Promises, Promises-Obama makes um, Obama breaks um!

And it came to past, so said Obama, the campaigner! Or did it?

Obama proves it again, he is a great campaigner, but a lousy governor. Why would Obama, the campaigner, make such hollow promises. Not a single promise has been met! Does he believe in what he says? Does he have that much contempt for the average American that he thinks he could get away with it? Did he know that such talk would hit a Populist note and activate the electorate?

Maybe it is a bit of all these reasons. The promises reflect ideas that were popular with average Americans. He let Pandora out of the box. The ideas were so popular that average Americans are pursuing these ideas of a kind of good government they want. Obama promised, but did not deliver. Americans are now looking for people who they can elect to office who will deliver.

That is the essence of the Tea Party Conventions so derided by the liberals, including Obama. The Tea Bagging liberals want you to believe that the Tea Party movement is a fringe, radical element of the right. But the Tea Party movement has activated the populist notion of good government against a string of Obama broken promises. It has brought millions of Americans onto the street. Liberal media pundits claim these are angry people hectoring an Administration who put people first.

Nobody is buying their arguments. Judging by the elections results in Massachusetts, Virgina, and New Jersey, and the latest poll numbers for Barbara Boxer in California, the voters are not buying the swaggering Obama and his band of faeries. The wind of the voters have stirred the Furies.

We will see, soon, who is right. The ones who promise, or the ones who deliver. I'll but on the ones who deliver.

Welcome to the Nanny State-Ms Obama Takes on Childhood Obesity

First, we have Bloomberg worrying about the rising crisis of Fat intake amongst the New York City residents. The solution: Mikey pushes a rule banning trans fats in New York restaurants on behalf of his loyal subjects. Hail to the Chief!

Then, Mikey takes on Salt. Concerned with the steady increase in salt consumption of his loyal subjects, he confers with his courtly advisers and is presented a solution of great magnanimity provided by his favorite court jesture, ban salt in restaurants. Hail to the Chief.

President Obama and his merry band conjures up rule, laws, and legislation spiriting away personal choice and freedoms, things we Americans take for granted until it is removed. Time after time, Obama takes to the teleprompter to lecture us on what we need and what only the government can provide to us. Phrased in the familiar, it is in the best interest of the country that you accept these restrictions regulating our choices, for only we, in the government, know what is best for you. Look at his latest budget. Listen to his State of the Union address. Reach your own conclusion. Think for yourself, don't just take my word. But, folks, welcome to the Nanny State of Obama, the former United States of America. Hail to the Chief!

But wait, it does not stop with President Obama, the elected officials in Congress, the appointed administration. We now have the Nanny in Chief coming forward with her agenda. Yes Folks, meet Michelle Obama, the nations unofficial Nanny in Chief. Today, we learned that the top priority on Michelle Obama's agenda is Childhood Obesity. Many of you may be more startled to learn that First Ladies have their own agendas, let alone a Top Priority. Well, if there is one thing for sure, it will not surprise you to learn that she has picked another item from the lush garden of the Nanny State as her number one priority.

I am not saying that America does not have a weight problem amongst its younger loyal subjects. American children have added a great deal of heft over the last forty years and thankfully the trend of growing waistlines has peaked. We have increased the availability of non-nutritious snacks at schools, at the restaurants we visit, and in the choices we make in food selection. No thanks to the Federal Government and the FDA food charts, we make poor choices in selecting the foods we feed our babies. Fast food, processed food, buns and donuts, snacks upon snacks consumed without adequate physical exercise. No worry, if we get some extra weight around the belt, we can just make an appointment with the nearest plastic surgeon and pay to have the fat removed. Or we can just live with it, and make our family doctor happy.

The important think, though, is that it is a choice for families to eat poorly, exercise little, and gain weight. I am certainly not advocating for weight gain, but the buck stops with the preparer and the eater. It is a choice that can not and should not be dictated by an over-reaching Nanny State or Nanny in Chief. It can not be legislated, regulated, or dictated. It must be embraced through education, encouragement, and inspiration.

Let's hope that the agenda does not end in removing more choice. We should all encourage better nutritional habits and more exercise. But the Nanny in Chief should not use this as a platform to substitute the Government for proper parental supervision and for personal accountability. We should also remove the apologists special favors for behavior promoting obesity. Obesity has long been linked to higher disease frequencies and long term medical care treatment. It costs more money. That cost should be passed on to the families who make poor choices in the face of education, knowledge, and scientific research. Remove the close-up parking spots reserved for "large" people. Hold people accountable for the choices they make and stop babying them.

We all must live with the consequences of choice if we want to preserve choice. Obesity should be no different.

The Fix is in-Obama blames Bush in rallying support for Dem Candidate in Massachusetts!

Obama is at it again! Facing falling levels of support on his agenda, unable to point to one single accomplishment other than creating one of the largest deficits in recent history, increasing the debt levels to unsustainable levels, suppressing the value of the dollar, reversing the trend in an improving balance of trade, and losing the momentum in the economic recovery, all in matter of one yea. How does he respond? The same way he did during his two year campaign for the presidency, BLAME ON GEORGE BUSH!

When Americans voted Obama in, they were expecting change. Most of us were hoping for change in the better, not in the worse. We all had such grand "HOPE" and "BELIEF" in his Siren call for Change. No more business as usual. No more lobbyitis. No more dependence on partisan politics. Indeed, he called for the end of partisanism and encouraged the rise of bipartisanism in solving many of the problems left by the disastrous economic slump.

Not long into his presidency we witnessed a transforming event. Within weeks, bipartisan hopes were out the window. A $750 plus billion "bailout" in the guise of a "stimulus" program coined "TARP" provided the monetary muscle to nationalize a major portion of the Auto industry, effectively nationalize the banking system, take over the largest Insurance company in America. and send money to their favorite liberal causes.

Curiously, the overwhelming majority of the stimulus program would not be distributed for effect on the economy for over two years. What was doled out was the same ill-conceived stimulus program proved time and again to be ineffective as a stimulus, a rebate to American workers, a stimulus that again proved to be useless in moving the needle of the economic recession. Blame it on Bush.

Favors for the Unions were pushed by his eunuchs in the Congressional leadership. In the first 100 days in office, all that happened was a economic hangover. All the talk about change you can believe in was nothing more than "believe in my agenda, or else".

Without skipping a beat, Obama sold shares to public interest groups in order to move on his health reform package, but he let his eunuchs in the Congressional Leadership write the initial framework for the health reform bills. It was like letting the fox out to guard the chicken coop. The liberals had a hay-day pushing everything that more sensible Congresses had thrown out, in spite of majorities in Congress. It was there best chance to get government control of health care and hand it to the union bosses. No Republican input! Blame it on Bush.

The climate package past by the House over the objection of the Republicans ran into a Senate that begin to recognize that with health and Climate change on the agenda and a restive public, Democrat and Republican alike concerned with the growing debt and deficits and the awareness that our political class was out of step with Mainstreet, passage of these favored bills would be at the peril of member of Congress. Mainstreet, by a wide margin, views the two top priorities for the political class as JOBS and DEFICIT REDUCTION, not HEALTH REFORM and CLIMATE CHANGE/CAP AND TRADE. Blame it on Bush!

Undeterred, Obama continues to push Health Reform, selling reform to the highest bidding lobbyist or special interest in return for support. He has taken Medicare reform off the table and sold it to the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the the Medical Insurance lobbyists. He took cost control off the table by cutting deals with those same organiztions and doling out goodies to the States, exempting the costs of the growth of Medicaid to a few select and crucial voters. No cut meant higher costs. Instead of reducing or making premiums affordable, he raised the costs to the many for the benefit of the few uninsured and charged the taxpayers. He bought the Union for a five year exemption in paying the excise tax on their highly lucrative health insurance plans, leaving the tab to all other insured , including businesses and their emplyees. 12 million people exempted from paying $60 million due to plans that would be considered high value. The 12 million includes none other than employees of local, state and federal government. The same group that, while the vast majority of middle class employees have seen little to no increase in their pay, if not actually lost ground, received above inflation-rate pay increases pushing their average pay to in excess of $70,000 per annum, well above the average pay of the middle class. Blame it on Bush

Compounding the pay rate for governmental employees is the unsustainable rise in the number of government employees. Big government has arrived with a vengeance like a good case of "Montezuma's Revenge" for the indiscriminate traveler, sampling anything they like regardless of hazard. Blame it on Bush!

So now, the public has been sending to the political class a clear message. Virginia did. Dodd retired becuse he could not win his seat again after decades in the Senate. Grogan woke up and found he was trailing in the polls, his solution, as with most cowards, quit. Men of principles, quitting when it got tough. There ego could not suffer the humiliation of a defeat. Blame it on Bush.

Which brings us up to today, in Massachusetts. A Republican is challenging, and has the lead, for His Highnesses Sacred Liberal Senate Seat, most recently held by the late Teddy Kennedy. We should take note, this is a referrendum on the Obama Agenda. The White House, and Obama, must agree with this assessment. The political bosses of Obama have dispatched him to "Speechify" and lull the voters of Massachusetts to the Siren call again, rallying the troops as he did during his two year march to the White House. Using the similar call to action, he pleads for support for his agenda by claiming that this vote will be the difference in achieving the long-sought after health reform, climate change, and, oh by the way, the long sought right of union organizing without the required democratic process we all enjoy, freedom of a vote yeah or nay. And to whom did he attribute all the problems of the country, the world, and his falling polls? You got it, BUSH! He is having to fix all the things that did not get done during the last 8 years in one year.

Now that is leadership we can believe in. That is the kind of leadership that children in the playground can be overhead saying trying to duck blame.

Listen up America, take back the country. Throw the bums out now. What we need is real reform, real change, real leadership. When you vote, Massachusetts, forget about Democrat vs Republican, vote for the person who represents real change that will give you jobs, reduce debt, and move away from ideology and demagoguery and elect someone who will not increase the deficit, but reduce it; who will not choke economic recovery with growth in government and punitive regulation, someone who will not spend us into bankruptcy "stimulating" the economy.
And, once he is elected, hold his feet to the fire. If he does not perform, throw him out. It is up to the voters to hold the politcal class accountble, letting them know that they have job security only if the listen to the voters. They are not free agents in Washington, they work for you and the district, state, and country you live in. They work for you. Fire them when they do not perform, do not just accept the crumbs off the table, take the table way.

Massachusetts, you have that chance tomorrow. We will all have that chance in November, and again in 2012. Do It NOW and FOREVER.

Bloomberg tells New York how to eat, what would be next?

New York Pushes for 25% Salt Reduction in U.S. Foods...<Read more>

ARE THE POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON LISTENING?

Pay attention folks, the debate is poised to take a turn for the worse. Not only has the Democratic machine been placed in high gear, but the heat has been turned up on the voices of dissent. Apparently, the politicians received an ear full when they returned home for summer break. Not just about health care reform, but about run away spending, giant deficits, and record national debt levels, even more than the white House had projected as recently as the Spring.

With the President's poll numbers falling weekly, the American public is beginning to question whether we are on the right track to solve the economic crisis, retard the rate of growth of health care costs, effectively combat terrorism, reduce unemployment rates, and return America to growth and prosperity. President Obama campaigned on these themes, amongst other promises (end the occupation of Iraq, liberalize union voting rules, and other issues that pandered to the radical left of his party).

Today, Obama is more like the Emperor without any clothes. Behind the curtain in the land of Obama, sits an organ grinder turning the wheels of progress, not some wizard who can command by intimidation, golden voice, and conjure up magical solutions. Yes, Obama has been humbled! Did he really think his golden voice of rhetoric could actually convince people to do something that they instinctively know is wrong for the nation? Enough Independent voters and moderate republicans switched side to give Obama a wide margin of victory. The vote ushered in an unprecedented Democratic control of both the House and the Senate. "It will be a cake walk" must have been the battle cry by the Obamaniks readying themselves for the White House, check books in hand to start spreading the money around their liberal ideology.

At this stage in the presidency, Obama should be riding high with power. With the wind of Congress behind him, his signature domestic agenda item, the overhaul of the American health care system, should have been railroaded through the Senate and the House. Union voting rules should have forever changed the landscape of labor relations between the employer and the unions representing the workers. We should be one step closer to a more socialistic model for America as envisaged by the Obama and the liberal left. But we are not!

Irrespective of the causes, whether it is the lack of presidential leadership in the drafting of the health reform package, the ineptness of the House and Senate leadership to insist on party unity, a poor sales job by the President and his band of Obamaniks, or just a poorly written and explained health policy, the end result is the same. Obama is playing defense when he has the strongest team (A House that can pass any bill without the support of one single Republican and a Senate, up until the death of Sen Edward (Ted) Kennedy, that was filibuster-proof.

The one thing the Obama administration would like to have avoided is the void created with the summer Congressional break, a period that would allow the opposition to gain a better understanding of what the thousands of pages of legislation contained, to muster support to oppose the legislation at the grass roots level, and mount a public education campaign to inform the public exactly what Obama has in mind for their health insurance and access to benefits.

The Administration got what they feared most, a public backlash. People attending the townhall meetings of the legislators greeted their representatives with hostility, questioning not just the health reform bills currently moving through Congress, but expressed their displeasure at the scope of spending, the effectiveness of the stimulus program, joblessness, and the increasing public debt. Stunned by the very act of questioning the Obama administration and its vision, the attack dogs mustered up the attack squads. Unions were dispatched to intimidate the voices of dissent. Advertising in vulnerable Congressional Districts were run to intimidate Democrats and Republicans alike who dared to disagree with the party manifesto, and I mean Manifesto. Shouting matches cropped up, each side attempting to silence the others. The Senators and Representatives were sent cowering behind the rostrums, whining about the pointed questions and disagreements that were hurled at them. Many cried out, "these people are not part of the district, they are from out of town". More than a few stopped the meetings. The brave few carried on, and in the spirit of American freedom of expression, stood by and took the questions and insults like a man.

Suddenly, townhall meetings became a political liability for both parties. The Democrats reasoned that the townhall meetings were not a good forum and suggested they conduct telephone conference calls so they could control dissent. Hardly an action any democracy should suggest if they want to hear what all the people think; great, if you just want to be stroked and field softballs from party loyalists.

The geniuses leading the House and the Senate came up another strategy equally repulsive. The American people do not like the program, at least a majority of the people polled think it is in the wrong direction. Nancy Pelosi, between breaths calling the dissenters "un-American", pledged to pass the bill as writte pointing out they had the votes sufficient to pass the bill without any Republican vote. Harry Reid bellows that their majority is filibusterer-proof and pledges to pass the bill no matter what the public thinks. Chucky Shummer, Christopher Dodd, Steny Hoyer, they all line up and propose to use a Parliamentary maneuver to pass the health care reform package with a simple majority. While within the rules, the original intention of the rule was to use it for appropriations not major legislation.

Thanks to the early Bush Republican years a precedent was set when the Republicans passed the 2003 tax cut legislation using the same rule. That time, there was not widespread dissent on the issue. The public generally approved of the tax cut. This time, there is not a general agreement by a public who supports the passage of a bill that will effect every American, most adversely, and will rearrange 17% of GDP. To the contrary, there is active dissent. The Republican cleaverness of 2003 is now potentially biting them in the rear as the Congressional Leaders giving serious thought to using the maneuver to pass the health care reform.

A sorry state of affairs for American ideals. Due to a rush to pass health care legislation for political purposes, we are about to possibly trample on the principles of a representative democracy, ignore the majority of the public who agrees that improving the health care system's cost and access should be a priority, but disagree with the plan that has been prepared, without any presidential leadership, as proposed by the pending bills in the House and Senate (the House passed a version in waning days of the session prior to the summer recess, but differs from the leading, but unpassed Senate version). Our elected leadership refuses to believe that the public is against the health reform plan or simply does not want to hear it.

But, as each day goes by, more of the truth of the plan emerges from the reading of the legislation, the comments from the "truth squads" dispatched to tell the public why they should like the plan, and from the opposition. We find out more about the Special Interests groups who were bought off by Obama to support the plan by agreeing to a minimal levels of cuts so a floor could be put under the damage to their industries represented.

This includes Big Pharma (the largest contributor to the rise in health care costs, agreed to direct negotiations with the government's Medicare program for the cost of pharmaceuticals incurred by Medicare beneficiaries and to provide a contribution to the cost reductions Obama needed by subsidizing the cost of drugs for low-income beneficiaries), The AMA (a law on the books as far back as the Clinton presidency called for a reduction of medical fees to achieve parity with other inflationary adjustments. Congress repeatedly ignored the law and gave an annual reprieve, the reduction required growing to a 25% reduction in 2009. In exchange for a floor of damage limiting the annual increase to the same rate as given to other health care providers and no across the board reduction and eliminating the provisions of the more severe law mandating a 25% reduction, the AMA agreed to support the legislation), AHA (agreed to live with a lower, but not crippling cost of living increase applied to the reimbursement rate for Medicare beneficiaries).

Off the table was any consideration of tort reform, opposed by the plaintiffs bar, a decision made strategically to minimize the number of dissenters. Not that anybody in the White House does not understand that tort reform is a key to the reduction in the over utilization of services and waste of health care dollars, they were not ready to have a powerful lobby, the plaintiff's bar, as an adversary at this time. The American public was a far easier target to roll over and quiet, so they thought! Now that's change we can believe in!

Then comes articles written by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House health policy advisor and brother of Rhamm Emanuel, the President's Chief of Staff. There is something about Chicago and it's politicians. Rhamm built his reputation as an attack dog in the Clinton years and is accustomed to the elbowing tactics of the Chicago political machine, a bare-knuckles approach perfected in the seedy street-fighting conducted daily in Chicago politics. Dr. Ezekiel prescribes a different sort of medicine to solve the issue of the high cost health care. Anyone with any interest should google Dr. Ezekiel to read his theories. They are scary at the least, and down right Un-American at the most. Dr. Ezekiel proposes to throw out the Hippocratic oath, an oath that every physician who is trained has taken that admonishes every physician to "use my power to help the sick to best of my ability and judgment". Why? Because DR. Ezekiel believes that that oath leads physicians to over-utilize health resources and channels the physician to think only about their own patient's need. Wow, amazing! Dr. Exekiel would rather have the physician think as a communitarian, placing the greater good ahead of the patient's need, upending over three thousand years of an ethic that physician's have committed to and that patients have grown accustomed to in their relationship with the physician who cares for them.

Is this because there is a need to modernize an old concept? Is it because these ancient concepts are, well you know, old-fashioned and out of step with today? Is this the kind of change we can believe in? I would venture to say, no, it is just another liberal concept, doing things for the greater good.

But, it gets worse than that. He is also championing a concept called "complete lives system". This is a formula-based system of allocating resources, not based on need, but to further the concept of "the greater good". In this system, scarce resources are allocated. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives.." (Lancet, Jan 31, 2009). It goes on to view that everything being equal saving five lives is better than one.

In an Aug. 16, 2009 Washington Post interview, Dr. Ezekiel argues that decisions on allocation of resources should focus on a "communitarian perspective so resources are allocated to keep society going". In his thinking, the social guarantee is basic where service that ensure the future generations, where development of practical reasoning skills are achieved, and where it will ensure an active and full participation by citizens. Covering service to individual" are not basic and would not be guaranteed. He has devised a chart of the "lives system" that indicates a priority curve that benefit the 15 to 40 year age groups with the most substantial chance of resources being allocated to treat their disease, with the least chance assigned to the youngest and oldest people. Cold-hearted liberalism at it's finest!

This, from the man closest to Obama in health policy. Is there any question which direction health reform will go under the current House bill? Is there any question where Obama's head is? The American people are just learning the lies that have been told by Obama when he says, "if you like your health plan, nobody is going to take it away". Obama promises to generate savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention, and wellness, installing electronic medical records, and reduce fraud and abuse.

Even his health policy wonk, Dr. Ezekiel is skeptical. He wrote in the Feb 27, 2008 issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association),"Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, and improving quality of care are merely "lipstick" cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change." How can Obama think the public is stupid enough to buy his explanation when his own advisor calls it what it is. If you put lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!

Before we rush off as a herd running towards a cliff supporting the current health reform bills, let's pause, refresh our computers, and start over with a transparent public debate without the attack dogs, the lobbyist that Obama promised to ignore and eliminate, and bring the parties together with a clean slate. Keep the public well informed, be honest and accept that 85& of the people are happy with what they have. Figure out how to add the people who are un and under-insured without killing health insurance for 85% of the people. Keep ideology out of the debate and consider what is best of the country and it's people, not what will score points with your special interest groups and party support base. No plan will be credible if there is not shared sacrifice. That does not mean one group gets all the upside and the other shares all the downside. Good reform will be evident when everybody is unhappy that they did not get what they want. That includes the politicians.

If you can not understand this, then the voters will decide in Nov 2010 whether you will continue to represent them. The choice is yours. But, don't dismiss the public opinion, and don't get cute with words and try to con them. We are pretty good at sensing when we are being conned. And we sense it now!

PERLMUTTER "GREED IS GOOD" MEETS MICKEY MOUSE

Folks, this is hardly new news nor is it the only example of the continuing saga of "executive greed" to show up in the past few weeks. But, it is a good example of of the clear lack of judgment by a Board of Directors, a story that is beginning to be heard over and over in the US and Europe. Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of people making as much money as they can and for incentivizing people to do things in the best interest of the shareholders. The Perlmutter story goes beyond the pale. It ventures into the colorful world of executive greed and Board justification that defies common sense.

A few weeks back, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chairman "Ike" Perlmutter received 1.27 million share options in the weeks one of his subordinates was talking to Disney about a closer relationship. Months after the initial discussions, Marvel and Disney agreed to merge. Sounds harmless, so far.

But, the shares were granted at around $23 per share. Eight months later, after the deal was announced, the share price hit $50 per share. Bingo, Perlmutter walks away with more than $34 million dollars for nothing but being at the firm an additional 8 months and agreeing to a deal that gives the shareholders $50 per share. Are you with me so far?

Perlmutter did a deal that was very beneficial to the shareholders. He should be applauded, you say? Well, he should, it was a favorable deal for the Marvel shareholders. Then why complain?

Perlmutter, before the options were granted, held 28.9 million shares of Marvel, or 37% of the total shares outstanding. His stake was worth $1.445 billion. That is not the problem, though. Perlmutter took Marvel and developed a solid franchise, one that he controlled through a mighty 37% of the shares. He earned every penny of the $1.445 billion, not only for what he did for Marvel, the compnay, but for the company's shareholders. Why would he soil his reputation and the merger with yet another example of executive greed?

The Board said they gave him more options because his contract was up in Nov 2009 and was part of an agreement to extend his contract. For years, Marvel had awarded executives restricted stock, not options. But, this year, only Perlmutter received options instead of restricted stock. The other executives received restricted stock, vesting over a period of time. This inconsistency is not, in itself a problem. The reasons given by the Board of Directors is the problem. Apparently the Board was concerned that Perlmutter did not have enough incentive to continue his strong performance. As reported in the Wall Street Journal article, this was the reason given to treat his option grants as options and not restricted stock and to grant them in the first place.

How much more incentive does a man need if he owns 37% of the company? If he screws up, it cost him in a reduced share price. If he takes the eye off the ball, he loses. If he works hard and does the right thing, he wins. Why can a Board not see that this man had enough incentive. Was there another reason for the grant. Could be?

This is just a clear sign of a Board of Directors detached from reality. Not only was the reason given faulty, but the timing has an appearance of pandering to the CEO, granting extra pay in the face of a merger. The need for Mr. Perlmutter to act in the best interest of the shareholders was present in his ownership of 37% of the company. That sounds like enough of an interest to keep his performance strong. A ill-timed, questionable grant of 1.27 million shares worth $34 million, or 2.3% of the vaue of his holding is hardly an incentive. It smacks of a Board of Directors under the control of a greedy executive looking out for the biggest paycheck, no matter what it looks like. It conveys a decision made by the Board that lacks credibility. The very thought that Perlmutter needed another $34 million to do the right thing for the company is ridiculous, utterly preposterous. It is something you would see out a cartoon book, not a cartoon Board of Directors.

Now, many of you out there will say, who cares, he made a lot of money for the shareholders. I can imagine no big shareholder will begrudge the extra $34 million. There are thousands of excuses, apologies, or dismissive words to describe their behavior as fiduciaries. There may be no difference between the vesting of the restricted stock and the employee options. That, too, is not the point. And, shareholders miss the point if they do not at least recognize that this is the very behavior that could bring excessive pressure from the Obama administration and the regulators to improve executive compensation standards. The Perlmutter flies into the face of the Obama administration's moves to reign in excessive executive compensation and greed. The Board's behavior furthers the argument for stricter compensation policies.

The last thing I want to see is the government setting executive compensation. But, corporations and their Board of Directors must take the lead and make sensible policies for executive pay, reign in incentives that will not work, like Perlmutter's bogus option to keep him performing strongly, and align the interests of the shareholders with the opinions and perceptions from Main Street. The vast majority of people are willing to see the masters of the universe make a lot of money for the effort the put out on behalf of the shareholders. But cases where some CEO schmo owns a large percentage of the company should not necessitate additional option grants to keep the CEO on the ball. The price of the stock should provide the incentive if that case. Boards need to stop justifying ridiculous decisions with the same old excuse as used with people who have little to no ownership of a company, yet need long term incentives to assure strong performance.

The Boards can do it or the regulators can do it. Who do you want setting compensation for executives? If you were Main Street today, you may be more comfortable with the regulators. Boards and CEOs need to start building credibility with Main Street. Hopefully Goldman Sachs will hear that when they decide to reward their culture of greed with pay above the 2007 levels after receiving a hefty amount of taxpayer dollars to tide them over the rough patch last year. I dare say, Main Street will feel they got screwed. I would have to agree. Not that the Money Machine has not performed exceedingly well, but we will never be able to know their true success. We can only glance a glimpse and then just only momentarily!