Weren't Most Republicans Opposing Exec Salary Caps Just Last Month? Why The GOP Outrage?

[Median Democrat]

My memory must be failing.

Just last month, Republicans were vigorously opposing ANY type of cap on executive salaries or bonuses for firms receiving bailout money. Such caps were being denounced as socialistic. In other words, we are now complaining about some provision the retroactive abrogation of previously executed bonus contracts with limits being applied on a going forward basis only, BUT the Republicans were against ANY cap.

Now, Republicans are trying to out-do each other in expressing outrage over the payment of bonuses by AIG to its employees. These were bonuses paid pursuant to contracts entered into nearly a year ago, and the complaint is that the Federal Government should have passed a law in February 2009 that nullified these contracts.

What? Can someone explain this to me? Perhaps my memory of events just one month ago is failing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/gop-opposes-pay-limits-on_n_164544.html

/snip

Other Republicans disagreed. "It's still government running business," Inhofe said.

"It's a leap, because the executive at the bank is a free agent who can leave the bank and go to work someplace else," said Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) of the welfare comparison. "You run the risk of having a brain drain at the bank of their top talent."

Bennett said, "Some of the things some of these bank executives have been doing demonstrates they have a tin ear. At the same time, I'm generally troubled by wage and price control, no matter how logical it may appear."

The objection to the government intervention in salaries is rooted in the Republican belief that government is inherently ineffective. "If Congress can run a financial institution, it belies everything I've seen in this body. Government does not do a good job running private institutions," said Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO).

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) agreed: "If we do such a good job of running the federal government, what business do we have telling them how to run the banks?"

The GOP is also concerned that setting compensation limits could put the country on the road to serfdom. "This is just a symptom of what happens when the government intervenes and we start controlling all aspects of the economy. This is just the first piece," said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). "If you accept the fact that the government should be setting pay scales in America, then it's hard not to go after these exorbitant salaries. But I think it's a sad day in America when the government starts setting pay, no matter how outlandish they are."

"What are we going to do next?" wondered Martinez. "Tell a company if they get TARP money where there offices should be? They should be renting maybe from an abandoned federal building?"

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) may have had the savviest responses to the tricky political question. McConnell didn't acknowledge that he'd been asked the query; he walked on to the Senate floor instead of answering. McCain declined to comment.

/snip

See? the Republicans were warning us that capping executive compensation would put the country on the road to serfdom.

[Jennicut]

1. Oh yes Median Dem. And now the GOP is split in the House

over the Bonus tax legislation.

[Median Democrat]

2. We Are Also Getting Flip Flops On Passing Potentially Unconstitutional Legislation

First, Obama proposes limits on executive compensation. Republicans denounce these limits as socialistic (see article), and would lead to brain drain at major banks.

Second, Tim Geithner opposes an amendment in the legislation in February 2009 that would retroactively nullify bonus contracts entered into prior to the date of the legislation. Thus, even if an employee had already performed all the conditions of the bonus contract, the law would bar payment under that contract. Instead, the executive cap limits only applied to new executive compensation contracts. Geithner says he was concerned that such a retroactive provision would be challenged in court.

Third, in March 2009, AIG pays the bonuses, and outrage ensures.

Fourth, Republicans express outrage at AIG's payment of bonuses.

Fifth, Democrats pass a law taxing the bonuses.

Sixth, many Republicans express outrage at such a law, expressing concern that such provisions would be challenged in court.

Okay, haven't we just gone full circle here? I am confused as to what is it the Republicans want. Can anyone help me?