FIAF – Occupy Friday Edition
Rich Lowry on Occupy Oakland, which is neither peaceful nor coherent in it’s message:
Everyone acknowledges the right of the Occupiers to protest and to live however they please. They can request permits to march every day, and try to levitate the Federal Reserve building if they want. They can, in a fine American tradition, go off and create freakish communes where they hold goods in common and live in splendid squalor. But they shouldn’t be allowed to break the rules while building fetid encampments on property not their own, and their contempt for the police should be tolerated by no one.
When they throw rocks and bottles at the police, set fires, and destroy private property it’s time for the owwies to go home or go to jail.
While it is an American right to protest, there is no right to “occupy” and New York is finally figuring that out. And perhaps it’s time for Occupy NY to go leave.
Of course they’re making a new society down there. Go take a visit. See if you want to live there.
Up to this point they have been coddled by local authorities, who are sympathetic to their cause. But what if a group they disagree with decides to “occupy” Zuccotti Park>. A precedent has been set.
“Are we seriously suggesting that if a jihadist or neo-Nazi group moved in, they would have been indulged like this?” asked a community-board member pointedly. “Or the Klan!” interjected another. Meanwhile, the chairman worried about the precedent: “If any other group moves in in the future, would we be able to evict them, given the example we have set?” His ashen expression answered his own question.
What if the Tea Party wanted to occupy the park?
And then there is the lawlessness.
“It’s a crime scene down there, and it’s attracting all of the worst people in this city,” said a board member. “We’re hearing reports of rapes, assaults, violence, drug use. The mentally ill are assembling. It’s a public hazard.” There is also concern for businesses. “At this rate, they’re not going to make it through the Christmas season,” the chair of the Small Business Committee said, bluntly.
And now for some good news; Solyndra wasn’t a complete disaster! Amid the taxpayer loss of $385 million, there is a positive: the Solyndra executives did pretty well. In addition to their healthy salaries, they made bonuses ranging from $37,000 to $60,0000 as late as July – a month before they ceased operations.
I was under the mistaken impression that bonuses were awarded when a company was doing well. I’m kookie like that.
The bonuses, awarded to more than a dozen executives, came on top of what were already highly competitive salaries. Karen Alter, Solyndra’s vice president of marketing, had an annual base salary of $275,000; she was awarded a $55,000 bonus in April and again in July. Ben Bierman, Solyndra’s executive vice president of operations and engineering, had an annual base salary of $300,000; he was awarded $60,000 in April and again in July. Will Stover, the company’s chief financial officer, was also awarded a $60,000 bonus in April and again in July.
These were called “retention” bonuses. As if making $300,000 wasn’t enough. But, apparently they had a high turnover, so they needed more $$ to keep working for Solyndra.
Which makes sense, because when you’re spending $15 to manufacture a solar panel you sell for $8, you need tip-top talent to keep your business model running.
Of course, companies do sometimes pay executives enormous salaries and hefty bonus in times of trouble to retain top-notch talent. But, they were using OUR money to do this, for a business model that was a fail from the beginning. Add in the crony capitalism …
And then there is Fanny and Freddy.
Tying the poat all together now …
But by all means, let’s ignore the huge bonuses paid to those who ride taxpayer-subsidized financial nukes into the ground, waving their cowboy hats and whooping with glee, and focus our wrath on the “income equality” of people who earn high incomes performing useful services… or, at worst, losing the money private investors voluntarily gave them.
The owwies want MORE government control of our economy. They complain about the RICH only when they work in the private sector, creating products and jobs, reaping financial rewardeds when they succeed, but they could care less about the government using our money to reward companies (and people) they favor.
Old school today-