'nuff said
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.
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.
It is a corrupt system, where the Board of Directors and CEO are both in bed with each other. The little inveestor gets screwed. I am starting to like Huckabee.
So, if I’m reading this correctly, Huckabee’s saying, “Do what the government wants you do or the government will make you, which is bad, so if you don’t want the government making you do what it wants you to do, then do what the government wants you to do.”
Glad that’s cleared up.
'nuff said
I believe ‘golden parachutes’ are intended to attract top people to the company. I disagree with the practice - I don’t think there is much correlation between top CEO pay and actual company future performance - but how to attract top help is certainly the company’s prerogative.
I’m also guessing a lot of it comes from giving CEO company stock, which is intended to give them a financial incentive to care about the company.
Bottom line for me - no conservative believes it is the government’s business to tell a company what they can pay a CEO. The Huckster believes his faith gives him an excuse to run the lives of everyone else, for their own benefit. In that, he doesn’t differ much from Hillary or Obama.
I just vomited.
“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?”
Tiger and a lot of rich celebs make big money for a lot of other people. There isnt a CEO that makes its company more money than the big celeb endorssers do
Its nuts for any company to pay a CEO a huge salary, esp if the company doesnt make a profit.
Who do you think is more important to their company...Rush Limbaugh or the CEO of Premiere/Clear Channel? Who do you think makes more money for the comapny....Rush or the CEO? At 25 million per year...Rush is underpaid (and I am not figuring in the billions many have made off the sales of AM radio stations...which were dead in the water before Rush became big)
I cannot understand the fascination of people who support big CEO pay. They are just another employee of a company...and usually a very expensive and profit-killing one.
I know what your preference is. Besides, you're not wise enough to realize that the rope you fear doesn't even have a noose. The rope has been lifting people out of poverty and into prosperity since Adam Smith's Inquiry into the nature and causes...
Did you check the links that have been provided as well?
Education is usually the answer to a lot of our problems. I do wonder why the big institutional funds don't flex more of their muscle though.
When Benito Mussilini inject gov’t control into business pay, production, etc we called it “fascism”.
What will Huckabee call it when he does it?
“The Huckster believes his faith gives him an excuse to run the lives of everyone else, for their own benefit. In that, he doesn’t differ much from Hillary or Obama.”
I haven’t seen where he uses his faith but then I don’t watch him. I stopped being interested in him after hearing his history of support for illegals, tax increases and other liberal causes.
I don’t believe in minimum wage either. If people are stupid enough to work for $1 an hour then that is their right.
“Where does this nanny state crap end?”
In Hillary’s version it ends with total state control of every facet of your life.
“It is a corrupt system, where the Board of Directors and CEO are both in bed with each other. The little inveestor gets screwed. I am starting to like Huckabee.”
The little investor is only screwed if they buy the stock or don’t sell the stock at the appropriate time.
“There isnt a CEO that makes its company more money than the big celeb endorssers do”
Guess who made the decision to use that celeb endorser? Sure seems like the CEO had a hand in making THAT money.
“Who do you think is more important to their company...Rush Limbaugh or the CEO of Premiere/Clear Channel?”
Whats more important; your heart or your brain? Companies needs lots of different skill sets.
“I cannot understand the fascination of people who support big CEO pay.”
Depends, if I’m the CEO I totally support it. If not then I could care less if I don’t have stock i that company.
Huck and his Socialist ilk are as dangerous as Mustard Gas. If you don't do things his way when he tells you nicely, he'll turn the power of the Gubmint firehoses on you.
Did they find the people yet Hal?
Fred Thompson/Mike Huckabee as ticket? They are like Oscar Madison and Felix Unger. It wouldn’t last one day before they beat each other senseless.
It would be like a Milton Friedman/Karl Marx ticket. Here’s a dollar, go buy a clue.
Whoever it’s up to, it’s never up to the government!
The little investor is only screwed if they buy the stock or don’t sell the stock at the appropriate time.
Right. Buy low and sell the stocks when they go up. And if they don’t go up, don’t buy them in the first place! lol
Thanks for the tip.
I should mention that most CEOs who make every wrong decision and practically bankrupt their companies almost always walk away with $$$ millions of dollars for their incompetence.
It is a corrupt system, unfortunately.
You can keep your dollar. I've been saying for a couple of years that Huckabee would do well in Iowa. Now he is going off the charts there -
Big surprise, huh? You never saw it coming.
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.