Posted on 12/26/2007 1:15:28 PM PST by LowCountryJoe
You've probably seen Huckabee rail against CEO pay (if you haven't, see here and here, but until now, Huckabee has not been clear about what exactly he would do about CEO pay if he were President. Yesterday, CNBC's John Harwood asked Mike Huckabee just that.
HUCKABEE: It’s a combination. It’s when one person losing his job who helped make the company successful and the person who steers the company either into bankruptcy or selling off it in pieces is taking that golden parachute of several hundred million dollars. I mean, there’s just something wrong about that, and every American knows it, whether he’s at the top or bottom. What the government ought to do is, first of all, call attention to it, put some spotlight on it. I don’t think it’s about coming up with some new regulation. Corporate boards ought to show some responsibility. If a board allows that kind of thing to happen, shame on that board. And I would hope that it wouldn’t necessitate additional laws and regulation because usually when you get into regulation, it just gets worse and it makes it [an] even bigger problem than you had to begin with.
HARWOOD: So you wouldn’t actually do anything about it as the head of the government? You would simply use the pulpit to talk about it?
HUCKABEE: That would be the first line of maybe offense, perhaps John. And then what I would like to see is the corporate board showing responsibility with an understanding that if they don’t start showing some responsibility, then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it.
Huckabee's response is emblematic of his governing approach. He claims government is not the answer, but, at the end of the day, he is willing to use government to achieve the results he deems morally necessary. Notice also how Huckabee inoculates himself, arguing that he would be forced to impose government regulations because of inaction on the part of corporate boards. It is a clever political gambit that allows him to claim opposition to new regulations in principle, while he imposes them left and right because others are "forcing" him to do so.
The question Mitt Romney should have asked of Mike -- after Mike's question of Mitt's -- is whether or not he (Huckabee) was brothers with Judas.
IMHO its up to the shareholders. If they are stupid enough to pay someone hundred of millions to ruin their share value then that is their right.
Or should we pass a federal law tying company performance to CEO pay?
Nevertheless, greed is a human failing that can hit anyone. The more power you have the more opportunity you have to take advantage of others. That's why there must be rules that everyone plays by. Things won't be equal becuase risk, talent, effort, etc. are not equal. Fair is when you play by the rules, not when the outcome is to your liking.
How can someone make too much money in a capitalist country?
Huckabee’s dislike of the market is telling.
Just like Pres. Bush...
Huh?
Yes exactly.
Notice how Huckabee actually says that government action is "the worst thing that could happen" that "exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it".
Soloveichik is obviously trying to distort Huckabee's message. Huckabee is advocating good corporate governance, not federal intervention.
If I had a CEO who was running my company into the ground I’d make him break rocks in the hot sun for $20 million a year rather than buy out his contract. The problem is when CEO’s get total control of the board they can dictate their own terms.
LOL. Just like many FReepers, too. But sometimes even some of the FReepers will drop all pretenses and admit, from their point of view, that government is, in fact, the answer.
Who knew the Huck was a commie?
Most of the Baptists I know are utterly opposed to using the government as an instrument of force. It is entirely possible that the Huckster has wonderful intentions which do not include enriching himself like Judas. But the scenario which you propose is just as possible.
A proper government has the obligation to foster a free society where people are most likely to prosper, not to impose their notion of what is fair. Free societies are more likely to acheive prosperity. Prosperous societies are ultimately more fair and helpful to the less fortunate that fairness imposed from the top down.
If Huckabee wants to preach this doctrine, he should go back to his ministry, not run for public office adviocating the government use of force.
And then what I would like to see is the corporate board showing responsibility with an understanding that if they don’t start showing some responsibility, then they’re going to end up forcing government to take action, which is the worst thing that could happen and it only exacerbates a problem rather than actually solves it.
Will one of the Hucka-fans please parse that sentence for me? I would love to see that. Can someone this stupid actually win the nomination? As the Huckster would say: God Help Us.
Which made his preceding comment all the more bizarre. If he was president, he'd have the veto pen. You do understand this, right?
That sounds like a pretty good book . Some one should place copies in Holiday Inn Express rooms .
Way too many Freepers (conservatism to them is their own personal brand/wants/needs). Then they tell you that you’re not a conservative. This is the second reason Mr. Huckabee should not be the nominee — the first is in views on foreign policy.
It is why I just dropped the label and got back to the roots of what exactly was trying to be "conserved".
If Tiger Woods or other professional athletes and entertainers can earn tens of millions of dollars why aren’t intelligent heads of large business not also entitled to that sort of pay?
Cool. Like you tag-line. LOL. :-)
If I believed in situational ethics, I’d like to see this applied to Darl McBride for running SCO into the ground and costing other companies millions in the process.
But I don’t, so shareholder suits and hopefully criminal fraud prosecutions will have to take care of him.
The Huckster forgets that a corporation already has a penalty for doing this, and it’s called bankruptcy. Yes, some people get off scot-free and with profit, but that’s the way the free market works — companies are allowed to be stupid.
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.