Posted on 02/01/2007 12:55:30 PM PST by shrinkermd
More than at any time in a decade, official Washington is focused on how to curb the gilded pay packages of corporate executives. The problem: It's not easy to legislate a pay cut for some of America's most powerful people.
It's clear that the issue has gained traction this month, thanks to public concern about income inequality, investor outrage over pay at companies such as The Home Depot, and the politics of a new Democratic Congress
...The recent signs include:
•As part of a minimum-wage hike under consideration in the US Senate, new taxes would be imposed on one important form of executive pay.
•Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, plans to introduce a bill to require public companies to put their executive compensation plans before shareholders for an annual vote.
•On Wednesday, President Bush used a podium on Wall Street to admonish corporate boards. "You need to pay attention," to see that top-level pay is tied to good performance, he said.
But this doesn't mean action regarding CEO pay will be easy or effective.
"It's going to be extremely difficult to limit in any manner or form," says Howard Silverblatt, an analyst at Standard & Poor's in New York.
The last time Congress tried, the effort backfired. A $1 million cap on salaries enacted in 1993 helped fuel a surge in non-salary pay – namely stock options – pushing total compensation for CEOs toward a record as the stock market peaked in 2000.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
One more step toward Socialism. Grrrrrrr. Why should it be the business of government how much money anyone makes?
Gee. And I thought this was the business of the share holders, not Congress.
I think the proposal to put pay packages before the stockholders for a vote is a good one. If the stockholders at the company I work for got to vote on our mgt's compensation they wouldn't have two nickels to rub together. Instead the executive committee gave themselves a 19% pay raise and fattened their stock options package.
And the "limited government conservative" President GWB is leading the charge. Any wonder the GOP is rudderless?
I actually agree with this one (even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then). Why shouldn't the owners of the company have a direct vote on huge salary packages that affect the bottom line? Most large companies are substantially owned by institutions (mutual funds, pension funds, etc.) who have more incentive to protect their investment than paid board directors who may only meet a couple times a year.
Important plan, how about we take it one step further and apply that same standard to the "stockholders" of the US. Let's all vote before Bawney Fwank can get another raise.
It shouldn't, except of the failure of fiduciaries to do their jobs.
It might be a good idea to let the stockholders vote on the saleries of their execs but at the same time it is not up to the government to be the ones to force the issue. This is a private business matter and is no business of the governments and they should keep their long noses out of it. This is a another inch down slippery slope leading to full time socialism.
Here's a question for the legislature and the President, and that is this: If it is so imperative that the people paying the saleries be allowed to vote on pay increase why are they not introducing bills that require the voters to approve pay raises and expenses for our officials in Washington and the states? This is something that is their business and something that should be done, but of course since it involves THEIR saleries they wouldn't think about passing a law giving us the right to limit and restrict their gravy. Somehow though they think it is their business to tell private business execs how much they can be paid! What hypocrites! I wish someone would call them on this, but we have no one of integrity left in government and certainly not in the msm.
Only if we get to vote the same day we file the tax return.
I'd agree with you, but once a business incorporates, it buys into the protections and obligations that the government defines. The obligation to inform and in many cases seek approval from public shareholders makes the business a safer investment, which in turn gives it better access to investment capital. If that's not a good deal for the company, they can stay private.
Excuse me Washington but how about taking aim at the border situation.
Well said fella!
I disagree. The government writes the law that allow publicly traded corporations to exist as "legal persons". It is precisely the government's job to regulate how they are formed, the rules they operate by, and the rights of shareholders within those entities. Such rules are needed to protect shareholders (remember Enron, Worldcom, etc?). That's not socialistic, it's a necessary for corporate capitalism because corporations are by nature amoral.
It seems that nowadays EVERYTHING is Congress's business!
Just what America needs. More government interference.
We need another wedge between people, we need another villain to be protected from.
This time its the evil CEO whose company decides how much they want to pay him. We need government to tell companies how to make sure that they are not paying their employees too much for what they do.
Yes, we need this.
Probably just the majority holders, I doubt the little guys have much say in anything.
I doubt the issue would get forced any other way.
I'm all for that!!! I think that what Barney and friends forget is that they are SERVENTS just like the guy that mows my lawn, and picks up my garbage.Nothing more, nothing less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.