Restitutor Orbis

Barack Obama wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post which appears in today's paper: The Action Americans Need. "What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis."

Agreed. And in this piece Obama answers his critics:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

He goes on to conclude, and again I agree:

So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time.

I reported yesterday that Wall Street wasn't happy about Obama's new rules. I'm reading more about that this morning. This in particular is a hoot:

The salary limit is "still a hefty sum to be sure, and the spirit of the order certainly has popular appeal, but it's a slippery slope when the government puts restrictions on how much an individual can earn in the private sector," said Patrick O'Hare of the independent research firm Briefing.com.

It's a slippery slope, Mr. O'Hare, when Wall Street CEO's expect impoverished citizens to pay their bloated salaries so they can live like princes. Get a clue.

There is a lot of whining going on and you won't see the American people shed a tear:

Douglas McIntyre at the financial website 24/7 Wall Street said the limits could make it more difficult for troubled banks to retain their best executives.

"Wall Street may keep most of its bankers if they face pay cuts, but it is the top five or 10 percent who make these companies really profitable, and they will soon be on their way to greener pastures if this measure is enacted," McIntyre said.

Is this an argument FOR high pay? Please. These so-called talented people you're whining on behalf of ran their businesses, and our country, into the ground. If this is talent, we can do without it. Get some high school kids in there. They can't do worse.

Don Lindner, a compensation specialist with the human resources association WorldatWork, said the new restrictions could mean a "huge cut in pay" for many top executives.

"They might leave to find jobs where they are paid more, that's my concern, that the restrictions are so deep that the leadership won't stay," Lindner told AFP.

GOOD! That's the outcome we want! Too many still have their jobs. Any CEO who accepted TARP funds should have been fired, along with the entire Board of Directors. They already proved they were incompetent to lead.

Time Magazine has a piece on this. Their question is, Can Obama's Executive-Pay Limits Tame Wall Street?