43. H.R.1664: To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.
Sponsor: Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8] (introduced 3/23/2009) Cosponsors
(8)
Committees: House Financial Services
Latest Major Action: 3/23/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
I take particular umbrage with the phrase, "compensation not based on performance standards." You see all compensation is based on performance. Even the guy you pay to stay away has to do something to get his pay. He has to stay away. Grayson is obviously referring the AIG executives who received bonuses. It is coming out now that Congress knew about these bonus contracts when they gave AIG their money but they didn't say anything about it at the time. If you wanted to make seven figures worth of bonuses an issue, you should have done so before you handed over eleven figures worth of bailout.
Beyond that, these 90% and 100% taxes being discussed amount to playing dirty pool. The people who agreed to stay on at AIG did so based on those bonuses. I understand where they are coming from. I once left a job and came back for one week to put things in order. I didn't like working there which was why I not only left, but left without another job to go to. I would not have continued my ordeal another week if I hadn't been paid a full month's worth of pay for that one week. It would not have been worth it to me.
And now everyone looking to take government money to assist with financial recovery will be thinking about not taking the money because some dirty trick like this might be pulled on them.
I have an idea for a performance standard-based pay system. How about we withhold your pay until the national debt is paid off. Or even a balanced budget passed. Congressional spending and overtaxation is one of the primary keys to our financial problems right now. Sure AIG is culpable, but bills like this show how as bad as certain companies have performed lately, Congress has performed worse.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Safety Gone Wild
I am approaching the blog today with a slightly different tack than usual. The bill I am highlighting is trying to improve upon a recently imposed law. It is the original law in this case that is awful. The bill is...
S.608 A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Tester, Jon [MT] (introduced 3/17/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The CPSIA prohibits the sale of products that have not been successfully tested for lead or phthalate content. My understanding of this law is that ANY item intended to be used by children 12 and younger, MUST be tested for lead and phthalate content by a certified testing facility. This applies not only to new retail items, but used goods too. This law, if enforced, would put thrift stores out of business. In addition, items that contain lead by design like the batteries on scooters, and mini-bikes are not excluded. It seems that if your kid, old enough to ride a motorized vehicle, is eating the lead from inside what are usually sealed batteries, you might have bigger problems than anything the CPSIA might hope to fix.
One of the biggest problems with the CPSIA is something this bill apparently does not remedy -- microbusiness. A very large amount of business is conducted by very small home businesses. If you make sock puppets completely of cotton socks, you not only have to test your product, you have to test every variation including color. Each of these tests will cost over $1000. This effectively puts small toy makers out of business or places them at risk of being prosecuted for violation of this inane law.
Certainly, there are many other unintended* consequences of this law which addresses a problem the market has shown signs of tackling on its own. Ever since the series of safety issues raised by certain Chinese imports became national news, toy manufacturers have begun taking steps to advertise how their products are safe.
*I say unintended here although I am not so sure the consequences are unintended. I am guessing if one followed the law back to its inception, one would find that large toy manufacturers who can spread test costs across tens and hundreds of thousands of items, had a hand in crafting and promoting this bill.
S.608 A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) of 2008 to exclude secondary sales, repair services, and certain vehicles from the ban on lead in children's products, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Tester, Jon [MT] (introduced 3/17/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Latest Major Action: 3/17/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The CPSIA prohibits the sale of products that have not been successfully tested for lead or phthalate content. My understanding of this law is that ANY item intended to be used by children 12 and younger, MUST be tested for lead and phthalate content by a certified testing facility. This applies not only to new retail items, but used goods too. This law, if enforced, would put thrift stores out of business. In addition, items that contain lead by design like the batteries on scooters, and mini-bikes are not excluded. It seems that if your kid, old enough to ride a motorized vehicle, is eating the lead from inside what are usually sealed batteries, you might have bigger problems than anything the CPSIA might hope to fix.
One of the biggest problems with the CPSIA is something this bill apparently does not remedy -- microbusiness. A very large amount of business is conducted by very small home businesses. If you make sock puppets completely of cotton socks, you not only have to test your product, you have to test every variation including color. Each of these tests will cost over $1000. This effectively puts small toy makers out of business or places them at risk of being prosecuted for violation of this inane law.
Certainly, there are many other unintended* consequences of this law which addresses a problem the market has shown signs of tackling on its own. Ever since the series of safety issues raised by certain Chinese imports became national news, toy manufacturers have begun taking steps to advertise how their products are safe.
*I say unintended here although I am not so sure the consequences are unintended. I am guessing if one followed the law back to its inception, one would find that large toy manufacturers who can spread test costs across tens and hundreds of thousands of items, had a hand in crafting and promoting this bill.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Good News
This blog's stated goal is pointing out the bad things Congress does. Frankly this is an easy job. I usually have to pick and choose between several bad bills and resolutions. I might pick one that is to me the most outrageous of the day, but more often I pick one that tickles my fancy and inspires me at the moment.
Today however, I am going to highlight a bill that surprised me by offering something positive. If you've read my posts, you've noticed a trend -- I'm a free market advocate. Today's bill would move our prescription drug market in that direction. It is far from perfect, but more on that later. For now, here is the bill summary and a link to more detailed information since the full text is not yet available on the LOC website.
H.R.1298 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.
Co-Sponsors: Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1], Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 3/4/2009)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Click here to read an article describing some details of the bill at arkansasmatters.com.
What this bill does, as the linked article makes clear, is to allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada and a short list of other countries. According to the GAO it will save $50 billion over the next decade with more than $6 billion of that being governmental budget savings. Presumably the rest of the savings would be experienced by patient-customers. To be sure, the bill retains lots of nanny-state protections for customers and drug companies, but it is a step in the right direction.
Besides the idea that it doesn't go far enough, the one concern I do have about this bill is this... most if not all of the drugs allowed to be imported are drugs originally produced here in the United States now and sold cheaper internationally because the drug companies are getting most of their profits here at home. I suspect that if this bill passes, the drug companies will simply change the pricing so the price disparity no longer makes it advantageous to order from international suppliers. This would of course lower our costs and be a good thing, but I suspect the GAO hasn't taken this dynamic into consideration, thus the savings will be less than advertised.
What would really save us a lot of money would be doing what libertarian-minded people like Harry Browne and Ron Paul have suggested -- eliminating the FDA completely or drastically changing the way it operates, leaving drug safety to private agencies much like UL monitors electrical appliance safety without tax money.
Today however, I am going to highlight a bill that surprised me by offering something positive. If you've read my posts, you've noticed a trend -- I'm a free market advocate. Today's bill would move our prescription drug market in that direction. It is far from perfect, but more on that later. For now, here is the bill summary and a link to more detailed information since the full text is not yet available on the LOC website.
H.R.1298 : To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs, and for other purposes.
Co-Sponsors: Rep Berry, Marion [AR-1], Rep Emerson, Jo Ann [MO-8] (introduced 3/4/2009)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 3/4/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Click here to read an article describing some details of the bill at arkansasmatters.com.
What this bill does, as the linked article makes clear, is to allow importation of prescription drugs from Canada and a short list of other countries. According to the GAO it will save $50 billion over the next decade with more than $6 billion of that being governmental budget savings. Presumably the rest of the savings would be experienced by patient-customers. To be sure, the bill retains lots of nanny-state protections for customers and drug companies, but it is a step in the right direction.
Besides the idea that it doesn't go far enough, the one concern I do have about this bill is this... most if not all of the drugs allowed to be imported are drugs originally produced here in the United States now and sold cheaper internationally because the drug companies are getting most of their profits here at home. I suspect that if this bill passes, the drug companies will simply change the pricing so the price disparity no longer makes it advantageous to order from international suppliers. This would of course lower our costs and be a good thing, but I suspect the GAO hasn't taken this dynamic into consideration, thus the savings will be less than advertised.
What would really save us a lot of money would be doing what libertarian-minded people like Harry Browne and Ron Paul have suggested -- eliminating the FDA completely or drastically changing the way it operates, leaving drug safety to private agencies much like UL monitors electrical appliance safety without tax money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)