Obama's Victory? Give Me a Break
If this is a victory, I sure don't know what a defeat would look like.
A July 29th New York Times headline states, "In victory for Obama, House panel approves Restraints on Executive Pay." First, you should note that an approval by a panel and a token will buy you a ride on the subway. By itself, it is not worth much. The House has to approve it, and -- given the lobbies lined up -- it may not. More fatally for the bill, the Senate is quite unlikely to support such an anti-Wall Street move.
Wait, wait, I am just warming up. The bill does not limit any one's pay by one penny. It merely allows shareholders to vote on the matter. If and when they do -- the vote is not binding! That is, the corporations are free to pay their executives all they want, anyhow.
You may say the corporations will be embarrassed to pay through the nose after their shareholders vote not to grant monumental pay raises. However, so far there have been no signs, no hints, that these Wall Street firms are embarrassed by anything.
Finally, you should know that unless limits are set on the total compensation of executives, all such a bill -- if enacted, if acted upon, if heeded -- will lead to is just more gaming.
Here is one method of gaming that should give you a feel for all the others. I was a guest of a CEO of a very large insurance company. He even gave me a ride on his private jet. I asked him how much he spent last year on the entertainment of customers, fellow workers, and politicians. He responded with a wide smile: "About 300 dollars." When he saw that my jaw dropped down about as low as it goes, he added with a chuckle: "One of my assistants makes all the arrangements and signs on the checks and credit card slips with his name."
The fact that the CEO felt free to tell me all this shows you how impressed he and his friends are by Obama's "victory."
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at The George Washington University, and the author of The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. He can be reached at icps@gwu.edu. www.gwu.edu/~ccps/securityfirst
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
“Say on pay” bill strikes the right balance. It is all about shareholders providing a resolution on executive pay (not merely the level of pay, but incentives and terms). Anything more would be inappropriate Government interference. Anything less is what the corporate insiders want. If directors do not respond to the advisory nature of the resolution, they open themselves up for being voted out.
I have a real problem with the government legislating anybody's pay regardless of who it is. There are means in place now to control CEO pay. It's up to the shareholders and board of directors to do that, not the government. It sticks (gov't) its nose in enough places where it doesn't belong. It certainly does NOT belong here.
Yes we con con
Yes we con
Yes we con con...
Obama's a corporate-type fella. He's not a leftist, not a man of the common people--not by a long shot.
"I voted Obama - but wish he were more strident."
--fredwenn
I agree. And shrill. Could he be more shrill? Americans don't like incremental gains. They don't like a president that spends time getting his policies passed as legislation. We like a guy who stands up for what he believes! It really doesn't matter what he believes as long as he's not takin' no guff. We like signing statements and executive orders. We like recess appointments that stick it to those clowns in congress.
Obama's support for the meaningless bill is a blueprint for his other actions.
He talks a good game. But experience has shown that he won't actually push for real change that will benefit Americans in general. Experience has shown that he is satisfied so long as people go through the motions and he can smile and take some credit for it. He will do the same thing when it is time for him to sign a meaningless bill for the medical problems.
An Obama bill with no teeth? How unthinkable.
Right on! This is beyond belief "no reform at all" on executive compensation or modifications on corporate governance which imply we will get more of the same. If this isn't enabling "systemic risk" I don't know what is.
Over on The Economic Populist is a post, Have a Say on Say on Pay.
Contained within are references to expert testimony to modify executive compensation as well as corporate governance to align compensation not only with the long term interests of a corporation, but also with the national interest.
People, we really need to demand reforms in both of these areas as part of a financial regulatory overhaul (but this is for all corporations) to not only avert future implosions which risk the national economy but also for long term economic growth, the interests of America.
Here is the raw link:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/have-say-say-pay
I voted Obama - but wish he were more strident.
When they tell us his poll numbers are down... it's because those of us who want a REAL REVOLUTION are angry that he hasn't done ENOUGH.
the media makes it look like people are rethinking their support for Obama.
that's not true.
Obama's numbers are suffering because some of us want Wall St reformed, Goldman Sachs out of business... Cheney in jail
and Bush - well, let's not go there - Let's just say he's still breathing ... and that makes me unhappy.
As to Doctors and big Pharma..... I want Obama to gut the profession.
It's not about health... it's about empire building.... and ripping off the public.
so no... I"m mad at Obama too.... but not for the reasons given on the nightly news.
I WANT OBAMA TO
1. Send Goldman execs to prison.
2. Send Cheney and the neocon war machine to prison.
3. Stop bailing out BIG companies.... I want SMALL companies
4. Dump Israel
5. Stop placating the loony right, and start acting like the man who got elected by a landslide.
6. Say MORE about corrupt cops.... not less.
I can't help thinking that the current flapdoodle about greed in practice is aimed at the "demands" of victims (eg who want settlements for pain & suffering in medical tort suits that exceed RightWing preferences) rather than effectively reining in the powers that be.
In other words, another Democratic use of a populist-sounding rhetoric to restrain only the "greed" of workers and disfavored individuals in practice, talk aside. Been there done that
I regret supporting Obama and have never voted Republican.
Here is another "victory" that the media is claiming for Obama ...
Obama/Congress/Big Pharma/Insurance conspired to KILL the following WITHOUT a Senate vote:
+ govt supported health insurance to 45 million uninsured -- KILLED
+ buying low-cost high-quality generics from Canada -- KILLED
+ govt to negotiate drug prices -- KILLED
And then they are either blaming each other for KILLING these or claiming victory for "Obama's Healthcare Plan".
Who gave Congress the power to regulate how much a private citizen is permitted to earn? The American people should absolutely direct the elected reps as to how much that rep is permitted to earn and how much other govt employees earn but the American people already determine how much a business will earn. Or we did until the bailouts. If a consumer didn't like a product they didn't buy it and that business either changed or closed. Now we prop them up.
Stockholders already vote for the board that determines executive compensation at every corporation. If the stockholders believe the CEO is being paid too much they can vote in a new board. Why does Congress need to get involved?
Just take the 12 minutes or so and sit and listen to this-----Bill Moyers and Holly Sklar discuss why we should have some regulations on business....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9zqDZkv9eA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edemos%2Eorg%2Finequality%2F
wreckless deregulation, allowing only a few at the top to have all the money doesn't create a healthy economy.
The inequality gap is the highest in the US than any other country in the world.........
in 1975 the difference between the highest paid work and the lowest in a company was 55%
today it's 300%
that's excessive greed and it is taking away from all of us.
I wonder if Bill Moyers and Holly Sklar would aprove of having their pay regulated by the Gov't I would guess probably not.
I believe if they received taxpayer bailouts we have the right to limit their pay until all of the toxic assets that we paid for are in some way resolved on the balance sheet. Currently the financial institutions are looking so good because they have been allowed to take the toxic assets that are losses out of their general ledgers. Those toxic assets are still there, the difference being that we that taxpayer are holding onto them until the financial institutions can return to a more profitable position.
The fact that we actually fell for the "too big to fail" drivel is completely and totally Un-American and the antithesis of Capitalism. The whole point of healthy competition is fiscal responsibility. They lost, they should have been allowed to fail. There are plenty of other institutions that would have risen to the challenge of absorbing all of those customers. Instead we rewarded fiscal irresponsibility and screwed over all of the bankers in this country that do follow sound fiscal policy.
Makes sense. Logical and well thought out, IMHO.
other link didn't work..............try this one
www.demos.org/inequality/
Passing something like this is almost worse than passign nothing. Like everything else he's done, Obama is aiming FAR, FAR too low. Most corporations are primarily owned by a few major stockholders, who, probably being employed by the company, are not going to veto executive compensation. MAYBE execs will have to bribe some of these stockholders now, but thats about as good as it'll get
Ethics are dead and money is king.
darlin', you know that the gop are gonna scream SOCIALISM every time this administration attempts to apply logic and ethics to the institutions running this country - look at the health insurance industry and their friends on the hill maneuvering to control health care (status quo) and not give up one penny in profit - why not expose the financial services lobbyists and their shills in the house and senate? why not list the legislators in the pockets of insurers and big pharma? that'd be a lot more helpful than slamming the first president in a long time who has a moral compass and is attempting to re-direct the governance of this country -
Expose, you are kidding, right? I was told they make the laws and they will benefit from them!
We have been had.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
