Forum Post: The 99% - Caught in the crossfire

First, I'd like to see Congress stay on task. A stimulus package needs to be just that. Yes, there is a role for social programs, but not as part of the stimulus plan. Taxcuts sound good, however, there is no reason to believe that every or even most of the taxcut dollars will be spent on new purchases. A family of four with, let's say a $1000 extra to spend is not going to have as big an impact as restoring jobs to those who have lost them. Here's why. Employed people pay taxes (positive cash flow for the common good). They buy goods and services. The increased demand for goods and services will lead to the creation of more jobs, the ‘ripple effect’. Jobs with reasonable benefits usually provide some medical care, retirement benefits, etc.. People without jobs aren't paying taxes. They may actually be taking from the system in the form of unemployment; food stamps; etc (negative cash flow from the common good). The really big bang for the buck is creating jobs; and, keeping people who are working employed. Creating jobs in areas that will help the U.S. be energy independent and environmentally responsible is even better. These areas will have a long term benefit for all of us and our posterity.

Second, when are Boards of Directors and shareholders of the banks and brokerage houses that collapsed going to start holding their CEOs accountable for the actions that brought about the collapse of their businesses? An employee who performs poorly is usually faced with loss of employment not a bonus. The very idea of rewarding poor performance is reprehensible. The golden and platinum parachutes these executives receive when they do leave are an abomination and an insult to every worker who tries to do a good job. Compensation on the executive level must be based on pay-for-performance. How dare these executives accept compensation when they effectively have run their businesses into the ground!

Third, What happened to leadership? Interesting note that when a business is in financial trouble, the first action is to cut headcount. How about executives lead by example? When asking employees to reduce compensation and benefits start with the executives first. Keep in mind that the last people who should be let go are those who actually produce products and services. Let’s keep in mind that executive compensation is part of the business overhead. When a business is in financial trouble is it really prudent to give bonuses to the executives?

Lastly, I find it an insult to my intelligence when the banks and brokerage firms, who have accepted the "bailout package", tell us that the "bailout money" is not being used for the various junkets and perks offered to the executives. When a business is in financial trouble the first thing that is done is to tighten its belt and stop spending money. Spending is halted in all areas so that funds can be consolidated and redirected for use to stabilize the business and invest in projects that will return the business to profitability. Everyone of these executives need to be sent packing. Their last paycheck is all they should get. They need to be replaced with an executive who really cares about the business and puts that business before their own personal gain.