On Fox, Cavuto and Levin falsely claimed Obama administration wants to limit executive pay for all companies
SUMMARY: Neil Cavuto and Mark Levin falsely claimed the Obama administration "want[s] to control executive pay" for companies that haven't received bailouts. Earlier that day, Robert Gibbs said of such a proposal, "[T]here are not plans to do something broad like that."
On the March 24 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto and nationally syndicated radio host Mark Levin falsely claimed that the Obama administration "want[s] to control executive pay," even for companies that have not received federal bailout assistance. After Levin stated that the administration "want to control executive pay, and they're not going to limit it to bailed-out companies," Cavuto replied, "No, it absolutely -- and they sent a signal about that. That they want to broaden this out." In fact, President Obama has made no such proposal. Indeed, earlier that day on Fox News, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said of such a proposal, "[T]here are not plans to do something broad like that."
On the March 24 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson stated: "[O]ne of the interesting things that came up yesterday in the news, Robert, was the fact that maybe some of this executive compensation would spill over to other publicly traded companies. So, in other words, executives who work at institutions that are not receiving taxpayer dollars -- that your administration may, in fact, put a cap on their salaries as well." Gibbs replied: "Well, look, there are not plans to do something broad like that. The president has always believed that shareholders in a company ought to have a nonbinding say on the CEO pay of somebody in a company. I think that's a commonsense rule and regulation that allows and empowers shareholders to have a say in what makes sense."
Additionally, during his March 24 testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner made clear that in referring to restrictions on employee compensation, he was talking about "financial institutions that are receiving government assistance":
The issue of excessive compensation extends beyond AIG and requires reform of the system of incentives and compensation in the financial sector.
On February 4th, the President and Treasury announced new restrictions on executive compensation for financial institutions that are receiving government assistance as part of the Financial Stability Plan. These measures are designed to ensure that public funds are focused on the public interest and that the compensation of top executives in the financial community is aligned not only with the interests of shareholders and financial institutions, but with the interests of taxpayers providing assistance to those companies.
On February 17th, the President signed additional limits on executive compensation into law as part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. These limits included a requirement to recoup bonuses already paid in cases of misrepresentation or malfeasance. Treasury is currently working to promulgate rules to implement these provisions and to develop a program under the original TARP legislation to review certain bonus awards already paid. We will work with Congress on any new legislation proposed in this area.
We need to strike the right balance between encouraging investment and prudent risk-taking to get our financial system moving again, and, on the other hand, placing limits on executive compensation to avoid taxpayer funded rewards for failure. The objective is to promote long-term value and growth for shareholders, companies, workers and the economy at large, and to reduce the risk of financial crises like the current one from occurring again.
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
LEVIN: Well, you know, the problem is, we didn't have a free market in the banking system. The banking system is the most regulated is the most regulated system next to the automobile industry. So there is no free market in the banking system. It's heavily regulated. We know about all these toxic loans -- thanks to Uncle Sam, pushing these loans as fast as they could, bundling them, encouraging the free market to respond with all kinds of financial packages. And then they pretend that it's something wrong with the free market. This is the way the status operates, and that's what I explain here.
There are no limits on our government today. They're about -- you know, they've close to nationalizing the automobile industry. Frankly, they basically nationalized the steel industry. They control the labor unions in giving them the authority that they give them. They control the products that are produced. They control what comes out of the chimney; they control what goes into the chimney. Now they want to control executive pay, and they're not going to limit it to bailed-out companies.
CAVUTO: No, it absolutely -- and they sent a signal about that.
LEVIN: Yeah.
CAVUTO: That they want to broaden this out. But don't you find it ironic, Mark, that as we're doing this here, Europe is actually going the opposite direction?
From the March 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: But one of the interesting things that came up yesterday in the news, Robert, was the fact that maybe some of this executive compensation would spill over to other publicly traded companies. So, in other words, executives who work at institutions that are not receiving taxpayer dollars -- that your administration may, in fact, put a cap on their salaries as well. I'm interested in your comment on that.
GIBBS: Well, look, there are not plans to do something broad like that. The president has always believed that shareholders in a company ought to have a nonbinding say on the CEO pay of somebody in a company. I think that's a commonsense rule and regulation that allows and empowers shareholders to have a say in what makes sense.
And, look, we understand that pay in any job -- pay in my job, pay in your job, pay in a CEO's job -- should be based on whether we do that job well. I think people get rightly frustrated and outraged when they see bonuses going for -- not for success, but for failure.
And, look, we understand that pay in any job -- pay in my job, pay in your job, pay in a CEO's job -- should be based on whether we do that job well...
That wasn't a concern when y'all were demanding unions break their contracts. It was all about claims of them being "overpaid" for their performance. And now that claim is coming back to bite ya in the backside, and here you are whining about being treated unfairly. Hypocrites.
Unions getting a living wage = bad.
CEO's buying private islands = good.
Hey wait a minute:
The UNIONS were DEMANDING that the taxpayers bail out GM and Chrysler. So isn't it fair if we're going to use taxpayer money that the union be asked for concessions? Isn' t that what you want from AIG -- and rightfully so -- when they take taxpayer money?
Ahem, it actually WASN'T the unions making demands for a bailout, it was the companies, as in, the CEOs of the big 3.
That you don't see the difference between rank and file workers having to make concessions, and CEOs making concessions does not surprise me at all.
And even then, the unions DID make concessions so that they could try and save their industry, and their companies.
What we'd like to see is million dollar plus bonuses not being paid out with our tax money. Paying someone a decent wage to make a car, is a bit different, since with some of the bonuses these guys go, you could pay for probably 80 jobs, for a year in a car manufacturing plant.
As usual you are flat out WRONG.
The UAW thugs were standing up there after the first deal fell through railing on Senate Republicans and Sen. Corker specifically for wanting to mandate union concessions into the bill. They clearly wanted a bailout without doing their fair share.
Plenty of companies pay decent wages without subsidizing union bosses through their workers paychecks
It's all about union leadership securing their cushy lifestyles, the rank-and-file be damned.
I'm against bailout money for everybody. But, if you come to the taxpayers, then expect some conditions placed on the money. Liberals, however, don't want that when those conditions might negatively impact them.
When did UAW make new contracts exactly??
The UAW thugs were standing up there after the first deal fell through railing on Senate Republicans and Sen. Corker specifically for wanting to mandate union concessions into the bill. They clearly wanted a bailout without doing their fair share.
uhh lets see, how about the new contract that the UAW cemented last month or earlier this month with Ford......i seem to recall something in the news about that. how the job bank was given up and the payments Ford was supposed to pay to a health plan were deferred for a period of time and how Chrysler and GM were looking to use that contract as a model for their own negotiations.
the only "thugs" here are you and your ilk.
The CEO's were asking for bailouts. Is it not fair that we ask for concessions from them. By the way the Unions were not demanding the bail out, it was the ceo's. It is just amazing that FOX will stick up for CEOs but will not defend the working unions because the unions support democrats.
It is also amazing how much people complain about the compensation of Franklin Raines(which I believe is warranted critisism) yet they do not complain about the compensation of the heads of AIG, Lehman & Bear Sterns.
Steve,
There have been plenty of complaints on AIG compensation once they sought bailouts from the taxpayers. And that is justified.
Fannie Mae deserves the same criticism, but in fact received far less even when they always were a quasi-governement agency and should have come under MORE scrutiny long before their collapse.
What else would anyone expect from FOX NOISE?Ever since its creation,FOX like CHENEY2012 has been in the tank for the REPUBLICAN PARTY. They dont give a darn about the working class.
I don't wish they would. it is the private sector until they receive federal bailout money. That alone should scare CEO's and shareholders into self regulation and put company R& D before huge finantial gain.
How can a rational and decent person honestly complain that their pay is being reduced from 35 million dollars to 19 million dollars? Of course, we are all brain-washed into worshiping the "free-market" concept. Anything else is "UN-AMERICAN". For too many people the opposite of capitalism is "GODLESS COMMUNISM" and its sister (gulp!), "socialism". I can't even bring myself to type "s....the w....h". Sorry.
Why is Levin on Fox all of the time all of a sudden? Birds of a feather?
Nobody, and I repeat, nobody is talking about limiting the pay of all companies, only companies receiving, you know, our tax money.
Cavuto and Levin, two complete and utter morons.
They are keeping the story alive y continually spewing falsehoods. they have nothing to offer other than a thousand ways of saying the same thing over and over again. Facts ?? only in a parallell universe. we all know how companies attract talented leaders and then mold them into incompetence.
Cavuto recently made the same false claim about an author he interviewed. He is not qualified to be on a national news network.
but he is qualified to be on fox noise business channel.
Levin is getting more teevee time because of his new waste of ink and paper that he seems to never shut up about.
Thanks for gracing us with your judicious and insightful analysis of a book you haven't read.
And you have? Please do tell.
I read his doggie book and it was absolute rubbish. A second grader could have whipped that one out in school and it would have been better than Levin's pathetic self-serving 'tribute'. I don't need to read his current waste, to be perfectly honest. He screeches about the same old whiny 'conservatives are always persecuted victims' crap on his show each night. And I doubt his writing skills have improved in the past year to be worth another read, sorry.
MAGNOLIA ,That jerk LEVIN is pushing his new book "LIBERTY AND TYRANNY"which would probably make for a lot of good toilet paper.
While we're at it let's cap union benefits also, especially the public-sector unions. Now there's a real job killer!
Bonuses, and wages that union members earn doing their jobs are not the same thing. Bonuses are on top of what these guys are already earning.
Then again, as I said above, unions for the automakers did make concessions.
And bonuses and benefits paid to mangers, CEOs and VPs are earned by them every bit as much as benefits to union employees. You are a hypocrite.
Especially the ones who failed, right? Kevin Rollins really deserved that huge golden parachute from Dell after letting the business plan go to crap on his watch, that was hard work!
I don't disagree, but unless you held stock in the company, or the taxpayers bailed them out or you worked for Dell and lost your job due to his mismanagement, or laws were browen, then it is none of your business or mine.
Envy is not a sufficient reason for government to interfere in the private-sector.
Ah jeez, here we go again with the class warfare crap. Look, just stop it. The only people who are pushing that talking point are those on YOUR side. You're not hearing that garbage from the left.
This isn't about 'envy', it's about principle. I am not envious of people who lack principle and sound judgment.
i think cheney 2012 is Dick himself.
go back and commmune with the rest of your fellow Sith Lords.
His mismanagement was largely responsible for Dell moving in their timeline to outsource, so yes, I did lose my job because of him. No envy here, just unemployment and damn frustration at the fact that for every job opening in my sector there are 500+ applicants.
guys who crashed the economy really deserve bonus's right keep on swilling whatever your drinking to delude yourself
I'm guessing you mean Rahm right? He was on the board of Fanny/Freddy as they were running the train off the track.
no the real job killers are all the manufacturing that was outsourced overseas by your ilk.
unions had nothing to do with it.
Of course, union rules codified by state and federal law had absolutely nothing to do with outsourced jobs...nothing at all.
No to mention heavy taxation and regulation and companies can't afford to do business here.
Seems that Liberal Democrats have their fingerprints all over this corpse. They have killed manufacturing in this country, so go whine to them.
more of the same ol "I'm being taxed to death!" crapola. Regulation has been practically non-existant for the last 8 years and became especially noticable after Enron collapsed. And only a fool would believe that bull you shot about liberals killing manufacturing. US companies were planning for years to move their manufacturing base to asia simply because China and India have 3 billion potential customers while the US only has 300 milllion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
CHENEY ,The hot air you have been blowing on this site would be enough to keep the entire fleet of GOODYEAR blimps airborn. Get some perspective.
if that were true then why did the economy grow under clinton? when taxes were so high.
and when bush gave us hi stax cuts why did so many jobs get shipped overseas.......
if businesses were really being so heavily taxed. why didn't they leave under clinton.
on and another thing. why did Nafta get thrown into the mix.....that was a republican initiviative that clinton signed hoping to get something in return later on.
Even better, ask Cheney why this country experienced massive prosperity during the Fifties when the top rates were around 90%.
he would probably say that Eisenhower was a RINO.
DICK JR, Ihate to correct you,but it wasnt the UNIONS or LIBERAL DEMOCRATS that got us in this mess. It was your REPUBLICAN HEROS that crashed this truck. Neither the DEMS nor the UNIONS had the power or control. It was the REPUBLICAN polocies of TAX CUTS, TAKING 4 YEARS OF SURPLUSES and turning them into MASSIVE DEFICITES, trying to fight and pay for two wars, one of them unnecessary, and deregulation under BUSH AND CHENEY THAT GOT US WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
Actually this is not a "false" claim. It is an opinion based on the comments coming from Democrats. Mainly Barney Frank who has proposed legilsation last year (defeated) to limit executive pay and more recently his comments that TARP compensation rules should be extended to all business. see; http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart
Cavuto and Levin belive that Obama agrees with Frank but has not officially proposed it (as Gibbs said). So it is not a false claim so much as thier opinion that Obama actually believes.
Its not even a matter of a double standard. It's very simple. AIG is now 80% owned by the Federal Government, and therefore the Feds get to decide things like salary. If AIG didn't want to be controlled by the government, it could have refused bailout money and filed for bankruptcy protection. In that case, the executives would have received approximately 0% of their bonuses.
You are not correct that they would have recieved 0% if AIG went chapter 11. As can be seen in the Lehman example; pieces within the holding company would be sold off as assets and the workers in those companies would continue to work and get paid by the new company. AIG needs to expedite this process. They would have recieved 0 from AIG as did some unfortunate Lehman people. However, the emplyees at the Lehman entities that were sold are still employed and are bonus eligable.
"The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could range beyond simple reporting requirements."
"The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving U.S. government bailout money."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/22/america/22regulate.php
I consider Obama more of a Nationalist. I agree with this assessment but with a slight tweak. I believe he feels they should not have performance bonuses.