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.
We need a benign monarchy with me or Rush in charge. Sheeple will vote for whoever promises them the most largesse from the public treasury. Populism is easy, conservatism is hard. Huck is a slickster and he knows that too well.
You never answered my question. Did they find the guys who did it?
Can't really compare that. He committed heinous crimes. Even blacks were against him. Many of them couldn't care less when O.J. murdered two crackers. But killin' DOGS...hey that's REALLY bad, man!
Which guys are you referring to?
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
To me it is a private who makes what.. I find nothing wrong with it.
“Corporate boards ought to show some responsibility.”
To Huckabee?
I am not sure what your point is. Should we abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission? Go back to the 1890s?
Did you check the links that have been provided as well?
The ones I saw were unsubstantiated innuendo on blogs. I would like to see links to real depositions given under oath that show that Huckabee had real knowledge of his campaign workers' indiscretions. I would also accept on-the-record interviews from those with first hand knowledge published in recognized, reputable sources.
Christianity.
I notice that you didn't both telling us what the message is. So please. Tell us exactly what Huckabee was saying and was proposing.
If he was just giving a moral lesson on corporate salaries, well frankly who gives a rat's rear end about that? He's running for President not Preacher-in-Chief. Of course with Huckabee and Huckabee's supporters I wonder if they really know the difference.
"The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years," the president said. "The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980," Bush said, adding that more education and training can lift peoples' salaries.
In his address, Bush said he realized that stories about the enormous salaries and other perks for CEOs, for instance, create anger and uncertainty that affect the country's investors.
"Government should not decide the compensation for America's corporate executives," he said. "But the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders."
"America's corporate boardrooms must step up to their responsibilities," Bush said. "You 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."
Makes a lot of sense to me. Made a lot of sense to John Madison, etc. too.
That is nearly a sound definition of what government by nature, is.
When it’s between extreme economic libertarians like “Club for Growth” and the power/money horders they protect vs. Roosevelt Republicanism, I’m siding with the latter — “with extreme prejudice.”
Give it to ‘em, President Bush!
Give it to ‘em, Governor Huckabee!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’m a Christian, but you’re likely correct.
“When it’s between extreme economic libertarians like “Club for Growth” and the power/money horders they protect vs. Roosevelt Republicanism, I’m siding with the latter — “with extreme prejudice.”
Give it to ‘em, President Bush!
Give it to ‘em, Governor Huckabee!”
Really? Ok. If I ever become president I’ll be sure to track you down and issue an executive order that says that your pay at your job is 3 times what it should be. I will issue an order that cuts your pay by 2/3.
Is that OK with you?
That’s exactly the government power you are advocating.
Hardly.
I'm saying it's past time that financiers and their VC organizations and board members see that all the employees of a company are stakeholders, not quasi-slaves, to be bled and bled, while they and their "C-levels" suck the life out of their companies.
That's not a free market.
Why is it any of Mike Huckabee’s business how much somebody else makes? Is he a shareholder?
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.