President Bush delivered his “State of the Economy”  at Wall Street today. I agree with him in  that the compensation packages should be tied to performance and I further agree that it is not the place of our government to involve itself in reducing the packages.Â
The president acknowledged people’s continuing nervousness about their financial picture, despite a string of similar reports that provide some reason for optimism. He said some workers are being left behind in the booming economy and the disparity between the rich and the poor is growing.
“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.
Education is key to success.Â
Bush highlighted new federal rules that the administration thinks are a better path toward wise compensation decisions by companies.
In effect starting last month, the rules give investors access to clearer and more detailed information from public companies on their top executives’ pay packages and perks. Their impact will become apparent as corporations begin issuing 2006 annual reports.
Good plan and the government stays out of it. Let the investor decide if they are comfortable with the packages, if they aren’t they won’t invest…sounds simple enough right?
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said he will push legislation to require shareholder approval of executive compensation plans. And a separate bill before the Senate to raise the minimum wage would fund accompanying tax breaks to ease the burden on small businesses by capping executives’ tax-deferred pay packages at $1 million a year.
I agree, but then again, investors really don’t give a shit as long as they are making money. How many individual investors really read the annual corporate proxy and examine executive compensation packages? Answer: Not many.
While it may not be the government’s business to regulate executive pay packages, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure investors, employees, and the public at large, are able to see with transparency how these executive packages are structured in publicly held corporations.
Golden parachutes and compensation untied to performance are crazy. You get paid hugely regardless of how good or bad of a job you do. Kinda like Bush.
1- Who reads them? I do as does everyone I know. I’d like to see Congress run their corporation with transparency…maybe we should have them lead by example…those attachments add up!
“those attachments add up!”
ah, yes! That infamous bridge to nowhere.
Just how did that get passed even though it was exposed to the public eyes before the vote? Seems it doesn’t much matter. We’re not the ‘deciders’. 
It was humorous to hear Bush finally reference these earmarks in his SOTU. Hello there, sir. Your veto pen has been dormant. Silence means acceptance; silence means approval.
I find it sad that you hadn’t paid attention to his call for line item veto. It seems to me that these representatives know they have a POTUS over a barrell when he is looking for specific legislation…how sad that we accept their bs of pumping bills full of this waste, yet we can’t allow the POTUS a line item veto? Does that make any sense? That bridge was but 1 very miniscule example of our representatives screwing us…
I’ve never been a proponent of the line-item-veto. If the bill contains BS, call it out, veto it, and shine the public light on why it was vetoed. It’s no different than when legislators vote against a bill that looks good on the surface, but the ‘no’ vote was against the tacked-on crap that others try to sneak in–often un-related to the primary purpose of the bill.