September, 26 2008, 03:17pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sarah Anderson, Director of the Global Economy Project
saraha@igc.org, tel: 202 234 9382 x 227
Executive Pay Experts Critique Latest Details of Financial Bailout
Institute for Policy Studies Analysts Warn Against Giving Treasury Secretary Power to Decide What’s “Excessive”
WASHINGTON
This week, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave up
his
opposition to including executive pay restrictions in the proposed $700
billion
financial sector bailout. But serious weaknesses, note executive
compensation
experts with the Institute for Policy Studies, remain in the proposals
that
Democratic leaders in Congress are advancing.
Democratic Leadership Proposals
Draft proposals from Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chair of the House
Financial
Services Committee, and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate
Banking
Committee, would allow Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to determine
what
qualifies as "inappropriate or excessive" executive compensation.
(See Section 9 of the Frank
proposal and Section 17 of the Dodd
proposal.)
"Secretary Paulson amassed a personal stock stash worth over
three-quarters of
a billion dollars as the CEO at Goldman Sachs," says IPS analyst Sarah
Anderson. "He hardly strikes us as the appropriate arbiter of what's
excessive
and what's not."
The nation, Anderson
adds, needs clear and strict limits on CEO pay "so that taxpayers won't
have to
worry about their money flooding into the pockets of top executives and
encouraging another round of reckless behavior."
The Democratic leadership executive pay proposals do contain laudable
provisions to ban over-the-top severance deals ("golden parachutes") as
well as
clawback mechanisms to recoup compensation based on inaccurate earnings
reports. But these proposals don't speak to what ought to be job one of
executive compensation reform: ending windfall pay incentives.
"The most fundamental problem isn't what boards of directors pay CEOs
who
fail," notes IPS Associate Fellow Sam Pizzigati, "The problem is what
boards
pay CEOs to get them to succeed. Outrageously high rewards give
executives an
incentive to behave outrageously."
"If the bailout lets corporate boards continue to float mega-million
rewards as
incentives, Pizzigati explains, executives will continue to do whatever
it
takes to grab those rewards."
Other Congressional Proposals to Cap
Executive Pay Levels
Several members of Congress have proposed tougher executive pay
restrictions
than those that appear in the Dodd and Frank proposals.
On the Presidential campaign trail, Sen. John McCain (D-Az.) has called
for
capping compensation for bailed-out executives at the current
compensation of
the federal government's highest-paid employee. That employee, the
President,
currently makes $400,000.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has proposed a$2 million cap,
while Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) has advocated a $1
million cap on "plain vanilla" salary compensation.
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has
promoted
a measure
in the financial bailout legislation that would place a cap on the
corporate
tax deductibility of executive pay at all companies participating in
the
bailout.
Under the Baucus proposal, companies would not be allowed to deduct
over
$400,000 from their corporate income taxes for each of their top five
executives.
The Baucus proposal would be a good first step toward ending taxpayer
subsidies
for excessive CEO pay. His initiative reflects the pending Income
Equity Act
(HR 3876), legislation introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that
would
deny tax deductions to all companies, across the board, for any
executive pay
over 25 times what a company's lowest-paid worker makes.
The $400,000 deductibility cap in the Baucus proposal amounts to 25
times the
pay of a worker making $16,000.
The downside to the Baucus proposal: If not combined with other
restrictions,
this deductibility cap would allow companies to continue paying their
executives whatever they please. That's not what an American public
outraged by
CEO pay excess expects to see.
Institute for Policy Studies Proposal
Ideally, the IPS CEO pay analysts believe, Congress should approve a
bailout
package that includes both the Baucus proposal to cap the tax
deductibility of
executive pay as well as a ceiling on total compensation.
For both measures, IPS executive pay experts favor a ratio approach
over a
fixed dollar amount. They are calling on lawmakers to set the bar for
excessive
executive pay as any compensation over 25 times the pay of a firm's
lowest-paid
worker.
Peter Drucker, the founder of modern management science, believed that
companies that pay their executives over 25 times what their workers
make risk
endangering enterprise morale and productivity, as this
recent appreciationof Drucker's work in Business Week makes
plain.
In the end, the IPS executive pay experts emphasize, the bailout
package
lawmakers adopt will only discourage future reckless executive behavior
if the
package includes clear and concrete restrictions on executive pay, be
these
restrictions set as a ratio or at a fixed dollar figure.
Any bailout that leaves the definition of executive excess up to
Treasury
officials, IPS notes, will leave CEO pay practices nearly as
dysfunctional and
dangerous to our economic well-being as they have been.
Footing the Bailout Bill
IPS analysts have also been focusing on a related bailout question: Who
will
pay the bailout bill?
"The U.S.
public wants Wall Street speculators and wealthy CEOs to pay for the
mess they
have created," points out IPS senior scholar Chuck Collins. "We should
institute a securities transaction tax, a surcharge on incomes over $5
million,
and press for full financial disgorgement of responsible parties. We've
identified $900 billion worth of revenue-generating proposals."
The Institute's ten-point plan to pay for the bailout appears online at
www.ips-dc.org/article/740#.
Includes: $40 billion for financial
discouragement: $100 billion from Securities Transaction Cost; and $20
billion
by eliminating taxpayers subsidies for excessive CEO pay.
Contacts:
Sarah Anderson is the Director of the Global Economy Project at the
Institute
for Policy Studies and a co-author of 15 IPS annual reports on
executive
compensation. Contact: saraha@igc.org, tel: 202 234 9382 x
227. Cell:
202 299
4531.
Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies
where he
directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He was a
co-founder of
United for a Fair Economy, and his latest book, the co-authored The
Moral
Measure of the Economy, appeared earlier this year. Contact:
chuckcollins7@mac.com,
617 308 4433.
Sam Pizzigati is an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy
Studies and
the author of Greed and Good: Understanding and Overcoming the
Inequality That
Limits Our Lives (Apex Press, 2004). He edits Too Much, on online
weekly on
excess and inequality. Contact: editor@toomuchonline.org,
301 933 2710.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
LATEST NEWS
In Blow to Koch and Exxon, Federal Judges Say Minnesota Climate Suit Belongs in State Court
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," said one advocate.
Mar 24, 2023
Minnesota on Thursday scored a significant procedural win in a lawsuit seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for lying to consumers about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and thus worsening the deadly climate crisis.
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with a lower court that the state's climate fraud lawsuit against the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries can proceed in state court, where it was filed.
"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments," said Wiles. "After years of Big Oil's delay tactics, it's time for the people of Minnesota to have their day in court."
Fossil fuel corporations have known for decades that burning coal, oil, and gas generates planet-heating pollution that damages the environment and public health. But to prolong extraction and maximize profits, the industry launched a disinformation campaign to downplay the life-threatening consequences of fossil fuel combustion.
"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments."
Dozens of state and local governments have filed lawsuits arguing that Big Oil's longstanding effort to sow doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change—and to minimize the fossil fuel industry's leading role in causing it—has delayed decarbonization of the economy, resulting in widespread harm.
Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, along with 35 municipalities in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have sued fossil fuel giants in an attempt to hold them financially liable for misleading the public about the destructive effects of greenhouse gas emissions from their products.
"Minnesota is not the first state or local government to file this type of climate change litigation," the Eighth Circuit declared Thursday. "Nor is this the first time" that fossil fuel producers have sought to shift jurisdiction over such suits from state courts to federal court, where they believe they will be more likely to avoid punishment.
"But our sister circuits rejected them in each case," the federal appeals court continued. "Today, we join them."
According to the Center for Climate Integrity, "Six federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have now unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid climate accountability trials in state courts."
Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice moved for the first time to support communities suing Big Oil by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Exxon and Suncor Energy's request to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to go forward in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He's Threatening Prosecutors With Violence': Trump Warns of 'Death and Destruction' If Indicted
"Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said one ethics watchdog. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
Mar 24, 2023
Government watchdogs on Friday said former President Donald Trump has potentially placed himself in even more legal jeopardyafter he threatened violence if he's charged in a criminal case in New York.
Shortly after midnight on Friday, Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, that potentially "catastrophic" violence would result if he is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury.
"What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, and also known that potential death and destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?" Trump said.
He also called Manhattan Attorney General Alvin Bragg "a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the USA."
Bragg's office has presented a grand jury with evidence related to alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, years after the former president allegedly had a sexual relationship with Daniels.
Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said in 2018 that he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels. He was reimbursed in 2017 by the Trump Organization.
The former president has made several public statements about the case against him in recent days, saying last weekend that he expected to be indicted on Tuesday and calling for a "protest" in New York, and posting an image in social media on Thursday showing Trump holding a baseball bat next to Bragg's head.
His call for "death and destruction" is his most explicit statement about potential violence, said critics including government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"He's not being subtle, he's threatening prosecutors with violence... Trump got his supporters to attack the government once," said CREW, referring to Trump's encouragement of his supporters to attend the rally at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 that turned into a violent insurrection aimed at overturning his election loss. "He's making it clear that if he's arrested, he's going to try to do it again."
The group added that Trump's threats of violence "are admissible in court."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) called on Republicans to clearly "condemn and oppose" Trump's calls for violence, to avoid another violent uprising in his defense.
"Donald Trump's incitement of violence is more direct, explicit, dangerous now than it was before January 6th," said Beyer. "Republican leaders cannot ignore this or wish it away."
According toThe Washington Post, the grand jury is next scheduled to meet on Monday at the earliest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Minnesota Nuclear Plant Shuts Down After New Leak Near Mississippi River
Federal regulators said they are monitoring groundwater for a radioactive compound following the leak.
Mar 24, 2023
The operator of a Minnesota nuclear power plant said the facility would be taken offline Friday to repair a new leak near the Mississippi River, an announcement that came a week after the company and state officials belatedly acknowledged a separate leak that occurred in November.
Xcel Energy insisted in a statement Thursday that the leak at its Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant poses "no risk to the public or the environment," but a team of federal regulators is monitoring the groundwater in the area amid concerns that radioactive materials—specifically tritium—could wind up in drinking water.
Valerie Myers, a senior health physicist with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told a local CBS affiliate that "there are wells between the ones that are showing elevated tritium and the Mississippi that are not showing any elevated levels."
"We are watching that because the ground flow is toward the Mississippi," added Myers.
The Associated Pressreported Friday, that "after the first leak was found in November, Xcel Energy made a short-term fix to capture water from a leaking pipe and reroute it back into the plant for re-use."
"However, monitoring equipment indicated Wednesday that a small amount of new water from the original leak had reached the groundwater," the outlet noted. "Operators discovered that, over the past two days, the temporary solution was no longer capturing all of the leaking water, Xcel Energy said."
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health said in a statement that they "have no evidence at this point to indicate a current or imminent risk to the public and will continue to monitor groundwater samples."
"Should an imminent risk arise, we will inform the public promptly," the agencies said. "We encourage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has regulatory oversight of the plant's operations, to share ongoing public communications on the leak and on mitigation efforts to help residents best understand the situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.