Posted on 06/11/2008 12:13:21 PM PDT by calcowgirl
John McCain threw a dash of populist pepper into an otherwise fairly traditional Republican stew of economic policies with his June 10 proposal to allow shareholders a vote on executive compensation. The idea, known informally among executive-pay activists as Say on Pay, put McCain into strange company: It has been promoted heavily by unions, and it was introduced in the Senate in April by none other than Barack Obama.
(snip)
"For too long, government has been the voice of Big Business, not small business," McCain said. Referring to recent examples of executives at housing and finance companies who walked off with big pay packages just as their companies cratered, McCain denounced CEOs who left troubled companies and then were "packed off with another 40 or 50 million for the road." He said that under his proposed reforms, "all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance agreements, must be approved by shareholders."
McCain framed the plan as a way to even the playing field between large and small businesses. But his message seemed tailored to a different group of voters. "I think he's talking to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan," said Greg Valliere, the chief strategist at Stanford Washington Research Group, which tracks politics for investors. "I think that's where the election is going to be won. I think he wants to sound like he's not a typical Republican fat cat who favors CEOs."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
Do I think shareholders should have a say in such things? Sure, why not?
Do I think it’s up to the government to say so? No. If an individual company decides that it’s a good idea, so be it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Too bad the Democrats are the true party of the elite class. But the "common folk" don't know that.
As far as I know, McCain is actually to the left of Obama on this issue. My sympathy for the poor souls who actually plan to waste their votes on this joker.
Someone help me out here: as a denizen of the economics threads, this sort of thing has been proposed in one form or another by many FReepers. So do I oppose it because it’s an Obama thing, or not?
Well, it makes sense that the shareholders should decide if a company executive is getting too much. But who decides if he is not getting enough?
Ahole !! How the hell did we get into this situation where we have to vote for a pseudo conservative only because of the supreme court possible appointees ?? Damn, this pisses me off !! Maybe McPain will pick a vice pres that will be more consrvative than he and the son a bitch ( McCainiaac )will die in offiice.( IF elected !!)
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
>> Do I think shareholders should have a say in such things? Sure, why not?
They already do. Shareholders elect the board of directors. The BOD determines executive compensation.
What am I missing here? Does McCain want the government to step in and run shareholders’ meetings? What will change? Will minority shareholders get affirmative action set-asides?
I see no issue with it at all.
I’m not so naive to think the corporations are going to always do what’s right, there needs to be some over sight, do I think the federal government should have their nose in all the time, not at all, but I think some one needs to step in once in awhile when things are getting out of hand.
With shareholders being the recipients of the benefit or loss of poor management selection decisions, surely allowing a vote is not a terrible thing?
Especially on exit compensation, why pay a CEO who has failed 8 figures to leave, they’ve done their damage, show them the door with little walking around money.
This is like a Rod Serling or Stephen King script... pinch me so I can wake up, Please!
talk about Third Way or what.. and he calls himself a Maverick.. lol
I do not disagree . . . which makes us vulnerable to people who wish to score political points. Take the comment immediately below yours, for example.
It’s pandering. But hey, that’s politics. That’s how I look at it.
Shareholders do have a say, and most shareholders do nothing but look at their stock price anyway.
It is a nanny state gimmick . Shareholders already have rights . McCain must be spending too much time reaching out to Maxine Waters .
Thus the usage, “populist pepper.” I’m surprised that even the reporter got it correct.
1. Shareholders own the company.
2. Executives work for the owner
3. Even horrible and criminal CEO’s have made 10’s or hundreds of millions when a company is failing.
4. Why shouldn’t shareholders vote on executive income?
Why stop with CEO salaries? How about the shareholders vote on the amount of capital investment each year? Or whether the company embraces "green" energy? Or how much is spent on new product development research? Or whether or not they will allow their employees to fly first class?Is there a limit to the decisions you believe should be put to the "owners" for a vote?
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.