Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
13. A start would be repealing Bill Clinton's act incentivizing basing CEO pay on stock performance.
Sat May 30, 2015, 08:23 AM
May 2015
...The story begins during Bill Clinton's earliest days in the White House. Soon after his election, he worked with Congress to limit corporations' ability to deduct executive compensation from their taxes, as they do for ordinary workers' wages and other expenses of doing business. A limit of $1 million was set for deductions for executive compensation. There was a big exception, though. Compensation that was dependent on the firm's performance was exempt from the threshold.

...As a result, the new limit didn't prevent executives from receiving ever fatter paychecks -- but they got the money in stock and options, rather than in cash. Clinton and Congress had failed to solve the problem.

"My cynical opinion is that they were trying to look like they were doing something," said Steven Balsam, a professor at Temple University.

Some, like Warren, say the provision was worse than useless. In a speech last week, she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.

"This tax incentive has encouraged financial firms to compensate executives with massive bonuses – bonuses that too often reward short-term risk-taking instead of sustained, long-term growth," she said. "We can close that loophole and stop pushing companies to reward short-term thinking."


Lynn Stout, a law professor at Cornell University and an outspoken skeptic of today's corporate governance, says the Clinton-era shift led executives to try to boost stock prices in the near term by laying off employees and spending less on research and development. These measures, according to this line of thinking, made firms more profitable in the short term because their costs were lower, which resulted in high stock prices, but less able to generate value in the long term for investors and the economy....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/27/bill-clinton-tried-to-limit-ceo-pay-but-elizabeth-warren-thinks-he-made-it-worse/
Thanks, River Lover. IMO, wealth inequality is a bigger subject than income inequality. merrily May 2015 #1
Yah. delrem May 2015 #4
I agree! Its the unequal distribution of assets. They bought our govt "representatives" and we are RiverLover May 2015 #5
It's more convenient just to talk about income inequality, though, isn't it? merrily May 2015 #9
A start would be repealing Bill Clinton's act incentivizing basing CEO pay on stock performance. RiverLover May 2015 #13
I think there's still a bit of a disconnect there, in terms of government working for the public. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #14
Exactly. Really well said. RiverLover May 2015 #16
In a way, limiting executive compensation and increasing the minimum wage seem to me like merrily May 2015 #22
Very good point. jwirr May 2015 #19
Thanks. merrily May 2015 #23
+1!!! This is what I say over, and over, and over! Dustlawyer May 2015 #11
LOL! If I had 'em, I'd tell Justice Roberts to do the same!! Outright baldfaced lie. RiverLover May 2015 #15
kicked, recced, bookmarked. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #2
Reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. merrily May 2015 #6
"...slowly gliding downward as our world decays around us." KansDem May 2015 #12
I've always thought that the american dream was impossible or unsustainable anyways. delrem May 2015 #3
Exactly. Its about equalizing LOW WAGES globally & maximizing profits for corps. RiverLover May 2015 #7
Equalizing LOW WAGES globally - maybe they should take about a 1000 years to make that part jwirr May 2015 #20
Yep. It's about the investor class. Wall Street, not Main Street. merrily May 2015 #8
I always say I am my parents' American dream. merrily May 2015 #10
They understand it. They just don't give a hoot. SummerSnow May 2015 #17
And they're just figuring this out? mountain grammy May 2015 #18
"Globalization has stolen the American Dream." And the Clintons, Bill AND Hillary, are prime movers NYC_SKP May 2015 #21
I couldn't agree more. The whole thing is one giant slap in the face of all that is good & right. RiverLover May 2015 #24
'You really have to read the entire article to get the complexities. And then Shapiro's paper as Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What presidential candida...»Reply #13