ble with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professi

He recently bloodied his publicity-craving snout when The House of Representatives recently passed the "Say on Pay" bill. Now, blustering Congressman Barney Frank is looking for fresh prey. He clamored for and proposed this bill (who else) and insisted that such legislation (which allows shareholders a non-binding vote on CEO compensation) is necessary to stop run-away executive compensation. Hwoever, its purpose is thinly veiled; it is to shame directors into lowering CEO pay when in fact it is really a violation of shareholder rights in that it usurps corporate control the purpose of which is to maximize shareholder wealth.

The idea per se is terribly flawed; the fact Barney Frank is involved is horrifying. Talk about letting the fox into the hen house. Heck, anyone truly concerned about shareholders and the business health of corporate America should be campaigning for the repeal of such regulations. Congressman Frank has supported outright caps on CEO pay and has the hubris to say that if "say on pay" does not sufficiently reduce CEO compensation relative to that of other employees, "then we will do something more." Who is the “we?”

A Minority of “activist” shareholders, together with anti-business politicians like Ted Kennedy and Frank, shriek about “outrageous” CEO pay packages and continue to agitate seeking to use the power of government to force their views of corporate governance. But what really motivates these activists is an inexplicable anti-profit, anti-capitalist agenda. And who better to lead than the shrill anti-business Frank.

Yaron Brook asserts in a May 21 article entitled, “Should shareholders have a say on pay?—No,” the concept of “social responsibility" (the idea that executives and shareholders should sacrifice money-making for the sake of certain ‘sundry stakeholders’, is incompatible with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professio

to lowering CEO pay when in fact it is really a violation of shareholder rights in that it usurps corporate control the purpose of which is to maximize shareholder wealth.

The idea per se is terribly flawed; the fact Barney Frank is involved is horrifying. Talk about letting the fox into the hen house. Heck, anyone truly concerned about shareholders and the business health of corporate America should be campaigning for the repeal of such regulations. Congressman Frank has supported outright caps on CEO pay and has the hubris to say that if "say on pay" does not sufficiently reduce CEO compensation relative to that of other employees, "then we will do something more." Who is the “we?”

A Minority of “activist” shareholders, together with anti-business politicians like Ted Kennedy and Frank, shriek about “outrageous” CEO pay packages and continue to agitate seeking to use the power of government to force their views of corporate governance. But what really motivates these activists is an inexplicable anti-profit, anti-capitalist agenda. And who better to lead than the shrill anti-business Frank.

Yaron Brook asserts in a May 21 article entitled, “Should shareholders have a say on pay?—No,” the concept of “social responsibility" (the idea that executives and shareholders should sacrifice money-making for the sake of certain ‘sundry stakeholders’, is incompatible with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professi

ressman Frank has supported outright caps on CEO pay and has the hubris to say that if "say on pay" does not sufficiently reduce CEO compensation relative to that of other employees, "then we will do something more." Who is the “we?”

A Minority of “activist” shareholders, together with anti-business politicians like Ted Kennedy and Frank, shriek about “outrageous” CEO pay packages and continue to agitate seeking to use the power of government to force their views of corporate governance. But what really motivates these activists is an inexplicable anti-profit, anti-capitalist agenda. And who better to lead than the shrill anti-business Frank.

Yaron Brook asserts in a May 21 article entitled, “Should shareholders have a say on pay?—No,” the concept of “social responsibility" (the idea that executives and shareholders should sacrifice money-making for the sake of certain ‘sundry stakeholders’, is incompatible with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professi

eir views of corporate governance. But what really motivates these activists is an inexplicable anti-profit, anti-capitalist agenda. And who better to lead than the shrill anti-business Frank.

Yaron Brook asserts in a May 21 article entitled, “Should shareholders have a say on pay?—No,” the concept of “social responsibility" (the idea that executives and shareholders should sacrifice money-making for the sake of certain ‘sundry stakeholders’, is incompatible with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professi

ble with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth.

Continuing to ignore the workings of the free market, Barney Frank is now setting his ultra-liberal sights on private equity, but in this arena, he has already been exposed as a financial novice. Political intervention has already forced many businesses to flee to the relative safety of private ownership, i.e., being owned and run by professionals so that they can continue to maximize their wealth, but now Frank is onto the scent. He had the gall to threaten legislative action if Congress finds that private-equity deals spawn a "gross imbalance" in pay between the workers in the affected companies and the executives and entrepreneurs who take those companies private. Introducing a hearing by his House Financial Services Committee on the effects of private equity on workers and corporations, Frank acknowledged that there was no question that the firms create value when they take public companies private. However, "when a small number of individuals benefit from a deal and workers are laid off," he said, "that seems to me wrong....to the extent that we see gross imbalances, then we’re going to have to act.” Again, I wonder who the “we” is.

One committee member, Richard H. Baker, a Republican from Louisiana, suggested that a strict regulatory approach to private equity would hurt ordinary Americans by curbing opportunities for growth in their employer-provided pension plans, many of which invest heavily in the funds. "In our search to help working people, we should be concerned about how fat we make that regulatory book," he said. He added, “We need to go real slow…Maybe we don’t need to go at all.”

Representative Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the Financial Services Committee's top Republican, cautioned against regulating the industry with an ``overly prescriptive'' approach, which he said could drive private-equity firms offshore and compromise the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.

Despite all the political grandstanding and feigned angst over the perils of the boom in private equity, the hearing, titled “Private Equity’s Effects on Workers and Firms,” demonstrated in the end just how little lawmakers understand the buyout business. Clearly, thi