2009.06.11
Executive pay
We're writing an editorial that will run on an unpecified date about the Obama administration's moves to rein in executive pay. In a nutshell, the administration's approach is laughably weak.
.....Advertisement.....
.....Advertisement.....
CHECK THIS OUT!
BREAKING NEWS
Upcoming Events
RSS feed 
The BHO administration is not going to bite the hand of people like George Soros (or however you spell it). Where do you think the campaign contributions came from? Why do you think BHO disdained federal matching funds in lieu of more lucrative private funds without the trappings? After he promised in campaigning he would not do that....
Comment by BobH — June 11, 2009 @ 11:42 am
you mean on executive pay....?
Comment by BUD — June 11, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
If the board of directors and share holders want to pay the CEO of a company that,say, makes Lays Potato Chips (for example), whatever they want to, what business is it of mine or the governments? Its their company, their product, their money.
Comment by wayne p — June 11, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Actually, it's the stockholders' money, produced by the entire workforce. What we need are better ways to ensure that all the shareholders have more control over the compensation of top executives.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 11, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Bill, aren't the Board of Directors already representatives of the stockholders?
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
In theory, you are exactly correct. In practice, just about like how Congress always does what's in the best interests of the citizens they represent.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 11, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
If "we" have no connection with the company, why do "we" need ANY way to ensure shareholders have more control over compensation. If I want a say in the company, I buy shares of their stock. If I work there and don't like the way executives are paid, I quit. Its a free country
Comment by wayne p — June 11, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Oh, Wayne. It must be so simple to live in your world.
Comment by Bill Bestpitch — June 11, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Wayne's World, sounds like a movie..."party on Garth". LOL
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Why is it any of my business what the shareholders of the Lays Potato Chip Company pays their CEO?
Comment by wayne p — June 11, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Is he going to do the same to Unions?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/jun/11/business-groups-dare-obama-to-limit-pay-for-unions/
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
The article only refers to recipients of TARP funding, in which case it's certainly our business how much these executives get. Every penny in their pockets delays their ability to pay back the government
It's surely at least as much our business as, say, Michelle Obama's clothing costs.
Comment by Kristen — June 11, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Kristen..as i understand it..the COMP CZAR will be looking at any publicly traded company...not just those taking bailout$$$.
Comment by BUD — June 11, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
extreme dislike for the term czar.....
Comment by pammala — June 11, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
"extreme dislike for the term czar....."
Better get used to it, Comrade Pammala.
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Richard Nixon named the first U.S. government czar in 1973, did you feel extreme dislike back then pammala and Patrick?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
No, Sandi, it's only be recently
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
I meant "been".
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
How many czars we got?? over 20?..who needs those pesky cabinet officials anyway..better to just bypass them and the oversight and redtape.
Comment by BUD — June 11, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Barney Frank, a bumbling, slobbering professional politician, who has never earned a nickel away from the public trough, is going to set standards for how much the men and women who run our industries and businesses, the greatest dynamic economy the world has ever known, should earn, not the shareholders and boards of directors of the people who own the businesses. An example of the government looking out for us
Comment by wayne p — June 11, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Yeah wayne p. I hear you, kinda like Halliburton Cheney and Oilman Bush setting America's energy policy with their former business pals, or draft deferred Cheney grunting his lying reasons to send our young people to die in Iraq, or a President who was a boozer into his 40's bringing integrity to the White House.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 11, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Does everyone who gets a government paycheck feed from the "public trough"? You realize this includes our entire military.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 6:33 am
at least they werent SOCIALISTS
Comment by pammala — June 12, 2009 @ 7:22 am
Neither is Obama or Biden.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 8:05 am
I forgot the reason I am not supposed to like the Halliburton Company.
Comment by wayne p. — June 12, 2009 @ 9:07 am
And they say an Elephant Never Forgets...
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 9:24 am
No Cheney isn't a socialist...he's not interested in funneling money to anyone but himself and his buddies. I guess that would make it socialism for the rich.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 9:51 am
Wonder if Obama has gotten around to cancelling all of those sole source contracts Halliburton received to provide logistics services in Iraq.
And if the reason gas prices have increased 60% since the first of the year is because now that Bush isn't president he has been holding secret meetings in Texas with Saudi sheiks to set America's energy policies without telling Obama
Comment by wayne p. — June 12, 2009 @ 11:12 am
"extreme dislike for the term czar....."
Better get used to it, Comrade Pammala.
Comment by Patrick — June 11, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
yep I know...
Neither is Obama or Biden.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 8:05 am
lol...well I think you are incorrect, it pretty obvious
Comment by pammala — June 12, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
I think she is too, pammala, but is too blinded by her adoration of the Glorious Leader and her hatred of Conservatives to see or admit it.
Comment by Patrick — June 12, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
Yes well we all know that the Czars were Russian, the Russians became communist, Obama names a Czar...ergo...Obama's a communist.
Patrick and Pammala...did I sum up your positions nicely?
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
I am genuinely sorry that you cannot handle facts. Obama and Biden are not Socialists in any sense of the word and it is the wrong pejorative to use for them. Liberal? Yes. Progressive, Yes. Socialist? No. I understand the visceral need to lash out and demean but when you do it with hyperbole and silly names it is not effective and undercuts your credibility not theirs.
I am blinded by nothing and no one. Obama is hardly a glorious leader and although I hate the rhetoric used by many Conservatives, there are also many who can articulate their points and their beliefs in a calm, rational insult lacking manner that I will listen to and respect if not completely agree with. They are not on this site, but I know they exist and I respect them.
Do not mistake returning insults for hatred. I am trying to prove the ineffectiveness of such tactics but there are some slow learners.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 12, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Patrick...
Your presumption that Sandi "hates" conservatives or anyone else for that matter is a bit over the top. I've never felt in reading Sandi's remarks on this site that she hates anyone.
She, like me, may disagree strongly with their position(s) but I don't hate anyone.
Your condecending reference to Obama, however, is predictable and sad. Perhaps you have a hatred of Liberals?
Comment by Will — June 12, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
the reason no one will truly challenge The Great Anointed One, is that he is of color and no one DARE to make any comment against one of color lest he/she be labled racists...oh my, isn't THAT racist as well ? It is in my book
Comment by pammala — June 12, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
Yes Pammala...in the United States being black has traditionally lent great advantage in terms of going 'unchallenged'.
Comment by Kristen — June 12, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
Will, sorry if you think it's over the top, but Sandi is very quick to sling insults when anyone dares question Obama or Liberal ideology.
I apologize if you think my referring to Obama as the "Glorious Leader" is condescending, but again, anytime someone here questions his actions, they are immediately slammed and denegrated.
And no, I don't hate Liberals...I feel sorry for them.
Comment by Patrick — June 12, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
me too Patrick, so uninformed and will believe anything CSB, ABC, NBC throws at them...oh well one day hope they see the light.
just read an article that the Great One wants to take funds away from medicare for sick and elderly to provide nationalized socialist insurance for illegals...there It goes
Comment by pammala — June 13, 2009 @ 6:46 pm
We will never really know what would happen if anyone simply challenged an Obama plan, policy or idea because you are not mature and secure enough to do so without a pejorative or massive insult. I meet fire with fire and as much as that rankles, I have no intention of stopping. I can and have discussed many issues without insult but I never refuse to return the favor.
You betray the validity of your argument or point if it cannot be delivered without insult and therefore it seems obvious that is the way you want to discuss an issue. You are always welcome to prove me wrong.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 13, 2009 @ 7:28 pm
Sandi, the very first time I took a look at this site it was apparent that YOU were quick to name call and throw insults at anyone who disagreed with you or questioned anything your beloved Obama does. It is so blatant that you are blind to it.
But that's OK, really it is. I'm sure you can't help it and do it without even thinking...as do so many liberals.
Attack, attack, attack.
Honestly? I find it quite amusing.
Comment by Patrick — June 13, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
Patrick, we all see what we want to see and conveniently ignore what we do not want to see. I suppose you believe that you and pammala offer lofty debate on the issues and big bad Sandi just shouts insults and calls you names for no good reason. I do not think the facts bear that out, but having been insulted for so long, perhaps I just read code language better than most. If either of you have a better game, bring it and we will discuss any issue you want without insult. But tit gets tat, that's just how I roll and make no apologies for it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 13, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
Don't worry Sandi, I don't see you as "Big, Bad, Sandi" at all.
Here's the deal, I have seen you insult, attack, and ridicule people I respect and honestly believe have done their best to make our country safe, yet expect me (and others) to stand idly by while you do so.
You have repeatedly told people who question Obama to "get over it", yet you refuse to do so yourself by constantly bashing the Bush administration.
Discuss any issue without insult? I honestly believe, Sandi, that you are incapable of doing so. The moment someone questions Obama or your beliefs, then the claws come out.
Have a good night.
Comment by Patrick — June 13, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Patrick, if I thought you had the moral or rhetorical high ground, that would all really hurt. However, on the off chance that it IS just MY inability to debate without insult that is dragging this blog down, I will move along and leave the highbrows to it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 14, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Wow Patrick! I wont ask you some over-the-top question like "oh have i told you lately just how much i love you??" as you may have seen on these threads before. But, I am so proud of you for not being afraid to stand up and refute others who spew messages of hate-filled vitriol. I wish I could give you a heartfelt handshake or a pat on the back and a hearty 'attaboy'.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — June 14, 2009 @ 9:49 pm