What Happened to the Crackdown on Executive Pay?
Last February, amid public anger over millions in bonuses at bailed-out insurance giant AIG,
our top national political leaders rushed to express their outrage -
and even took some steps to place a lid on over-the-top executive pay.
That lid has now come off.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, with his just-released rules and proposals on executive pay, has essentially turned the specific executive pay limits that President Barack Obama
announced and Congress legislated this past winter into mushy
prescriptions that pose no real threat to the windfalls to which CEOs
have so thoroughly become accustomed.
Remember that $500,000 "cap" on executive compensation that the White House
announced back in February? That maximum has now become a minimum.
Under the new Treasury rules, a new federal pay czar will
"automatically approve" any paycheck from a troubled enterprise like
AIG that doesn't top half a million - and even allow with that paycheck
"additional compensation paid in the form of long-term restricted
stock."
None of this backpedaling on executive pay reform should
surprise us. Ever since the early 1980s, the years when pay for power
suits first started pirouetting up, up and away, the pattern has become
depressingly familiar. A CEO walks off with a windfall. A Wall Street
highflyer hits an unimaginably massive jackpot. Editorial writers
tut-tut. News magazines run cover stories about corporate greed.
Lawmakers hold hearings and earnestly insist on "pay for performance."
And nothing changes. The outrages just keep getting more outrageous.
Two
decades ago, a commentator labeled Warner Communications CEO Steve Ross
the "prince of pay." Mr. Ross was averaging, in the 1980s, all of $16
million a year.
In 1993, Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner took home $203 million. An outraged Business Week called
that sum the most any CEO "has made in a single year - or probably in
an entire career in the history of American business."
Four
years later, Mr. Eisner took home even more. He cashed out a stash of
stock options and cleared $565 million, the "biggest payday for an
executive in history," The Washington Post exclaimed.
These
days, that $565 million payday almost seems ordinary. In 2007, the
financial world's top 50 hedge fund managers averaged $581 million each.
We
need to end, and soon, this endless escalation of what our power suits
get to stuff in their pockets. We simply can't afford to continue down
the economic road we've been traveling.
Outrageously huge
rewards, the economic meltdown of the past year has made perfectly
plain, have no redeeming social value. They serve only to create
incentives for outrageous behavior. We need to start discouraging that
behavior - and we can. The best place to start: the federal tax code.
Right
now, our tax code actually encourages excessive executive pay. The more
companies shell out in executive bonuses and stock awards, for
instance, the more they can deduct off their taxes.
Consider,
for instance, Lockheed Martin, a company that feeds almost exclusively
off government contracts. Lockheed recently announced that its CEO took
home $26.5 million in 2008. Under current law, almost all of that $26.5
million qualifies as a tax deduction for the company.
One member of Congress, Rep. Barbara Lee
from California, is moving to end taxpayer subsidies for excessive
executive pay. Ms. Lee has introduced legislation, the Income Equity
Act, which denies corporations tax deductions on any executive
compensation that runs over $500,000 or 25 times the pay of a company's
lowest-wage worker.
Enacting this legislation, says Ms. Lee,
"would discourage skyrocketing pay at the top and encourage companies
to raise the pay of workers at the bottom."
That pay at the
bottom desperately needs raising. Average Americans today, after
adjusting for inflation, are making less in weekly wages than they made
back in the 1970s.
And that's no accident. For three decades
now, America's corporate aristocrats have "performed" - and pocketed
personal fortunes - by attacking the well-being of average Americans.
Over those years, they've downsized workers and outsourced jobs.
They've gutted pensions and benefits. They've hollowed out our middle
class.
We need to start heading in a different direction. And quick.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
15 Comments so far
Show AllThe solution to this dilemma of unrestrained corporate and executive greed is simple: tax corporate profits and executive salaries at the same rate as the wages of their workers with no loopholes. What could be more fair and at the same time more effective in putting a stop to such unrestrained greed?
Poet
I wonder if you fully understand what you have written here. I thought the prevailing idea in these parts was to tax the executive *many times more* than the "workers".
In a more ideal world, that would be the best course of action. The principle being that those who have benefited that much more from the commons provided by government ought to pay proportionatly more for the privilige.
However, in the world of the Beige Bush (that would be Barack Obama) just parity would be a step forward--particularly with corporate earnings which are notoriously un or undertaxed in the US.
Poet
"In a more ideal world, that would be the best course of action."
And given the high tax rate in the US for corporate profits compared to other nations, as well as the progressive rates for individual income, we already have that. What remains are loopholes, and I imagine we can agree that we should eliminate that. Doing so has the additional effect of simplifying the code, which should lead to lower tax accounting costs.
I had this idea on another topic but I think this one also deserves the same. If we switch to local currency, top executives won't be as lucky to be earning obscenely high pay rates and raises since there would be a strict limit due to geographic limitations. Thank you Moondoggy on your suggestion from earlier posts on doing away with national currency and going local on currency. Washington needs to be punished monetarily and made to sit in the corner by making their national currency local since it's now too worthless thanks to endless borrowing from China !
Executives are people too and they have every right to make however much they want to. If it weren't for them, jobs wouldn't be created. How much more unemployment do you pantywetting socialists want, 50%? 70% ? If you want to be rich as an executive, then shut your yapping and learn to be a bulldog working up the ladder like I did.
Yes, of course, the "too big to fail" executives.
"What Happened to the Crackdown on Executive Pay?"
These guys are reporters for The Baltimore Sun? Seriously?
Guess they didn't get the April memo containing the answer to their stupid question:
"Frankly, they own the place."
Am I the only one sick of reading pieces that simply ignore the above, clear-cut reality?
All governments, all piss and wind.
"And nothing changes. The outrages just keep getting more outrageous."
______________________________________
Anyone whose eyes were not blinded by ignorance or swimming with Hope® got a crystal-clear "message" from Obama when he enthusiastically pimped the (first) "bailout".
Before the election, there were many issues on which Obama forbore, or muted, criticism and direct involvement on the grounds that he didn't want to prematurely weigh in because "there's only one President"; i.e., he claimed it was improper to take public positions on matters of immediate concern to the incumbent lame-duck.
Not so with the bailout!
On that occasion, Obama telegraphed that he was no True Friend of the Little Guy, as wishful hordes of supporters believed.
(All the while, those selfsame Obamaniacs paradoxically argued that it was the responsibility of we Little Guys to hold our True Friend's cloven feet to the fire to "make" him respect our wishes and will. Some True Friend! But that's another story.)
Obama either tipped his hand or consciously disclosed that he was actually a True Friend of the Banksters. Practically his first act in office was to outsource the US Treasury and turn it into a division of Goldman-Sachs.
Holding banksters to account and taking a hard-line reformer's approach to the banksters' corporate community and culture of unbridled, vicious greed and selfishness is the LAST thing Obama intends. No, the astonishing news from this ostensible True Friend of the Little Guy is that it is only the Little Guy who is expected to sacrifice and suffer for the banksters' sins.
Where there's a will, there's a way. Here, there's no "top-down" political will to injure, punish, or in any way interfere with the orgy of venality in which Obama and his administration are participants, partners, and beneficiaries.
· Yr Obd't Servant
What you said.
Well, golly gee, if we cap executive pay and bonuses then what are the Wall Street firms going to do with all of that bailout money?
q
They'll buy Viagra, lots of Viagra. You know that guys that have to flaunt material stuff like the Wall Streeters do, must have tiny units that don't work anymore...
New Corporate jets?????
Good, Bombardier needs the business. They have over 20 units in storage.