Government limits for athlete's and movie star's pay?

A new Rasmussen survey shows that 30% of Americans believe the government, yes, the government, should get involved in limiting the pay of athletes and movie stars.

While the pay may be astronomically ridiculous, I believe it's not just ridiculous that anyone would want the government to cap their pay, it's downright scary.

Can these people not see beyond the end of their jealous noses? Does any sane person think that having the government step into any aspect of private industry pay is a good thing?

I suppose that's a silly question. A huge number of people want the government to take back the AIG bonuses. Many want the government to stick their grubby fingers into the pockets of "fat cats" on Wall Street. Loads of people who should be mad at the government are being led by the nose to vent their ire at hardworking people.

I am so frustrated and angry with all those who are buying into Obama-tactics. Don't you think they WANT us to be mad at Wall Street? at AIG? at all those who make more money than we do? Don't you understand that we are playing right into their hands when we succumb to class envy?

The more we hate capitalists, the easier it is for them to further their quasi-socialistic (or fully socialistic) style of government.

While we're distracted with misplaced anger, they're sliding bill after bill through Congress that dramatically changes our country.

We're where we are in this country right now not simply because of "greed" as they'd like us to believe. We are here because the government mucked it up. We are here because many of us have been asleep, lulled by good times into focusing on our daily lives while ignoring what has been happening in Washington, in local government, and to the moral fiber of our country.

Remember the oft-repeated saying about how they came for this group but I wasn't a member of it so I did nothing? We are running out of groups for the government to come after. There is almost nothing left between you and big brother right now.

We all know the government doesn't know how to put out a camp fire without burning down a forest. Every time they start a program or get involved in regulating private industry it turns into a fiasco. No one in their right mind should be able to condone having the government tell any free market agency, any free individual, how much money they should make. Or how they should run their business or life.

I was appalled when I heard the stats from Senator Jim DeMint (video) saying over 50% of the American population was dependent on the government in some form or manner. 20% work for the government, 20% get social security and are on Medicare (or Medicaid, always get those two mixed up), and the remainder are on the dole with Welfare or some other similar program.

It's not surprising given those numbers that so many want more government involvement. But it is so sad. We are fast, fast, fast, becoming a nation made up of people with their hands held out for manna from the almighty government.

We have to find a way to turn this country around now. Maybe it is time for an Ayn Rand style Atlas Shrugged revolt. Maybe all the producers need to pack their bags and move to the hills. Let's all retire, then see who pays the bills for all the moochers.

You know, much as I'd like to do something like that at times, I can't. Call me Dagny Taggart if you'd like, but I'll fight until I'm forced to stop.

30% Say Government Should Limit Pay for Athletes and Movie Stars

While a great deal of public anger is focused at corporate executives these days, Johnny Depp and the Boys of Summer don't fare much better. Thirty percent (30%) of Americans believe the government should make it illegal to pay movie stars and athletes more than $1 million per year.

Bloomberg Article Draws Questionable Conclusions re: Republicans

In a Bloomberg article posted today by Heidi Przybyla titled Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Przybyla writes, "They [Republicans] also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys."

Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Base (Update1)
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Republican leaders’ efforts to select a new national party chairman are stirring concerns among a vital constituency: Republican voters. Rank-and-file Republicans are telling their leaders they want more ethnic, gender and age diversity in a party that is dominated by white males. They also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aN5z7TvAtZoQ&refer=us

I found that hard to swallow, especially given the amount of energy coming from all factions of the Republican Party these days. It seems to me that the majority feel that the reason we're where we are today is because our elected "leaders" compromised on Republican values and principles.

The only survey cited in the Bloomberg article (that I could find) was from a joint NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. I followed the link Przybyla provided to the article the WSJ wrote regarding the survey.

Hmmm, it seems that according to their author, the question only referred to one, 1, ONE, specific area, the stimulus proposals.

Obama, Stimulus Proposals Enjoy Broad Backing in Poll
Asked about the economic-stimulus package, now estimated to cost $850 billion over two years, ...Even Republicans and independents think GOP lawmakers should work to move the legislation forward. Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation, or look to compromise with the Obama administration, 68% of Republicans and independents chose compromise, with 20% picking standing firm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123196999580982953.html

Still curious, still wanting to make sure that Ms. Pzybyla hadn't found another broader based question, I took a look at the actual survey.

The actual Wall Street Survey question:

(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY INDEPENDENT, REPUBLICAN, OTHER, OR NOT SURE IN Q.F4a.)

F4b. In thinking about the economic stimulus legislation, which of these statements comes closer to your point of view about what the Republicans in Congress should do over the course of the next several months:

Statement A: Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's economic positions and oppose legislation proposed by the Obama administration even if it means there may be stalemate on some elements of the legislation.

Statement B: Republicans in Congress should look to compromise with the Obama administration to ensure that legislation is passed and to avoid stalemate even if it means compromising on some of their party's economic positions.
[334]
Statement A: Should stand firm....... 20
Statement B: Should compromise... 68
Depends (VOL) ................................ 5
Not sure............................................ 7
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Poll_011409.pdf

The only other question I found that vaguely related to relations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:

15. Looking ahead, do you feel that in 2009 the country will find the Democrats and Republicans in Congress in a period of unity by working together and reaching consensus, or will it be a period of division where the parties hold fast to their positions and show little willingness to compromise? [208]

1/09** 12/08 12/04
Period of unity/working together ................................ 48 52 27
Period of division/little willingness to compromise.... 45 42 65
Depends (VOL)......................................................... 4 3 4
Not sure..................................................................... 3 3 4
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).

Ms. Przybyla seems to have over-stated her case, at a minimum. It appears we have a case of typical media twisting and shaping of facts to fit a preconceived premise. Or maybe it's just a case of simply seeing what you want and ignoring the rest. Or possibly there's an agenda behind the writing of the article and it was deliberately misleading.

I sent a very nice email to Ms. Przybyla asking her to cite her survey sources since she uses the plural rather than singular.

I'll let you know if she responds.

In the meantime, I'd toss the Bloomberg article into the trashcan where it belongs.