Since Barack “Giant Killer” Obama thinks it’s his business how much CEOs and captains of business should be paid predicated on receiving federal money one has to wonder why this principle is not being applied fairly across the board? If receipt of federal money is enough to constitute total government control over salaries, let’s apply it everywhere. We can start with the salaries of university presidents.
Back in 2005, Senator Charles Grassley (R, Iowa) wanted to launch an investigation of the president and board of trustees of American University in Washington because of a giant severance package of $1.3 million given outgoing President Benjamin Ladner who only had a base salary of $633,000 in 2003. The severance seemed excessive, to say the least.
In 2005 Bloomberg published a story investigating the salaries of a handful of the nation’s top paid university presidents. The numbers then all exceeded President Obama’s new $500,000 cap for the evil CEOs of 2009.
Here is the list of the highest paid public university presidents that Bloomberg reported in 2005:
- Mary Sue Coleman-Univ. of Michigan: $724,604
- David Roselle-Univ. of Delaware: $720,522
- Mark Yudof -Univ. of Texas System: $693,677
- Carl Patton-Georgia State U.: $688,406
- John Casteen III-Univ. of Virginia: $659,670
The leaders of private universities were even more lavish:
- Donald Ross-Lynn University: $5.04 Mln
- Audrey Doberstein-Wilmington College: 1.37 Mln
- E. Gordon Gee-Vanderbilt Univ.: 1.33 Mln
- John Silbert-Boston Univ.: 1.25 Mln
- John McCardell-Jr. Middlebury College:1.21 Mln
And don’t imagine for a minute that just because the university is supposedly a private one that it takes no federal handouts.
Certainly these sums have grown since 2005 — not to mention that some of those mentioned above may no longer be in those positions. But these numbers can be used as a frame of reference.
So, let’s be fair with Obama’s communist inspired meddling. Each and every one of these university heads should also take a pay cut to that $500,000 level. Why not? They DO receive federal money, don’t they? Don’t we want to be fair to everyone?
Now, I don’t want government telling anyone what they should be allowed to make, to be sure. But, my little exercise shows that Obama’s populist gobbeldegook has nothing at all to do with the right thing, here. It all has to do with giving Obama a soapbox upon which to stand so that he can vent his faux outrage and give the people that warm feeling that daddy is looking out for them. It’s class warfare, plain and simple.
Obama isn’t looking for fair and right. He’s only looking for a photo op and a chance to use hectoring to advance his image among the uninformed and uneducated.
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
In addition, how about capping the salaries of Hollywood stars?
izoneguy (Diary) Thursday, February 5th at 8:50AM EST (link)I think $500,000 per film is more than enough.
The new top 10 list is:
1. Nicole Kidman ($16 to $17 million per film)
2. Reese Witherspoon ($15 million)
3. Renee Zellweger ($15 million)
4. Drew Barrymore ($15 million)
5. Cameron Diaz ($15 million)
6. Halle Berry ($14 million)
7. Charlize Theron ($10 million)
8. Angelina Jolie ($10 million)
9. Kirsten Dunst ($8 to $10 million)
10. Jennifer Aniston ($8 million)
The point cannot be made often enough: Modern liberalism, as embodied in the Obama presidency, is the defender of the status quo. And the status quo is a road to economic ruin. Political forces cannot redistribute the wealth that the economic system does not produce.
But... these folks gave generously
Praying (Diary) Thursday, February 5th at 12:08PM EST (link)to finance the campaigns of democrats!! So they are ENTITLED to earn that much.
Sick. I gave up going to movies several years ago. Nothing I want to see anyway – how many movies trashing America and the former administration can one watch, anyway!
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
If memory serves me correctly...
conservativemusician Thursday, February 5th at 9:01AM EST (link)Isn’t Obama’s current salary $500,000? Just askin’.
Yeah shouldn't he and Congress work for $1/year
bk (Diary) Thursday, February 5th at 9:04AM EST (link)and give up all perks until they’ve gotten rid of the deficit?
And did you notice they never questioned the salary or perks of the chief UAW thug when they were grilling the Big Three CEOs sitting next to him?
Good Thoughts
rick554 Thursday, February 5th at 9:08AM EST (link)Being a white, male , professional construction worker, these numbers are astounding to me. But frankly, some of these guys are pikers compared to what the Superintenant of Schools here in Cleveland makes. Watching our “leaders” in DC stumble and fumble when talking about billions or trillions (who counts?), maybe THEY could use a “cap” too.
I put my own caps on Hollywood and the MSM. They are becoming more irrelevant by the day. Useful only to themselves and Barry O.
As far as I’m concerned, we should spend every penny we need to to protect our Country and our TROOPS. The rest of these bums can go pound salt.
Rick554
I like this one the best:
evanm (Diary) Thursday, February 5th at 9:30AM EST (link)“If government can artificially depress the price of a good with no shortage, why are we getting cheap CEOs, instead of cheap Maseratis?”
HT: @AveSharia
Personally, I think this is a transparent attempt by Obama to hurt the Republican Party’s ability to raise money. Corporations can’t donate to political campaigns, but their officers and executives can. If Obama can limit their compensation, he can prevent Corporations from funneling money directly to political campaigns.
great idea
10ksnooker (Diary) Thursday, February 5th at 11:45AM EST (link)I wonder if dear leader will do that?
And how about we cap Hollywood salaries.
Misleading data
pneel Thursday, February 19th at 9:15AM EST (link)The list of the top five private universities does not show actual annual income. All five left their jobs in the previous year, and the totals thus include deferred comp and/or severance, which gets counted when the president leaves the university. The top two had been in their jobs more than 25 years. The actual annual income of the #1 listing was less that $500,000 a year, or under 10% of the total shown. Some of the others are closer to 50% of the total shown. Those footnotes can be found easily in public information, and a little more work by the writer would have produced a more accurate (albeit less inflammatory) list.