They Have to Ask Permission?!?

More proof that government control of once-private [or in this case, publicly traded] corporations has gone too far is this opening sentence from a foxnews.com article:

"Citigroup Inc., soon to be one-third owned by the U.S. government, is asking the Treasury for permission to pay special bonuses to many key employees, according to people familiar with the matter."

Whether or not these bonuses are merited, and their size, is beyond my knowledge (I have my doubts), but to see a once-grand company have to stoop to asking the government if it can do what its peers do...is sad.

This is more proof that "the borrower is servant to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7)

Administration May Oust Another CEO?

Foxbusiness.com is reporting that "the government" is considering giving the chairman of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, "the boot."

The article has this telling nugget:

"According to The New York Post, citing sources, regulators are mulling taking steps to show the government is taking a strong stand on banks, which may include removing Pandit."

I suppose a case can be made that Pandit made some executive mistakes, that he took too much risk upon the company, etc.

But when is it the purpose of our free and republican [type, not party] government to remove heads of companies whom they are (supposedly) helping? No one has yet mentioned Pandit being involved in any illegal activity, or of trying to intentionally damage Citigroup...so why is this happening? So the government can "take a strong stand" and look tough?

This won't be the first time; Rick Wagoner, formerly head of GM, was quietly canned on a Sunday evening a few weekends ago.

We need to be concerned about a government that takes this much power unto itself.