SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
February, 04 2009, 11:20am EDT
Contact:
Sarah Anderson, tel: 202 234 9382 x 227, email: saraha@igc.org
Media Availability on New Bailout Pay Rules
Expert analysts welcome Obama restrictions as sign of progress, but say tougher limits are needed to stop bailout profiteering
WASHINGTON
Compensation experts with the
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) today called President Barack
Obama's
$500,000 cap on executive pay at some bailed-out companies a "small,
but
very welcome first step toward ending excessive executive compensation."
"After 30 years of escalating CEO pay, we finally have a president who
has
taken a concrete step toward limiting the dollars that are cascading
into
executive suites," notes Sarah
Anderson, lead author of Executive Excess, the
Institute's yearly
report that tracks the gap between CEO and worker pay. "But given the
level of
public outrage over the Wall Street bonus bonanza, the administration
should
have gone much further to stop bailout profiteering."
The key shortcoming of the administration plan is that the $500,000 pay
cap
will apply
to only a
handful of firms getting "exceptional assistance." In recent news
reports,
administration sources have argued that
troubled
banks would choose not to accept government assistance if broader pay
restrictions were imposed, for fear of losing key personnel.
But as IPS Senior Scholar Chuck
Collins points out, "The argument that super-sized paychecks are
necessary
to retain top talent doesn't hold water. It's that mentality that got
us into
this mess, as outrageous rewards encouraged outrageous behavior. Part
of the
solution to the crisis needs to be a new approach to compensation that
rewards
responsible business leadership."
"By arguing that companies wouldn't accept government assistance if
they had to
rein in executive pay, the administration is suggesting that the vast
majority
of companies getting bailouts don't really need the money," adds Collins. "That's not a winning argument
with taxpayers."
President Obama, in his remarks today, pledged to end the executive pay
"culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of
everybody else." But the pay curbs the President announced today, says
IPS
associate fellow Sam Pizzigati, only
begin the cultural change that's necessary to fix the failing U.S.
economy.
"So long as we tolerate these outrageous rewards, that outrageous
behavior -
the endless mergers that create workplace chaos, the downsizings and
outsourcings, the hammering of consumers with hidden fees - will
continue
unabated."
The Institute's pay experts favor a uniform cap for executive
pay that
would apply to all firms receiving bailout funds and all forms of
compensation.
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) and
several other
senators are behind a proposal to cap executive pay in bailed-out firms
at no
more than $400,000 - the salary of the President of the United States.
McCaskill has introduced the bill
as an amendment to the stimulus legislation.
Click here
for a more
detailed
analysis of the McCaskill bill and the executive pay provisions in the
TARP
reform bill recently approved by the House.
Encouragingly,
Obama
announced that these guidelines "are only the beginning of a long-term
effort"
and that they are "going to be taking a look at broader reforms."
In addition to stronger restrictions on bailout recipient pay, IPS
is
urging the Obama administration to support two specific steps that
could end
taxpayer subsidies for excessive executive compensation.
"The administration should ask Congress to deny all corporations tax
deductions on any executive pay that runs over 25 times the pay of a
company's
lowest-paid worker," says Anderson.
A generation ago, she notes, pay for most CEOs fell within a 25-to1
range. In
2007, top CEOs averaged 344 times average worker pay.The Obama
administration,
the Institute's experts propose, should make this same 25-to-1 pay
standard the
benchmark for any company that seeks a government procurement contract
or tax
break.
"No company that's getting our tax dollars should be paying its
executives
over 25 times what workers are receiving," says Pizzigati,
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. Her views on this issue have
appeared
recently in The Washington Post,
The New York Times,
and on Neil Cavuto's "Our World" on Fox News. Contact: saraha@igc.org,
tel: 202 234 9382 x 227.
Sam
Pizzigati
is an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
He recently commented on executive pay for "Geraldo at
Large" on Fox
News and "The Agenda with Steve Paikin"
(Canada's
Charlie Rose). Contact: editor@toomuchonline.org,
301 933 2710.
Chuck Collins
is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he
directs the
Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He has written extensively
on
executive pay and last year was the lead author of High
Flyers, a
report
on corporate jets. Contact: chuckcollins7@mac.com,
617 308 4433.
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
Top Medical Organizations Warn RFK Jr. Putting American Kids 'At Grave and Immediate Risk'
"Truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary... he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies," stated a new lawsuit.
Jul 07, 2025
Six major medical organizations on Monday filed a lawsuit against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. alleging he is putting American children at "grave and immediate risk" because of his policy on vaccines.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit—including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Massachusetts Public Health Association, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine—charged that Kennedy earlier this year made a "baseless and uninformed policy decision" when he removed vaccinations against Covid-19 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) official immunization schedule for "healthy" children and pregnant women.
The organizations emphasized that unless Kennedy's decision is reversed, "all children remain at grave and immediate risk of contracting a preventable disease" and further warned that it "exposes... vulnerable populations to a serious disease with potentially irreversible long-term effects and, in some cases, death."
The plaintiffs further charged that Kennedy's directive removing the Covid-19 vaccines from the immunization schedule was "but one example of the secretary's agenda to dismantle the longstanding... science- and evidence-based vaccine infrastructure that has prevented the deaths of untold millions of Americans."
The complaint then documented Kennedy's long history of statements and articles that have peddled false claims about the safety of vaccinations and pointed to his mass dismissals of staff at HHS and his appointment of likeminded vaccine critics to argue that "it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies."
Given this, the plaintiffs argued that Kennedy's decision to remove the Covid-19 vaccine from immunization schedules was "arbitrary and capricious" based on what they described as "vast and irrefutable evidence," including congressional testimony delivered by Kennedy in which he acknowledged that people shouldn't "be taking medical advice from me"; that Kennedy's directive directly contradicted an article published by the Food and Drug Administration days earlier stating that pregnancy was a condition that "increased a person's risk of severe Covid-19"; and that Kennedy did not identify specific recommendations from professional staff that he used as justification to restrict the availability of the vaccine.
Should courts find that Kennedy's decision was "arbitrary and capricious" as alleged by the plaintiffs, they would have the power to enjoin the policy under the Administrative Procedures Act, which was also employed recently to halt planned mass layoffs at HHS. The medical organizations urged courts to declare Kennedy's policy change "unlawful" and demanded "the restoration of the Covid vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and healthy children ages six months to 17 years" of age.
The medical organizations' lawsuit against Kennedy's vaccination policy comes at a time when infections of measles in the United States have hit a level not seen in more than three decades. The Washington Post, citing data from Johns Hopkins University, reported on Monday that there have been at least 1,277 confirmed cases of measles so far in the U.S. this year and the paper noted that this development "marks a public health reversal in defeating a highly contagious, vaccine-preventable disease as the anti-vaccine movement gains strength."
Keep ReadingShow Less
2% Wealth Tax on Just 3,000 Billionaires Could Raise $250 Billion a Year: Nobel Economists
"Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible."
Jul 07, 2025
Seven Nobel laureates on Monday published an op-ed advocating for "a minimum tax for the ultrarich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth," in the French newspaper Le Monde.
"They have never been so wealthy and yet contribute very little to the public coffers: From Bernard Arnault to Elon Musk, billionaires have significantly lower tax rates than the average taxpayer," wrote Daron Acemoglu, George Akerlof, Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz.
Citing pioneering research from the E.U. Tax Observatory, the renowned economists noted that "ultrawealthy individuals pay around 0% to 0.6% of their wealth in income tax. In a country like the United States, their effective tax rate is around 0.6%, while in a country like France, it is closer to 0.1%."
Although the "ultrawealthy can easily structure their wealth to avoid income tax, which is supposed to be the cornerstone of tax justice," the strategies for doing so differ by region, the experts detailed. Europeans often use family holding companies that are banned in the United States, "which explains why the wealthy are more heavily taxed there than in Europe—though some have still managed to find workarounds."
The good news is that "there is no inevitability here. Not only is it necessary to impose a stronger burden of justice on billionaires, but more importantly, it is possible," argued the economists, who say that taxing the overall wealth of the ultrarich, not just income, is the key.
The wealth tax approach, they wrote, "is effective because it targets all forms of tax optimization, whatever their nature. It is targeted, as it applies only to the wealthiest taxpayers, and only to those among them who engage in tax avoidance."
💡 "One of the most promising avenues is to introduce a minimum tax for the ultra-rich, expressed as a percentage of their wealth."Seven Nobel laureates in economics advocate for the Zucman tax in their latest op-ed.Read the full @lemonde.fr article 👇www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...
[image or embed]
— EU Tax Observatory (@taxobservatory.bsky.social) July 7, 2025 at 8:05 AM
The anticipated impact would be significant. As the op-ed highlights: "Globally, a 2% minimum tax on billionaire wealth would generate about $250 billion in tax revenue—from just 3,000 individuals. In Europe, around $50 billion could be raised. And by extending this minimum rate to individuals with wealth over $100 million, these sums would increase significantly."
That's according to a June 2024 report that French economist and E.U. Tax Observatory director Gabriel Zucman prepared for the Group of 20's Brazilian presidency—which was followed by G20 leaders' November commitment to taxing the rich and last month's related proposal from the governments of Brazil, South Africa, and Spain.
"The international movement is underway," the economists declared Monday, also pointing to recent developments on the "Zucman tax" in France. The French National Assembly voted in favor of a 2% minimum tax on wealth exceeding €100 million, or $117 million, in February—but the Senate rejected the measure last month.
The economists urged the European country to keep working at it, writing that "at a time of ballooning public deficits and exploding extreme wealth, the French government must seize the initiative approved by the National Assembly. There is no reason to wait for an international agreement to be finalized—on the contrary, France should lead by example, as it has done in the past," when it was the first country to introduce a value-added tax (VAT).
"As for the risk of tax exile, the bill passed by the National Assembly provides that taxpayers would remain subject to the minimum tax for five years after leaving the country," they wrote. "The government could go further and propose extending this period to 10 years, which would likely reduce the risk of expatriation even more."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Case Challenging Trump's 'Ideological Deportations' of Pro-Palestine Students Heads to Court
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Jul 07, 2025
The Trump administration, for the first time, had to defend its policy of deporting immigrants for their political views in court Monday.
A case filed by a group of professors will be heard in a Massachusetts federal court. The lawsuit challenges attempts by the Trump administration to arrest and remove foreign-born college students from the country based purely on their pro-Palestine speech.
Though hundreds of cases have been filed against the Trump administration since January, this is one of very few that has reached the trial phase.
The case was filed in March by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); AAUP's Harvard, NYU, and Rutgers campus chapters; and the Middle East Studies Association.
It is one of half a dozen other lawsuits filed following the arrest of Columbia graduate student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was abducted in the dead of night by plainclothes ICE officers and shipped to a detention center for nearly three months.
Khalil and several other students had their legal immigration status revoked not for having committed any crime, but because the Trump administration deemed their views at odds with the "foreign policy objective[s]" of the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the defendant in this case, has acknowledged stripping the legal status of hundreds of student protesters based on their speech.
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In a pre-trial brief, the group argued that this "ideological deportation policy" illegally discriminates against students and faculty based on their pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
"The First Amendment framework that applies is straightforward," the brief said. "If a regulation of speech discriminates based on content or viewpoint, then the regulation is 'presumptively unconstitutional' unless the government demonstrates that it is 'narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.'"
The plaintiffs argue that the intent behind the Trump administration's stripping of green cards and visas from legal holders was to punish speech they found disfavorable and to coerce others into silence.
"Noncitizen members of the AAUP have been chilled by these ideological deportations and forced to self-censor in a variety of different ways, and citizen members have been harmed as a result, because they have been deprived of the insights and engagement of their non-citizen students and colleagues," the brief said.
They cited examples of professors scrubbing their social media accounts to remove commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, abandoning research on the Middle East that could prove too "nuanced" for the administration's liking, and even cancelling international travel for academic opportunities for fear of being disallowed entry back into the country.
"The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like," said Andrew Manuel Crespo, a Harvard Law professor and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter.
The AAUP lawsuit marks the first time the Trump administration will defend its use of deportations for political speech in court. But it is not the first time the courts will rule on its attacks against higher education.
Courts have blocked the Trump administration's efforts to ban Harvard from hosting foreign students and strip its funding, saying the measures violated due process.
While the case over deportations deals with non-citizens, AAUP President Todd Wolfson said it has implications for free speech for everyone in America.
"The Trump administration is going after international scholars and students who speak their minds about Palestine, but make no mistake: they won't stop there," Wolfson said. "They'll come next for those who teach the history of slavery or who provide gender-affirming health care or who research climate change or who counsel students about their reproductive choices. We all have to draw a line together—as the old labor movement slogan says: an injury to one is an injury to all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular