like to encourage everyone here to contact your congressman and urge them (nicely if they're our ally) to consider putting together something that would break up these silent monopolies and good old boy networks. Let's see if we can put more of the hidden capital back into our pockets. Once we're able to guarantee the modest things that make our life better than merely scratching out an existence will we be able to move on to doing things that will make our country and world a truly better place to live.