Why Elizabeth Warren thinks Bill Clinton made CEO pay even worse

[RiverLover]

Why Elizabeth Warren thinks Bill Clinton made CEO pay even worse
By Max Ehrenfreund April 27, 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/

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[Sancho]

2. The Washington Post is full of crap...

Click the link for the Warren speech (the transcript is there). Search for Bill Clinton! ZERO!!

Warren does not mention Bill Clinton, much less Hillary. Read her speech. It's about deregulation, exceptions, the Fed, and ways to fix the system.

The WP article is a political hit piece on the Clintons that has little or nothing to do with the Warren speech they reference. Putting the Clinton's in a picture in front of the article is blaming them for something that is historically a problem with many administrations and mostly due to lousy Congress actions.

[RiverLover]

3. Clinton signed the bill. Its implied, obviously.

She's too politically astute to mention it. It would become more about an inner-party fight than righting the wrong that Clinton & his republican friends did...

Just like whenever Liz talks about how Glass-Steagall protected us for over 50 years & its repeal left us vulnerable to 2008, she never mentions Clinton signed that bill repealing it either.

She's smart.

[Sancho]

6. Warren doesn't seem to mind calling out Obama on the TPP.

Read the speech. There are plenty of footnotes and references. If she had wanted to say, "This mess is the Clinton administration's problem." she easily could have done so. She doesn't mention Bill Clinton.

Warren is very aware that it's not ONE PERSON who creates policies. She is clear in her speech to set up the history of issues. She knows that the Clinton's, just like Obama make mistakes. Chances are she would admit her own mistakes if someone asked.

One reason she doesn't want to RUN is because she is smart enough to know that she cannot WIN unless she compromises with some of the rich and powerful. That's fine, but the WP is implying that Warren said something that she did not say.

Whatever her motivation, Warren does not come out in her speech and say anything directly about Bill Clinton. She is clear what Congress, the Fed, etc. did historically to create the problem and what she thinks could be done to fix it.

My impression is that Warren doesn't really care who gets the blame or glory - she wants the system fixed. The WP is extrapolating a conclusion that Warren did not state. It's a disingenuous story to imply her speech was about Bill Clinton.

[RiverLover]

7. It's in bold above how she doesn't directly

Call out Clinton on it. Although it's his doing, so of course she blames him. No one held a gun to his head to make him sign the bill. To say she didn't blame him for a bill he signed would be disingenuous.

[Sancho]

8. Read her speech....

She names people, tells about legislation specifically, and is quite detailed in her speech.

She does not mention Bill Clinton. The WP article (and you) are saying that Warren said something that she did not say.

It's simple. If YOU want to blame Bill Clinton for something, then fine. Don't put words in Warren's mouth.

She is a big girl. She is obviously capable of disagreeing with anyone she wants to, and she doesn't seem to hold back.

If she wanted to name Bill Clinton or his role in some issue, she could have named him along with a dozen other names that she mentioned in the speech.

Pull up the speech, run a "find" for Bill Clinton. She does not mention him.

BTW, lots of Presidents sign bills they disagree with...Obama included. They do so as compromise when the Congress threatens to shut down the government (both Clinton and Obama), or for numerous other reasons. Maybe Warren didn't name Bill on purpose, because she knows why he signed the bill as part of a larger set of governance. Maybe she really doesn't blame Bill Clinton, even if she thinks it was a bad bill. Maybe in hindsight Bill Clinton would have done lots of things differently. All that is hypothesis, just like your assumption that you know what Warren thinks!! If she says it, fine. If not, you cannot imagine what you want and claim that she said it.

[RiverLover]

9. Read the article

she called on her colleagues in Congress to change the rules, although without discussing how they'd come about.

She blames the rules Bill Clinton signed into being. It would be illogical to say she blamed the rules but not the person who made them.

I'm done here.

[Sancho]

10. Not true....

Warren's speech discusses a fix.

She is clear in the speech that LOTS of political issues led to multiple failures of legislation and regulation.

She does NOT say that Bill Clinton originated the part of the bill being discussed, nor blame him specifically for putting that clause in the bill.

You can assume that she blames him, but it's a fabrication. She does not say so, and she had ample opportunity to say whatever she wants.

Frankly, the tone of the speech is not to blame anyone, but it's to name the things that need to be done to fix it.

"She blames the rules Bill Clinton signed into being. " You cannot know this unless she actually says it. The premise of the WP article is simply not true.

It is easily possible to say that rules were created by well-meaning people who made a mistake, or rules were made that were not enforced, or rules were made as a compromise. There are all kinds of explanations.

Regardless, she did NOT say "Bill Clinton did it.", therefore the WP should not say so. It's just another reason to bash the Clintons.

As I recall, Bill left a surplus budget and as a popular President. He was a hell of a lot better than either Bush. You and the WP would be better off to read the speech and see what could be fixed, instead of making up things that Warren didn't really say.

[merrily]

11. Obama is not running for President again.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Isn't it amazing how much energy we are expending in correcting

mistakes that can be tracked back to a Democratic president who reached too far right across the aisle?

[midnight]

5. Too often our school teacher, and nurses are told to marry rich instead of being eligible for such

lavish bonuses.....