General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama pushes to limit federal spending on corporate executive pay
by Laura Clawson
The federal government is paying a whole bunch of corporate executives' salaries, up to $763,000 a year and soon to be as much as $950,000 a year. President Obama isagaincalling on Congress to limit that to $400,000 a year, the amount the president himself is paid. Think about it: Exorbitant executive pay is being included in what the government pays contractors. Meanwhile, there are 2 million workers at federal contractors being paid poverty wages.
The president's proposal to cap federal payments for executives to $400,000 is not going to strangle any companies or leave any executives in the poorhouse. The Office of Management and Budget's Joe Jordan explains that:
Importantly, the proposal provides for an exemption to the cap if, and only if, an agency determines such additional payment is necessary to ensure it has access to the specialized skills required to support mission requirements, such as for certain key scientists or engineers. And to be clear, nothing in the proposal limits the amount contractors pay their executives. The cap only limits how much the government will reimburse the contractors for the services of those executives. Taking these steps has the potential to save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over what they would have to pay if the cap remains unchanged.
Got that? Federal contractors can pay their executives whatever they want, the federal government just wouldn't directly reimburse them for it. Isn't that, uh, capitalism? But the president of the Professional Services Council, a trade association for government contractors, objects, because:
He argued that many government contractors do business solely with the federal government and would lose their profit margins if they had to pay top executives at market rates without reimbursement.
Hey, if you've restricted yourself to one client and this is what that client is willing to pay, you have some choices: accept that cut to profit margins, have your executives take the pay rate your one client is offering, or get more clients. The idea that we shouldn't be talking about the federal government "only" paying $400,000 of the salaries of executives at private companies rather than forcing them to make those choices just boggles the mind. Yet considering the broken Senate and Republican House, it probably won't too long before the government is paying well over $1 million in salary for these executives.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/31/1212805/-Obama-pushes-to-limit-federal-spending-on-corporate-executive-pay
The government is paying the salaries of executives who contract with the government, and Congress is voting to cut food stamps? WTF?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Populist that Obama KNOWS they won't do, and Obama's 1% pals knows they won't do, wink wink, but it's worth using to try to distract the restless liberals with.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)people can Stand With Obama (like Stand With Rand)?
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Simply a PR gesture that Obama forgot about as soon as he issued.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)He's principled and better for the country as a whole, right?
riqster
(13,986 posts)Hardly gives the man an incentive to act in a more progressive manner, now, does it?
If you crap on somebody 24/7/365, they can hardly be blamed for tuning you out.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Plus an added insult to those who do not agree with you. Not a good way to win friends and influence people.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)President Obama is in the pocket of the 1% because he proposed something that he knows the 1% wont go for, just to look populist.
Gotcha!
And, you believe that
But absolutely reject that President Obamas offering the Chained CPI
something he knew, neither the people, nor the congress would/will never go for
was a ploy to expose gop obstructionism.
Really Gotcha
Damned if you do, Damned if you dont; then, Dont give a damn about those damning you!
dkf
(37,305 posts)Other than that government has no business dictating salaries. Besides if you add all the perks the President receives much more than $400,000.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)Better idea: Government has no business paying executive salaries.
dkf
(37,305 posts)No government contracts only government employees.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No government contracts only government employees. "
I mean, if business can only survive if the Government pays the executives' salaries, then Government should dictate the salaries or the company shouldn't be in business.
Sort of destroys the Republican/RW talking point of last year.
Elizabeth Warren: We built it together (smacks down Chris Christie)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021227075
by jamess
When it comes to the GOP -- they didn't Build that.
Most times They Blocked that ...
- more -
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/30/1126128/-They-Blocked-that
dkf
(37,305 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)If companies expect the Government to pay their executives, Government should have a say in the compensation. Period.
dkf
(37,305 posts)The government is paying for a good as a consumer. Their decision is who do they award the bid to, not the pay structure of the firm they choose. Why stop at salaries? Dictate hours, vacation, pensions, health plans, race and gender quotas and on and on and on.
Since the government purchases something from so many do they get to dictate it all?
"When you pay for a product do you expect to have a say in the salaries of all involved?"
...do I pay the full executive salary when I buy something? If I did, they'd get zero.
"Why stop at salaries? Dictate hours, vacation, pensions, health plans, race and gender quotas and on and on and on. "
Good idea. Of course, the alternative is capping or eliminating what the government pays in executive salaries.
dkf
(37,305 posts)But the government doesn't want that responsibility. They want to be able to change contractors and leave this crew high and dry.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)What's your point?
Let them go make a killing in the "free market" and stop being "freeloaders"
The greedy capitalist bastards want the government to cap and keep low everything (Medicare, minimum wage, food stamps, unemployment benefits) except their excessive compensation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That's what employers have been doing to American workers since at least the late 1970s. It's called the art of takeovers. It's called at-will employment. It is the reality of the American worker regardless of the level of skill.
Why should companies mooching off the government expect to be treated any differently than the companies treat their lowest-level employees?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Mopar151
(10,002 posts)The Feds routinely use a provision in construction and maintainence contracts which, essentially, requires the contractors to pay the equivalent of union scale in the area.
And, I can tell you that when you work on DARPA or DOD development contracts, timekeeping procedures are very specific - like handwritten in ink without changes, and signed.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)write a provision into the contract limiting the amount of money to be paid by my contract to the company's executives. Yes.
This would be especially true of government contrasts that are based on cost-plus. And lots of our defense contracts are cost-plus. We should not pay exorbitant salaries in those contracts.
You can't ask hungry children to forgo breakfast or lunch in order to pay the CEO of a government contractor another $500,000. That is obscene. It is child porn at its worst. Please.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)an agency or agent or arm of the government.
If it thinks it is anything else, it is a fool, and its CEO and board members are all fools, and none of them deserve more than $400,000 per year in compensation.
edgineered
(2,101 posts)reimbursements, limits are completely acceptable. One can spend as much on lodging, food, etc as he wants, the company will only pay what the rate is.
dkf
(37,305 posts)They better watch out or they will land up limiting their access from corporations who will want to avoid this type of thing.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That has not stopped doctors from serving their patients as they wish.
See my comment below.
A company that has no contracts other than government contracts, no income other than government income, is not a private company. It is a government agency. And it should limit its CEO salaries and pay its employees accordingly. Civil service anyone?
Too many American companies wax indignant about "too much regulation" or "too much government" and then fill their coffers with taxpayer money.
Let's face it, we are all in this together.
I hope there are not too many companies working only for government contracts. But especially in the defense industries there may be some.
This is the height of hypocrisy -- complaining about tax rates and then dipping into the tax dollars. That's ugly. Repugnant as a matter of fact.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)can handle them without taxing them with a lot of CEO pay and still do well. Our CEOs are way overpaid if you compare their salaries to comparable salaries in other countries like Germany.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Through prevailing wage requirements; and its something that Democrats used to support.
Besides, from many of your other posts, I would have thought youd be all over this
as this proposal is a truly market-based solution
just ask the entire insurance industry (public and private). Hospitals/Medical Providers are free to change whatever they want for their services; but the insurers will only reimburse them at a negotiated rate.
But I guess youd have to start with the recognition that the government is truly a market participant; something conservatives are wont to do.
Initech
(100,105 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)Wish it would happen, but probably no chance with the pukes in control of the House. Maybe he can use this to help push for a Dem majority in 2014?
florida08
(4,106 posts)Nice tune but no one is going to dance to that. Hell has the sequester invoked any furloughs in Congress? There's your answer.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)For some reason...?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He has gotten very active with his progressive agenda lately...For some reason...?"
...because he can?
E.J. Dionne and Robert Borosage agree: push the President's best initiatives.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040
By PAUL KRUGMAN
President Obama laid out a number of good ideas in his State of the Union address. Unfortunately, almost all of them would require spending money and given Republican control of the House of Representatives, its hard to imagine that happening.
One major proposal, however, wouldnt involve budget outlays: the presidents call for a rise in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $9, with subsequent increases in line with inflation. The question we need to ask is: Would this be good policy? And the answer, perhaps surprisingly, is a clear yes....the current level of the minimum wage is very low by any reasonable standard. For about four decades, increases in the minimum wage have consistently fallen behind inflation, so that in real terms the minimum wage is substantially lower than it was in the 1960s. Meanwhile, worker productivity has doubled. Isnt it time for a raise?
Now, you might argue that even if the current minimum wage seems low, raising it would cost jobs. But theres evidence on that question lots and lots of evidence, because the minimum wage is one of the most studied issues in all of economics. U.S. experience, it turns out, offers many natural experiments here, in which one state raises its minimum wage while others do not. And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.
<...>
So Mr. Obamas wage proposal is good economics. Its also good politics: a wage increase is supported by an overwhelming majority of voters, including a strong majority of self-identified Republican women (but not men). Yet G.O.P. leaders in Congress are opposed to any rise. Why? They say that theyre concerned about the people who might lose their jobs, never mind the evidence that this wont actually happen. But this isnt credible...todays Republican leaders clearly feel disdain for low-wage workers. Bear in mind that such workers, even if they work full time, by and large dont pay income taxes (although they pay plenty in payroll and sales taxes), while they may receive benefits like Medicaid and food stamps. And you know what this makes them, in the eyes of the G.O.P.: takers, members of the contemptible 47 percent who, as Mitt Romney said to nods of approval, wont take responsibility for their own lives.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/opinion/krugman-raise-that-wage.html
Pragdem
(233 posts)You get the snarky comments from the fucking morons.
I'm tired of being civil to them because that's all they'll ever be... worthless ankle-biting morons that want subsidies to comfortably continue being worthless ankle-biting morons, biting the hand that doesn't even need to feed them to be where he is.
---
In response to the OP: It's tragic that people the government is paying make more than the President. I wasn't aware of this until the President used his bully pulpit to bring awareness.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Not what he says. They're usually the opposite.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I'm kinda curious what this means from Obama.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)(Reuters) - The White House proposed legislation on Thursday to cap the pay of federal government contractors at no more than the U.S. president's annual salary, saying it wanted to stop "wasteful expenditure."
The president makes $400,000 a year and the current cap on pay for executives at federal contractors is due to be raised in the coming weeks to about $950,000 from $763,000, the White House Office of Management and Budget said.
"This wasteful expenditure of taxpayer resources must stop," OMB official Joe Jordan said.
Jordan said the cap on contractor pay has climbed so steeply because it is pegged to private sector executive pay increases. The administration's proposal would allow exceptions in situations where recruitment is difficult.
- more -
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-usa-obama-contractors-idUSBRE94T14F20130530
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)What is the push? Him asking? Him making a speech? Him pointing out the obvious? Is this what constitutes "pushing"?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What is the push? Him asking? Him making a speech? Him pointing out the obvious? Is this what constitutes "pushing"? "
...you expecting him to take the proposal and "push" it into the chest of a member of Congress.
The level of absurdity rises!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Did he whisper it to a news person? Nothing you have put shows this push.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's what I heard.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)I "expect" him to do little at all.
The definition would involve either coercing those otherwise opposed, or making it otherwise uncomfortable to oppose it. It isn't apparent that he has done either, much less anything that could be considered "pushing".
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I don't care what you "expect" him to do, and to satisfy your quest for more information and what "push" means, try Google.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You asked me what I expect. Now you say you don't care. Make up your mind.
And you still can't explain what the OP means by "push".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)company, you are the same as a government agency. The government decides the specs for your service or product. You are merely a sham corporation or company that funnels government money to your employees.
There is nothing private about a company if its only business is government business.
Who's fooling whom?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I thought you were going to ask about the word "pushes"
Agree with your comment.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)At least someone in his administration has dared to mention this scandalous use of public money.
This is the REAL SCANDAL of the year, whether the President is pushing for change or not. Someone in his administration obviously is. That's good enough for me. Refreshing and positive, I must say.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)The proposal is a truly market-based solution
just ask the entire insurance industry (public and private). Hospitals/Medical Providers are free to change whatever they want for their services; but the insurers will only reimburse them at a negotiated rate. Goose
Gander.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Until then.
Talk. Talk. Talk.
newmember
(805 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What a bunch of bullshit and some people are actually buying this"
...explain what the "bunch of bullshit" is, and why it's funny?
I mean, "some people" may not be as smart as you.
newmember
(805 posts)Just make sure it's after AIG executives got their millions in bonuses from TARP.
Oh that's right Obama was against that also.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"wake me up when it happens
Just make sure it's after AIG executives got their millions in bonuses from TARP.
Oh that's right Obama was against that also."
...your explanation is nonsense? What the hell does any of that have to do with the OP?
FYI (for the next time you decide to comment on things you know nothing about)
The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion. The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By October 11, 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $431 billion and estimated the total cost, including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, would be $24 billion.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
newmember
(805 posts)give me a break and then Obama acted shocked when these fat cats got their millions in bonuses.
Peddle this to some one that buys your bullshit
"A lot when it comes to Obama and executive pay , he let Geithner have free reign......
give me a break and then Obama acted shocked when these fat cats got their millions in bonuses.
Peddle this to some one that buys your bullshit"
...fact-free nonsense and bravado. Clearly, you know something about peddling "bullshit."
You attitude sucks, and your grasp of the facts leave a lot to be desired.
By Pat Garofalo
Yesterday, voters in Switzerland overwhelmingly approved new measures to clamp down on executive pay. Under the approved referendum which means that the new provisions will be added to the Swiss constitution shareholders will have the ability to veto executive pay packages, so-called golden parachutes will be outlawed, and executives who defy the rules could see jail time. As the Wall Street Journals Andrew Peaple wrote, Swiss voters anger is understandable. Like other countries, it has seen executive pay rise out of all proportion over the past decade:
Switzerland has the highest remuneration per board member in Europe, according to Deloitte. Pharmaceutical company Novartiss recent offer of a six-year $76 million golden parachute to outgoing Chairman Daniel Vasella is the latest example of seemingly egregious rewards. UBS Chairman Axel Weber was paid $5.3 million when he joined the bank this year. Compared with Swiss average wage of $73,500, such payments look out of whack.
The European Union has also approved new restrictions on bonuses at large financial firms.
Many of the same problems that led to Swiss frustration with CEO pay apply here in the U.S. For instance, Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit walked off with millions of dollars after vaporizing most of his companys value. Duke Energy paid its former CEO $44 million for working literally one day.
Skyrocketing executive pay (along with growing pay in the finance industry) is a huge component in Americas growing income inequality. In fact, Executives, and workers in finance, accounted for 58 percent of the expansion of income for the top 1 percent and 67 percent of the increase in income for the top 0.1 percent from 1979 to 2005. Special tax deductions for executive pay cost taxpayers billions of dollars per year.
In the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, shareholders of U.S. corporations were also given new powers meant to rein in executive pay. However, Dodd-Frank only gives shareholders a non-binding vote, meaning that the corporation is able to essentially ignore it.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/03/04/1666781/switzerland-executive-pay/
It should have been binding, but at least the non-bidning can have an impact.
Teamsters Applaud SEC's Navistar Decision Upholding Dodd-Frank
http://www.teamster.org/content/teamsters-applaud-secs-navistar-decision-upholding-dodd-frank
The Teamsters filed the same proposal at Coca-Cola Enterprises, which petitioned the SEC for no-action to omit the golden parachutes proposal from their proxy materials based on the initial Navistar decision, says Louis Malizia, assistant director in the Teamsters Capital Strategies Department. We are confident the SEC will follow its reversal on Navistar and not grant CCE no-action, Malizia says.
http://www.complianceweek.com/sec-staff-reverses-ruling-on-teamsters-proposal/article/193829/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022461700
newmember
(805 posts)What I'm telling you that it's bull shit from the administration and it's not going to happen.
So stop pasting articles
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Holy shit man , I'm not disagreeing with the premise
What I'm telling you that it's bull shit from the administration and it's not going to happen.
So stop pasting articles"
...I'm not a "man." Secondly, I don't really give a shit what you disagree with, your attitude sucks and you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I'm even less interested in your predictions. You came in and dumped your transparent bullshit in the thread.
Enjoy your stay.
newmember
(805 posts)I go by past performance
"I don't buy into feel good stuff that's bull , you want to say I shit on it. I told the truth
I go by past performance"
...let me quote you: "Peddle this to some one that buys your bullshit"
ProSense
(116,464 posts)welcome you to DU. Longing for home?