Obama Calls for Checks on Executive Pay

[NYCGirl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11/obama-calls-for-checks-on_n_96222.html

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is demanding that company shareholders have a say in how much executives get paid as he pushes his populist message.

Obama, in remarks he planned to make to reporters Friday morning, wants Congress to pass legislation he has sponsored that would require corporations to have a nonbinding vote by shareholders on executive compensation packages.

Under Obama's legislation, shareholders could not veto a compensation package offered to an executive and would not place limits on pay. Rather, they would have a means to publicly express their position.

A similar bill passed the House last year.

The Illinois senator's comments come as he embarks on the third day of a four day-swing through Indiana, which holds its primary May 6. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are running even in the state and have both been making economic pitches to voters.

"This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama says in prepared remarks. "It's about changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not just good for themselves."

[SoonerPride]

1. About damn time.

I'd go further than he does.

I'd limit executive pay to matching teacher salaries.

But that woudn't fly in America.

[NYCGirl]

2. Your idea is very interesting.

But you're right — it wouldn't fly.

[SoonerPride]

7. I've advocated a max pay no more than teachers make for everyone in the US

That means doctors, movie stars, stock brokers.

Even the President of the US.

No one should make more than teachers. Not one person.

I'm not one, but I know that I was damn lucky to have some good ones. It made a huge difference in my life.

If they were paid the most, you could attract even more dedicated, stunningly talented professionals to build the nation to great heights.

Instead we reward sexy women with boob jobs and halfwits.

And our nation crumbles from without and within.

Oh,well. I'm a dreamer and a crank.

[DangerDave921]

8. Not realistic

OK, so you pay the head of a company $47k a year. Wouldn't all the salaries for folks below him go down in proportion?

[SoonerPride]

12. Or, you could pay teachers $2,000,000

And everyone else makes less by law.

Not realistic, I know.

But that is how I'd run the country if I were king for a day.

[DangerDave921]

21. LOL

That would be great. Watch all the college eggheads switch their majors from law and medicine and finance to EDUCATION. Imagine that.

If I were King, I would ordain Salma Hayek as my Queen. Or at least concubine.

[papau]

34. no tax deduction for non-performance plan salary over $1 million has not worked so I'd

like to see a progressive excise tax (from 10 to 30%%) on all salaries over 20 times the average per worker pay in the prior year - with the 30% kicking in at $10 million per year, paid by the company, with the rate reduce in half if the pay was based on performance of the stock -

it is about time we note that hired management should not be paid as if they owned the company.

[LisaM]

3. Shareholders? How about WORKERS?

Gearing everything to the shareholders created a lot of the disparate wage problems to begin with.

[The Magistrate]

4. Meaningless Without Teeth, Ma'am

And this is a matter that desperately needs addressing. We are already too far for comfort on the trajectory that leads to one man with a million dollars and a million men with one dollar. Democratic rule is impossible in such a situation: the social order must be ruthlessly authoritarian, and revolution the only remedy available.

[NYCGirl]

5. It's a start, Sir. NT

[dflprincess]

9. It's just pandering

n/t

[NYCGirl]

11. He's already sponsored the legislation. NT

[dflprincess]

20. Legislation with no teeth

Perhaps next he'll introduce a bill declaring puppies cute.

[The Magistrate]

14. True Enough, Ma'am

And any journey, as the Sage observed long ago, must begin with a single step. But a good long stride is preferable, and this is hardly that....

[Tellurian]

27. Exactly, that if people overlook the "nonbinding" language in the bill..

Some will not realize or understand how that little word affects the bill itself. Same with the only Bill Obama has ever had passed, his "Ethics" Legislation. Meaningless because it is toothless.

[DangerDave921]

6. Clarify

Ruthlessly authoritarian? You really want a government with that trait? Better hope you have friends in the government then! I don't wany any government being ruthlessly authoritarian.

Also, is Obama in favor of limiting the embarassment of riches some ex-presidents make? LOL

[The Magistrate]

10. You Might, Sir, want To Re-Read My Comment....

[DangerDave921]

22. Just did, Sir.

I guess I don't see what you're really trying to say, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

28. Simply, Sir

That where disparities of wealth are too great, democratic rule is impossible, and authoritarian structure necessary to maintain the inequity, a situation in which no remedy but bloody revolution can exist. A degree of 'flatness' in the distribution of wealth is essential to a democratic system. This is one of the great tensions between democracy and 'free markets'. It is a particularly delusionary item of rightist ideology that 'free markets' and democracy are identical and that the former are essential to the latter. The fact is that since 'free markets' always operate over time to concentrate wealth in fewer and fewer, but ever more bulging, pockets, they are over time fatal to democracy.

[thevoiceofreason]

19. It goes back to one concept - corporations are governmental creations

So, a federal law requiring that a corporation's board of directors have 50% of its makeup comprised of its workers would be perfectly doable. The government allows corporations to exist (done at the state level). So, government can regulate corporations - even in regard to their internal machinations.

By the way, Germany has such a law regarding corporate governance.

[The Magistrate]

30. Absolutely, Sir

The 'personhood' of corporations is a deep flaw in our system, in my view.

"Our modern corporations have neither bodies to be kicked nor souls to be damned."

[Hieronymus]

37. So, WTF?

[Ilithiad]

13. I just wanted to....

comment on your picture of Obama and Clooney....Clooney is good at robbing casinos. Obama does not need any help getting campaign contributions.

[NYCGirl]

15. OK

Rimshot! Don't forget to tip your waiter!

:rofl:

[crispini]

16. Weehee! About fuckin time!

Not enough, but it's a start! Kick and R!

[anonymous171]

17. Awesome!

[AtomicKitten]

18. K&R

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

25. Hi, AK!

:hi:

[redqueen]

23. K& 5th R!

:D

[Beaverhausen]

24. SO, this bill gives shareholders the right to "express their position" but nothing to limit pay

OK, that's pretty useless in my opinion.

How many people even read the entire OP? Looks like very few.

[NYCGirl]

26. But shareholders have the power to throw out executives. NT

[DangerDave921]

41. Opinion

And we can voice an opinion that Bush should resign. Did it work?

I think most shareholders (as opposed to workers) are fine with multi-million dollar salaries as long as the stock price keeps rising.

And no, I doubt most readers read the whole post.

[PghTiny]

29. How about a 100% income tax bracket?

And treat all income the same, earned and unearned. If the Social Security tax limit is lifted, then the rate can be lowered so that it sums to 100%.

[DangerDave921]

38. So . . .

100% of income over a certain amount would go to the government? That's hard to justify.

Maryland just passed a millionaire tax. If you earn over $1 million a year, you get hit with an extra 6% tax.

[cottonseed]

31. I'd rather see a top top marginal tax rate in the range of 70%.

[Writer]

32. This is a good idea, but I'm wondering how this would work.

Because every time I receive a proxy ballot in the mail, I typically toss it. Perhaps I shouldn't, but normally those people who hold the highest number of shares have the most say directly with the board itself, and I wouldn't be surprised if those are the people who end up dictating what those salaries would/should be. Would that necessarily be a good thing?

I remember telling some conservative blowhards online some years ago that if they continue to push the line between corporate interests and workers' rights, that there will be a backlash, and it wouldn't be pretty. They scoffed, but I'm laughing now as I read the ideas from both Obama and Clinton.

[TahitiNut]

33. It'd be more effective to make executive compensation an AFTER-TAX expense.

I think it's unreasonable to treat that compensation as a "labor" expense. It's akin to an owner depleting a company's assets for short-term personal gain.

[QC]

35. Excellent point, but the purpose here is not to deal with excessive compensation

but to give the appearance that one is dealing with it.

[dflprincess]

40. Exactly

This legislation does nothing and, contrary to what some posters think, it's not even a start - it's a smokescreen.

[LSparkle]

36. GOOD FOR HIM! I'm for Japan's custom re pay

That the highest-paid person at a company cannot make more than X times the pay of the
lowest-paid employee. We as a society ought to be pushing something like this, as opposed
to adopting the "greed is good" mantra. A talented person can find numerous ways to bring
in additional sources of income, but when it comes to a basic executive' job, his salary
ought not to be outrageously out of line with those of the majority of the employees at
his company.

[rinsd]

39. Its a start.

This should be relatively easy to get thru especially since it has already passed the House.

[Bake]

42. A crappy, waste-of-time, toothless idea.

Yay. A nonbinding vote of shareholders. Shareholders who, for the most part, are institutional investors anyway and hence part of the upper crust already.

More rhetoric without substance from Obama.

Bake