Clare McCaskill: Reactionary
I'm sure most of you have seen this video;
It's Clare McCaskill calling for Wall Street Salaries and compensation (at bailout receiving companies) to be capped to $400k, which is what the president makes. While I certainly agree that Wall Street types get paid way to much, and I would rather see them make that then what they get now, this is a little absurd, especially from McCaskill, who is a blue dog type and never seems to have cared about this stuff before. In fact, this kind of reactionary thinking is bad and does nothing to solve the real problem of outrageous CEO pay, which affects not just tax payers this year, but everyone with a retirement account all the time. The fact is as Digby Notes McCaskill is a pretty conservative senator, and has actually said wasn't sure she'd vote for the stimulus!!! She's been in the senate for years and never complained about the growing wealth gap in this country, or outrageous CEO salaries.
This is your basic reactionary behavior, leave things the way they are until something drastic happens, then freak out and overreact and propose laws that simply cover up the problem rather then getting to the underlying causes. Frankly it's maddening that your basic corporatist blue dog can get lauded a as a hero of the working man by proposing some outlandish legislation that would never get passed in a million years and of course has no chance of passing anyway. And since it wouldn't pass, it actually does nothing but make McCaskill look good without actually upsetting anyone in the real power structure.
The truth is these outrageous CEO salaries are bad for shareholds even when the government isn't bailing out companies, and it affects everyone with a 401k retirement plan (which is most people). CEOs all sit on each others boards and they bid up each others salaries. The CEO of Toyota in Japan makes only $900,000 a year, while Bob Nardelli made $300 million a year as the CEO of Home Depot, and didn't increase shareholder value a dime.
It should have been delt with years ago, and it would have been good for everyone, but rather then proposing structural changes, McCaskill lashes out only when it's in the news and proposes new laws without any concern for the long term effects.
We need to get CEO pay under control, and we need to do in a realistic way.
It's Clare McCaskill calling for Wall Street Salaries and compensation (at bailout receiving companies) to be capped to $400k, which is what the president makes. While I certainly agree that Wall Street types get paid way to much, and I would rather see them make that then what they get now, this is a little absurd, especially from McCaskill, who is a blue dog type and never seems to have cared about this stuff before. In fact, this kind of reactionary thinking is bad and does nothing to solve the real problem of outrageous CEO pay, which affects not just tax payers this year, but everyone with a retirement account all the time. The fact is as Digby Notes McCaskill is a pretty conservative senator, and has actually said wasn't sure she'd vote for the stimulus!!! She's been in the senate for years and never complained about the growing wealth gap in this country, or outrageous CEO salaries.
This is your basic reactionary behavior, leave things the way they are until something drastic happens, then freak out and overreact and propose laws that simply cover up the problem rather then getting to the underlying causes. Frankly it's maddening that your basic corporatist blue dog can get lauded a as a hero of the working man by proposing some outlandish legislation that would never get passed in a million years and of course has no chance of passing anyway. And since it wouldn't pass, it actually does nothing but make McCaskill look good without actually upsetting anyone in the real power structure.
The truth is these outrageous CEO salaries are bad for shareholds even when the government isn't bailing out companies, and it affects everyone with a 401k retirement plan (which is most people). CEOs all sit on each others boards and they bid up each others salaries. The CEO of Toyota in Japan makes only $900,000 a year, while Bob Nardelli made $300 million a year as the CEO of Home Depot, and didn't increase shareholder value a dime.
It should have been delt with years ago, and it would have been good for everyone, but rather then proposing structural changes, McCaskill lashes out only when it's in the news and proposes new laws without any concern for the long term effects.
We need to get CEO pay under control, and we need to do in a realistic way.
Advertisement
400K is also not much of a limit... Indeed, as a base salary it's pretty much what they already get.
January 31, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small point of fact. Clare McCaskill was first elected to the Senate in 2006. This hardly qualifies as "years."
I think you make a good point about boards. Legislation that would force boards to become truly independent might help connect compensation with performance, which is the way it should be.
February 1, 2009 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Reactionary she ain't. Refer to your handy dictionary of political terms for further edification. An opportunist, a populist, a woman with a pretty good idea, maybe.
While we're at it we should also stop calling those Republicans who supported crippling deficits and subversion of the Constitution for the last 28 years, Conservatives, and recognize them for the Subversives and Crooks which they are.
Newspeak has got us by the credulity.
February 1, 2009 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're very accurate in your description of McCaskill who was only elected to the Senate in 2006. Her ego and self interest drive everything she does. It was clear when she was running that she was the sort of wishy washy Democrat that has stood in the way of progress for decades. She refused to condemn torture even as a candidate! She supported the building of the wall on our southwest border to keep those dirty Mexicans out. As a Senator she has done absolutely nothing to help end the war in Iraq, she has supported retroactive telecom immunity and a host of other rotten bills.
Having said that, I like her condemnation of the CEO pay problem, but it's clear that she is only interested in attacking the symbol of greed and not the symptoms of the problems those greedy bastards created. She lucked out when she attached herself to Obama during the primaries last year and has since then been seen full of herself it really is insufferable. She talks a lot like she's a real Democrat, but she votes pretty Republican on a very consistent basis and is not a reliable vote on some key issues. That may change to some degree because she will likely do as Obama wishes, but having observed her over time I have no doubt that she will walk away from anything he proposes if the wealthy and powerful aren't too kean on it.
February 1, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad people are calling McCaskill out. And yes, the proper term for her is a business opportunist.
The CEO pay is at the heart of the problem of our system. James Galbraith spends a whole chapter connecting the dots of huge paychecks to the fall of the very companies that the CEOs run to the fall of our economy. He uses Denmark as an example of the richest country in Europe with the most equality of pay. CEOs here think that the company works for them and not that they work for the company. This led to "short termism" in the 1980s. Pump your stock price up because you need cash and the banks will only give you cash if they see your stock price rise. Often that means they hire hatchet men to come in and fire a lot of people to prove how lean and mean they are and that hopefully will drive the price up. They pay themselves in stock too. They cash out when it's high and when it sinks, the employees' stock prices fall. It stinks.
Sam Pizzigati has been working on this issue for years. His website is Too Much. http://www.toomuchonline.org/editor.html
http://www.alternet.org/authors/8293
Read his "Financiers and Engineers. Who Rates What?"
February 1, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Did Sen. McCaskill vote for Tarp to begin with?" The answer of course is yes, and so her apparent outrage is either (1) Fake, (2) Hypocritical, (3) Too Late, or (4) All of the Above.
February 1, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink