Obama Admin Requires Companies to Disclose “Paycheck Inequality”

Michael Schaus / Townhall Columist

 

Waging class warfare can get pretty tiresome for some Democrats… Which kinda explains why they have decided to make companies wage it on themselves. As part of the regulation requirements in Dodd-Frank, publicly traded companies will soon have to spend millions of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of man-hours, to officially report how rich their CEO is compared to rank and file employees. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

The provision is backed by labor unions like the AFL-CIO, which seeks to “shame companies into lowering CEO pay.” The price tag of the regulation is expected to be “substantial,” costing more than $72.7 million and over 500,000 hours to comply.

The “pay ratio disclosure rule” will mandate that publicly traded companies report how many times more their CEO makes than the average employee in their annual report. And why? Well… I guess because the millionaires who run unions like the AFL-CIO want to “shame” CEO’s into being a little less rich.

After all, the CEO to rank-and-file ratio isn’t exactly a useful tool for evaluating the profitability of a company, or the value of its product. Unlike reporting top executive compensation (which is already required), the number doesn’t even give prospective investors an insight into the fiscal responsibility of the company’s leadership… Really, it just tells you whether or not “company x” is run by good comrades, or capitalist pigs.

“It would take global companies months and thousands of hours to come up with a completely useless number,” wrote the National Association of Corporate Directors (NACD), commenting on the proposal.

Heck, even the SEC (the group of bureaucrats and unelected regulators who will be tasked with finalizing this rule) say there will be no real use for this information, outside of beefing up Elizabeth Warren’s 2016 talking points. (Okay… I may have paraphrased a little.)

But that kinda brings us to the bigger issue, don’t ya think? Since when did making “a ton” of money (for managing the direction, vision, and operation of a publicly traded company) become a sin?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most of us expect the person who “runs things” to make a bit more than the 18 year old (part time) employee who gathers the shopping carts in the parking lot? It almost seems like there’s a pretty obvious reason for most pay disparities between CEOs and average employees: Running a multi-national restaurant chain tends to demand a substantially higher level of monetary compensation than shoveling French fries into a collapsible cardboard container.

Duh.

The “Help Class Warfare Junkies Feed their Addiction” rule in Dodd-Frank (again – this is paraphrased) essentially requires businesses to spend millions of dollars so they can give the Bernie Sanders and Liz Warrens of the world a piece of useless data. In effect, it is designed to provide the progressive wing of the Democrat Party with some cute talking points, just in time for a Presidential election…

Of course, something tells me the class-warriors in the DNC won’t be in any rush to provide similar “context” to their wealth. I guess some animals are just more equal than others.

Afghanistan to US: You May Want to Re-examine Your Troop Exit Deadline

Leah Barkoukis / Townhall Tipsheet

 

As 2014 came to an end, so too did the 13-year-long war in Afghanistan—well, formally, at least. As of Jan. 1, only 10,800 U.S. troops remain in the country serving a supportive role for Afghanistan’s military, and Obama plans to cut that number to 5,500 by 2016, and have only an embassy presence in the country the year after that.

But Afghanistan’s new president, Ashraf Ghani, is suggesting the U.S. reconsider those plans—striking quite a different tone than his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, did during his final address to parliament.

“Deadlines concentrate the mind,” Ghani told CBS’s Lara Logan, “but deadlines should not be dogmas.”

He continued: “If both parties, or, in this case, multiple partners, have done their best to achieve the objective and progress is very real, then there should be willingness to re-examine a deadline.”

When Logan asked if Obama was aware of his view, Ghani responded, “President Obama knows me. We don’t need to tell each other.”

It’s clear that regardless of our desire to diminish our presence, the U.S. is still very much needed in Afghanistan. And national security adviser Mohammad Hanif Atmar told International Security Assistance Force leaders as much last week. “We need your help to build the systems necessary to ensure the long-term sustainability of the critical capabilities of our forces,” he said, reports the Associated Press.

Afghans have mixed feelings about the drawdown of foreign troops. With the deteriorating security situation, many believe the troops are needed to back up the Afghan effort to bring peace after more than three decades of continual war.

"At least in the past 13 years we have seen improvements in our way of life — freedom of speech, democracy, the people generally better off financially," said 42-year-old shop keeper Gul Mohammad.

But the soldiers are still needed "at least until our own forces are strong enough, while our economy strengthens, while our leaders try to form a government," he said.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said that Afghanistan's 350,000-member security forces are ready to take on the insurgency alone, despite complaints by officials that they lack the necessary assets, such as air support, medical evacuation systems and intelligence.

Whether President Obama heeds Ghani’s suggestion is another story.

WaPo: Police Nationally Feeling 'Betrayed' by City Hall, White House

By Melanie Batley / NEWSMAX

 

A growing number of police officers nationwide feel "betrayed" by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder because of their calls for reforms to policing practices in the wake of the shooting deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, according to The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, the rift between New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York Police Department appeared to have deepened Sunday after hundreds of officers attending the funeral of murdered policeman Wenjian Liu turned their backs in a sign of anger and defiance when the mayor rose to speak, The Wall Street Journal reported.

But even more concerning to many police officials is how the anger in New York seems to be spreading around the nation. Many of the officers who turned their backs on de Blasio Sunday were out-of-town police who traveled to New York City for the funeral.

"We might be reaching a tipping point with the mindset of officers, who are beginning to wonder if the risks they take to keep communities safe are even worth it anymore," Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke said, according to the Post.

"In New York and other places, we're seeing a natural recoil from law enforcement officers who don't feel like certain people who need to have their backs have their backs."

The latest protest by the police comes after other incidents late last month. Officers turned their backs on the mayor at the funeral of the other police officer who was killed alongside Liu, Rafael Ramos, and they did the same at an NYPD graduation ceremony.

Leaders of the police union have blamed the mayor for fostering an anti-NYPD atmosphere they believe contributed to the slayings of the two officers.

Muslim cleric: If Jews had been “respectable,” Hitler wouldn’t have killed them

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

More wisdom from Islamic clerics. With the world prostrating itself before Islam, is it any wonder that an “unprecedented” global study finds 1 in 4 adults anti-Semitic?

“Palestinian Imam and Hamas TV Host Abu Funun Justifies Hitler: The Jews Spread Corruption Everywhere,” MEMRI

During a December 28, 2014 Hamas TV show, Palestinian imam Sheik Iyad Abu Funun said: “If the Jews had been a respectable, well-bred people,… [Hitler] would not have done those things to them. … Corruption is deeply rooted in that nation.” Abu Funun, who in the past was sentenced to 29 years in an Israeli prison, was released in the 2011 Shalit prisoner swap. He was later rearrested after resuming his militant...

Read the whole entry »

     

• Email to a friend • Article Search •

Islamic State touts $250M year-end budget surplus; opens bank

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

The Islamic State says it has set up an Islamic Bank (not that this has anything to do with Islam). It continues to go about setting up all the accoutrements of a state, or at least claiming to do so. This announcement about establishing a bank may be a bluff — after all, as Muhammad said, “War is deceit.”

“Islamic State touts $250M year-end budget surplus; opens bank,” by Cheryl K. Chumley, The Washington Times, January 5, 2015 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Terrorists with the Islamic State say that when 2015 wraps, they’ll have an estimated $250 million left over from their $2 billion budget — and that the extra money will go to help fund their war against the West and western allies.

The group’s representatives said in an interview with Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that their $2 billion budget includes money for the poor, the disabled and for families of those who were killed during combat-related airstrikes from Iraqi fighters and U.S. soldiers. But plenty will be left over — and with that, the group has big plans to fund its fighting, United Press International reported.

At the same time, the Islamic State announced the opening of its own bank. Called the Islamic Bank, the operation actually makes loans, takes in deposits and exchanges, and replaces paper currencies that are no longer accepted or that are worn out, UPI said….

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: 5 Reasons Why Angela Merkel Is Wrong to Oppose Germany’s Anti-Islamization Rallies

Islamic State jihadis kill three Saudi guards at Iraq border

 

Where I Stand as a Conservative

By: Diane Sori

Conservative...one who leans to the political right of center. Yet that does NOT mean one has to lean so far to the right so as to appease those on our side who behave just as badly as those on the left.

So what kind of Conservative am I...

First, I am a proud TEApublican, a moniker coined by Ted Cruz, a man I support for president.

Second, I am a staunch Conservative on the important issues affecting our country as in the economy, jobs creation, fiscal responsibility, reducing the deficit, cutting taxes, stopping over regulations, national security, supporting our military, standing strong with Israel, NO amnesty or government assistance for ILLEGALS, securing the border, NO sharia allowed in America, building the Keystone Pipeline, repealing ObamaCare, smaller government with less intrusion into our personal lives, calling to task and jailing those involved in Benghazi and both the IRS and NSA scandals, impeaching then arresting Obama for treason and aiding and abetting the enemy, and most critical...returning the law of our land solely and emphatically to the Constitution. These are the issues that do belong on the federal level.

Third, I also know that the so-called 'social issues' belong on the state's level NOT the federal level as per the Constitution. The social issues are dividing our party so I will now freely admit to being more socially moderate and NOT hide that fact. I will NOT gay bash nor will I call for the stoning of gays...as some within our ranks are doing. I am one hundred percent in support of stem cell research, our space program including spending the money to build a moon base and going to Mars, and I do NOT condemn abortion in certain circumstances...those being rape, incest, the life of the mother, or if a baby is so 'compromised' that it has ZERO chance of survival outside the womb. I also have NO problem with the 'morning after' pill in those first instances as it prevents conception NOT aborts an already developing fetus. I am NOT NOT NOT a supporter of late-term abortion.

Fourth, during the primaries when we should be supporting the candidates of our choice know that I will NOT support any candidate whose main platform is the social issues nor will I support any candidate who tries to push their personal religious beliefs on the populace. Again, the social issues belong with the states and NOWHERE in our founding documents are the words' God, Jesus, or Christianity to be found as our founders omitted them for a reason...as in they knew government has NO place in people's religion and in turn they knew that NO one specific religion has a place in government. Remember, our Founders ran from the theocracies of Europe and did NOT want America to become one.

Lastly, I will support whomever wins the nomination as I will NEVER vote 3rd party or support a 3rd party candidate as they have NO chance of winning. And a 3rd party vote in reality is a vote for the Democrats. The two-party system does work...we just have to bring the Republican party back to its roots NOT abandon it.

And that includes removing John Boehner as Speaker of the House.