Bush assails 'income inequality'

Washington Times ^ | February 1, 2007 | Stephen Dinan

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

President Bush yesterday said there is a growing "income inequality" gap between rich and poor Americans, and told companies they should rethink the giant compensation packages they offer top executives.

The markedly populist message, a divergence from the past, in which Mr. Bush has accused critics of practicing class warfare, was all the more noteworthy given his venue -- a speech at Federal Hall in New York, in the middle of Wall Street, the capital of capitalism.

But the president called for conservative market-based answers, including demanding that Congress renew trade-promotion authority, which allows him to negotiate trade agreements then present them to Congress in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion.

Mr. Bush said he expects a bruising debate before his current trade-promotion authority expires July 1.

"Bashing trade can make for good sound bites on the evening news," Mr. Bush said. "But walling off America from world trade would be a disaster for our economy. Congress needs to reject protectionism."

In what was billed as his update on the state of the U.S. economy, Mr. Bush took credit for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, promised to submit a budget next week that eliminates the deficit in 2012, and asked Congress to give him a version of line-item veto authority.

"When people across the world look at America's economy, what they see is low inflation, low unemployment and the fastest growth of any major industrialized nation," he said. "There is one undisputed leader in the world in terms of economy, and that's the United States of America."

But Democrats said Mr. Bush's rosy picture of the overall economy was out of focus.

[Madeleine Ward]

OH please,

how many Americans go to bed at night thinking CEOs get paid too much, and it's ruining their American dream.

This sounds just like something out of the Democratic playbook

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

You disagree that some CEOs get paid too much, in some cases even when they do bad work?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't go to bed at night thinking about it, but every time I hear of a guy at a company losing money who gets fifty million bucks to leave, it does annoy me.

[what's up]

You mean the middle class who have increased their economic fortunes greatly during a booming economy, who have seen home values go up hugely the past few years, who have also benefitted from a lower cap gains tax?

That middle class?

[Mr.Unique]

You gathered ALL that from a tag line?

[Madeleine Ward]

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about SOME CEOs.

The CEO is paid what the company wants to pay him or her.

If they do a crappy job, they lose their jobs.

[CottShop]

Agreed- Companies, in my opinion, should take those huge bonuses and spread them out amoung the people lower on the rung- the very people who ENABLE their superiors to do their jobs effectively- I think superiors should be rewarded for jobs well done, but my gosh- it's the people working under them that make or break the company as well- share the winfalls more equally- this creates job appreciation amoung the workers rather than an atmosphere of contempt.

The following link does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com

[Madeleine Ward]

Who got paid $50 million bucks to leave his/her company as severance pay? Who is this CEO?

And if it annoys you, then buy some stock in the company and voice your opinion.

And if you really expend any energy on being annoyed by a CEO's severance package, then you're just looking for things to be bent out of shape about.

The point here is: The President doesn't need to make CEO salaries a political issue.

[what's up]

The CEO is paid what the company wants to pay him or her

This is generally what the President is also advocating. He's just calling for more information to be given to the shareholders in order to make their decisions.

And he's just stating an opinion, not calling for Gov't action.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

On another thread (about Mexico) a freeper mentioned that Mexico functions in much the same way--and that the United States worked in another way and is more successful because of it.

The idea was that in the USA, a business leader pulls his employees up with him, while in Mexico there is a small, super-rich elite who have a bunch of "dirt-poor" people working for them. Because of this (at least partially), the United States is much more successful/developed than Mexico.

[rattrap]

I could have sworn there was an R beside his name when I voted for him. I need to make an appointment with the eye doctor...

[LIConFem]

In the 22 years since my career began, I never once concerned myself with how much someone else was being compensated or whether they deserved that compensation. If I had any complaints at all, it was that someone's poor work was interfering with my own. And whenever I found myself unhappy for any reason, I simply found myself a better gig.

In perpetuating this "income inequality" nonsense, Bush is only reinforcing the perception among some workers that they're not being treated "fairly". It's a crock, plain and simple. If I'm being paid market for my work, I don't care how much the CEO makes.

[livius]

That would sure set the CEO quaking in his Guccis!

[outofstyle]

Agreed- Companies, in my opinion, should take those huge bonuses and spread them out among the people lower on the rung- the very people who ENABLE their superiors to do their jobs effectively-

The great thing about capitalism is that you have the opportunity to create your own successful company and spread out those huge bonuses as you see fit. However, many very successful companies have chosen to highly reward their chief executives. I think our president ought not weigh in on this issue and I am disappointed at his comments.

[CottShop]

Don';t get me wrong- I believe that for the most part this is true- however, when CEO's are getting 100 million dollar bonuses while employees are only getting a few thousand, there's a huge divide and tensions rise. Yeah, we're much better off than Mexico for sure, but how many bonuses do low wage workers get who work for billion dollar companies? How about the vinyard workers who work for Nancy Pelosi as compared to the 'oversee'rs? The low wagers will always be low wagers while the COE's proft handsomely.

Again though- you're right- many companies do hadsomely reward everyone- not saying that most compainies don't- didn't mean to leave that impression-

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

The comment wasn't a disagreement with yours.

[CottShop]

Yeah- I agree- the President shouldn't be meddling & it should be a companies descision- I'm not at all for regulation in this matter- Nor am I even upset at companies that choose not to help their low wage workers better- they have a right to do what they want (until the democrats get greedy and tax them to death) - just pointing out really that inequality in bonuses does cause tensions.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Remind me again why I voted for him, twice.

[CottShop]

woops- lol - I'm tired I guess- carry on.

[Uncle Miltie]

The article title is a lie:

"Bush assails 'income inequality'

Here are the relevant quotes:

"The fact is that income inequality is real; it's been rising for more than 25 years," he said, adding that he sees the dividing line as between those with good educations and those without.

He also challenged businesses to "step up to their responsibilities."

"They need to pay attention to the executive-compensation packages that you approve. You need to show the world that America's businesses are a model of transparency and good corporate governance," he said.

Bush does not in any of these quotes "Assail Income Inequality." He notes it. He remonstrates bad Boards of Directors failing to exercise their fiduciary responsibilty.

But Bush does not say income inequality is wrong or needs to be fixed.

The article is a LIE.