Barney Frank wants to set all employees salaries?
But wait, Barney Frank wants to set all employees salaries. Yes, indeed. But not to worry because you won't have a job. The jobs will be going off-shore because few companies will continue to do business in the United States. Companies that do continue to have anything but annex offices here should have the business sense of their corporate officers questioned. This is the same Barney Frank who swore he didn't know his lover was running a prostitution/male escort service out of Barney's basement. This is the Barney Frank who wants a bill that would allow the federal government to set your salary. I don't think Socialism is the right word for this... How about "certifiable" as in insane?
<$PostedBy Beach Girlo$> <$AtTimeWithPermalink$>
2 Comments:
My comments not about whether the bill Barney Frank is proposing is good or bad - or whether I'm for or against it. They are about the way the Beach Girl appears to misrepresent the bill and about the inaccurate statements she makes about it.
The title of her article is in the form of a question:
"Barney Frank wants to set all employees salaries? - which is okay, if she means to imply that she's concerned that Frank's proposed bill is just the beginning of what he wishes to do.
But she follows directly with this declarative sentence, "But wait, Barney Frank wants to set all employees salaries" - and then reaffirms the statement near the end of the article: "This is the Barney Frank who wants a bill that would allow the federal government to set your salary."
The nub of the the Barney Frank bill is expressed in the following paragraph. It is an excerpt from the article (which she links) that is the basis for her blog article.:
"The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government."
The impact of the bill is clearly limited to "companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government."
How does one reconcile that fact with the statements by the Beach Girl? The Rather than speculate on these differences, I respectfully request the Beach Girl to respond to my comments.
Beach Girl has graciously published my comments on her article. However, she has not yet offered an explanataton for her claims, as I had hoped she would. So I will speculate that Beach Girl was expressing what she believed, though incorrectly, was the scope and intent of the the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009."
First, the article on which she based her article had a misleading title:
"Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 3/31/09."
Second, what is perhaps the most important statement in the article to which she refers could easly be misintepreted because of the way the sentence is constructed.
"The new legislation, the Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government."
If one does not look carefully at the construction of the sentence above, it could easily be interpreted as:
"The new legislation, the Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government."
To sum it up, the title of the reference article mispresents the purpose of the Barney Frank bill, but the text is true to it's meaning. On the other hand, the title of the Beach Girl's article questions the scope and intent of the bill, but then she draws an erroneous conclusion about the same - perhaps because of the misleading title of the reference article and the construction of the operative sentence in that article.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home