Greg Sargent's Plumline: What Obama Said About Those Bonuses

[flpoljunkie]

(Emphasis mine.)

Greg Sergent's The Plumline
What Obama Said About Those Bonuses

One of the day’s big stories is that Obama said in an interview with Bloomberg that he doesn’t “begrudge” the massive bonuses awarded to the CEOs of Goldman Sachs and Chase, pointing out that some professional athletes take home even more.

The story has been widely picked up, with critics blasting Obama for casting the bonuses as “part of the free market system.” Paul Krugman denounced Obama as “clueless.”

The White House is making a transcript of the interview available to anyone who asks, and the comments seem a bit more nuanced than the headlines suggest:

QUESTION: Let’s talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They’re very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That’s part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we’ve seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay structures for CEOs.

QUESTION: Seventeen million dollars is a lot for Main Street to stomach.

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don’t get to the World Series either. So I’m shocked by that as well. I guess the main principle we want to promote is a simple principle of “say on pay,” that shareholders have a chance to actually scrutinize what CEOs are getting paid. And I think that serves as a restraint and helps align performance with pay.

The other thing we do think is the more that pay comes in the form of stock that requires proven performance over a certain period of time as opposed to quarterly earnings is a fairer way of measuring CEOs’ success and ultimately will make the performance of American businesses better.

It seems like there’s a bit more of an emphasis here than the initial story suggested on his support for specific measures to check the long-term trend of inflated bonuses, and the thrust of his comments seem aimed at combating the perception that such policies are anti-business.

That said, that substance was bound to be overshadowed by Obama’s praise for the businessmen as “savvy,” his general unwillingness to “begrudge” wealth, and his discussion of their outsized bonuses in the context of the “free market system,” which seems off key, given the massive taxpayer bailouts of the financial industry.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/what-obama-said-about-those-bonuses/

[Cha]

1. Maybe the ones who comment

without knowing what was really said are the ones who are clueless?

[jgraz]

2. Oh yay, another Democrat where we need a secret decoder ring to figure out what they mean.

Time for less nuance and more leadership, Mr. President.

[high density]

3. In this case, no, not really

It's more a function of not using ellipses to modify the real meaning of his words.

[jgraz]

6. OK, in one sentence (no run-ons), summarize our president's position on CEO pay.

Cuz unless you can do that, no one is going to pay attention.

[high density]

7. Wealth is fine, CEO pay hasn't been matching performance,

and shareholders should have some power over restraining CEO pay.

But that is not as sexy as a falsehood like "Obama does not not 'begrudge' CEO bonuses."

[jgraz]

21. Now fit that into a headline.

Are you beginning to get the point? Obama led with the weak-ass qualifications. That's what the press is going to use. If he doesn't understand this, he should probably hire someone who does.

[high density]

25. Obama: CEO pay hasn't been matching performance

There is your headline.

[jgraz]

27. Yep, and that's even more biased than the HuffPost's

If Obama wants better coverage, he needs to make better statements.

[jeanpalmer]

33. How about some acknowledgement

that a lot of that bonus money is derived from fraudulent mortgages and from loan sharking credit card holders. Dimon especially. How about even a minimal effort to bring the defrauders to justice. Not one effort so far. How about enforcing the criminal laws. Didn't he take an oath to uphold the law. He's not up to the job.

[jefferson_dem]

11. "Drill here, Drill now."

Since you are keen on "bumper stickerisms," I wonder if you consider that to be an energy policy.

[jgraz]

16. Non sequitur here, non sequitur now.

:shrug:

[phleshdef]

31. Actually you need to just not be an idiot looking to make something out of nothing.

[jgraz]

34. Really? You think the President making a statement about financial reform is "nothing"?

I think I see your problem here, Skippy.

[phleshdef]

35. Forgive me if I agree with the President that shareholders should have a say on pay.

Which is exactly the key point of the statement. He never said anything about not regulating bonuses or other excessive areas of financial regulation that are needed. He didn't say anything for you and Arianna and all the other more liberal than thou mouth breathers to get your panties in a wad about. Anyone with half a brain can see that the statement was harmless and indicated NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH in regards to a pro-corporate agenda. Anyone trying to spin it as such is embarassing themself.

[impik]

4. Stupid Left Blogosphere. Bunch of idiots. Enjoy living under Palin.

[jgraz]

5. Yes, because our president is so fragile he'll melt if we criticize him.

:eyes:

[tranche]

9. I don't think it's about the President. It's the critical circle jerk which gets us...

thinking that (not 1 year later) there's no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[high density]

10. Criticize is different than smear

Instead of Bloomberg, CBS, Huffpo, et al going with, "Obama: CEO pay doesn't match performance," they framed it incorrectly as, "Obama does not 'begrudge' CEO bonuses." That is nothing but a smear.

(edited for spelling)

[jgraz]

15. It's not a smear -- Obama used weak language.

If he had come out with a clear statement, the press wouldn't have a problem constructing an accurate headline.

[high density]

20. It's plenty clear to me

It is the press that decided to cast its own interpretation on Obama's comments. It's certainly not the first time and it won't be the last. Our media obviously longs for the Bushco "with us or against us" happy soundbite bullshit, which perhaps explains their love for Sarah Palin.

[jgraz]

22. Obama's had a year to figure this out

yet he still gives these highly-qualified, stentorian lectures on issues that the American people are pissed as hell about. What happened to that guy who shouted ENOUGH! at the Democratic convention?

[high density]

24. What's he supposed to say?

Money is bad? They're already calling him a socialist. I can't blame Obama for explaining himself with more than one sentence at a time. What he said makes sense to me and I've got no problem with any of it. I do blame the press for endlessly misconstruing his words into headlines that are better suited for The Onion.

[jgraz]

28. See, that's *exactly * the point. They're already calling him a socialist.

He could show up dressed like a blackshirt and tongue-kiss a picture of Mussolini and they'd *still* call him a socialist. He needs to quit worrying about what the right will say about him and start leading. This weak-ass speaking style of his ain't gonna cut it.

[impik]

14. It's not about him. He went through much tougher things in his life. It's about what the

"Left" is doing to him on a national level. If you don't understand how this shit weakens him on a daily basis - Then you really need to get a clue.

And BTW, this is not "criticism", this is Right-Wing-Smear level. Disgusting.

[jgraz]

17. So "The Left" is able to weaken the president, but Obama shouldn't care what they think.

How exactly does that work?

[rudy23]

13. What would Obama do if he didn't have Palin to threaten us with?

Turn a bit left, maybe?

[jgraz]

18. Kinda convenient-y, you betcha.

[Jennicut]

8. Well, obviously no one really read the words the President said.

He said he does not begrudge people their success or wealth. He did say that bonuses are not matching up to performance and that he would like shareholders to have a bigger say in bonuses, and thinks that stocks instead of just pure money is better as a bonus. Like, I got that from two minutes of reading this article.

[TwilightGardener]

12. I see absolutely nothing troubling or controversial in his comments.

Anyone who wants to make a big whoop out of this just wants to make a big whoop out of something, period.

[Nancy Waterman]

19. The troubling and controversial thing is how it got twisted

What he said was fine. What it got turned into by people who never even read the whole thing, especially Krugman, who should know better, is very troubling. The biggest problem we have today is ignorance, superficiality, and hyped-up hysterical reactions in our political commentary and communication. If we could heal that, it would go a long way in getting things back on track.But everyone needs to act more responsibly.

[TwilightGardener]

23. True--when I first read about this this morning, the headlines here seemed

to be saying that Obama thought the bonuses were just ducky.

[Phx_Dem]

26. Arianna's a douche.

[GeorgeGist]

29. Greed is Good

[FrenchieCat]

30. This reminds me of Kerry's Joke, and how the media went running with it twisted,

and many believed the media's take on it cause they could. Sad state of affairs!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. So is this the new "grabbing their guns and bibles" nontroversy?

A lot of "democrats" carried the RWers' water for them that time too.