First, there are no government owned companies. A "company" is a private enterprise that depends for its existence on making a profit by producing goods and/or services for which people will voluntarily pay. Nothing owned, operated or managed by the government fits this definition. All such entities are government agencies. Second, salaries at private companies are already capped. Each company decides how much to compensate its executives using its own formula. No company pays any of its executives more than it can afford. Since government agencies are not subject to normal budgetary restraints, employees of those agencies should be limited in salary to their government pay grade. No conflict, no slippery slope.

You New Yorkers knew what you were voting for when you voted for Bloomberg. And if you didn't, why did you vote at all? In either case, you have no excuse to complain that you got what you voted for. Next time, think before you act.

Finally, we get to the crux of the matter. The relative or church uses its own resources to provide aid voluntarily, hoping only for the future success of their client. The welfare program provides aid using money taken from others by force of law, but does not care whether the recipient is ultimately successful or not. The people who fund these programs have no choice in where their generosity is bestowed, or how much. The welfare office is, in bald fact, stealing from the taxpayers in order to give to the poor, with no assurance that their giving will affect the plight of the poor. Taking welfare is only one step removed from robbing a gas station. In both cases, "help" is taken from others without their consent.

Second, there is a huge moral and ethical difference between asking a neighbor, relative, church, or charitable organization for help, and applying for a government welfare program. In the first case, the helpers voluntarily use their own resources to provide assistance in the form most helpful to the needy. In the welfare case, the welfare office has no stake in the matter. The welfare clerk asks some questions, stamps some forms, and reaches into a barrel of cash and hands over some money. The welfare clerk's generosity costs him nothing, and requires no real effort. He is paid the same whether he approves an application or not.

I don't know if Mr. Hawkins is in the habit of reading these comments, but tomcole does need an explanation, at least. First, people will do what they need to do in order to survive. Taking advantage of available resources is natural and expected. There has never been any shame in asking for help, or in receiving it, especially when the help is given freely. It is, however, at least mildly embarrassing to anyone with any sense of self worth at all to be forced to ask for help in providing the basic necessities to one's family, even temporarily. The only way to escape that embarrassment is through a sense of entitlement, where one feels that it is other people's duty to provide for one's needs, or even desires.

Religion is the source of all right and all wrong. Without religion, there is no right or wrong, there is only action and reaction. The merits of those actions and reactions become open to endless debate with no definitive resolution. Even atheists who believe that some actions are intrinsically wrong, such as rape or murder, ultimately take their moral guidance from religion. The only two forms of government that can exist without a foundation in religion are totalitarianism and anarchy. Neither is especially desirable, except perhaps to the tyrant or the psychopath. It is therefore both necessary and desirable to refer to religion in public discourse, whenever it is appropriate.

I stand corrected. As long as the company in question is selling ineffective placebos using claims that they will enhance the user's genitals, the company will thrive regardless of negative publicity. Still, I think that is the only exception to the market-as-watchdog rule.

"We want the FDA to protect us from hoaxes and real danger." But why? As noted in the column, pharmacology companies rely heavily on their reputations for safety and effectiveness. A free, credible press and its cousin the Internet is far more effective than any rule-bound government agency. Hoaxes will quickly come to light, and dangers will be exposed almost immediately. No company on Earth would last long if they made or distributed dangerous medicines, even without the FDA. If you can't sell your product, you don't have a business. Government agencies just increase the cost of good medicines. They do nothing to stop bad ones that the market does not do better, faster, and more accurately.

No, nobarry, read the comment before snarking off. Murdering a child because that child is inconvenient to the parent is still murder. The point Nana was making is that to differentiate between murder for convenience and murder because the child is the wrong gender is the very definition of hypocrisy. If it is OK to kill a child because the child is inconvenient, then the reason for the inconvenience is irrelevant. Under current law, it is OK to kill a child because it is inconvenient. Current law remains reprehensible.

Part of what makes Barack Obama so special is the fact, attested to by Barack himself, that he was born simultaneously in Hawaii AND Kenya. Not even Jesus claimed simultaneous birth on more than one continent. Obama is truly an historic figure, and his documented ability to interact physically with fictional characters makes him even more remarkable! The recent upsurge of people wanting to know the truth about B.O.'s birthplace is not driven by questions of citizenship. It is driven by the desire to know the truth about the Man Who Would Be King of the United States. I personally do not find that desire unreasonable.