The Numbers

A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer

Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.

ARCHIVES

November 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Previous | Main | Next »

Executive Pay? Cut Away

October 21, 2009 3:30 PM

The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration plans to order deep cuts in executive compensation at companies that have received federal bailout funds – a move that draws broad and strong public support in our latest poll.

Seventy-one percent in our ABC News/Washington Post survey support the idea, and 58 percent support it strongly.

Unusually in these times, there’s majority agreement on the move across political and ideological lines, albeit to different degrees. Supporters include 79 percent of Democrats, seven in 10 independents and 62 percent of Republicans. (“Strong” support, however, slips just under half among Republicans.) Likewise, 61 percent of conservatives support the idea, rising to 72 percent of moderates and 83 percent of liberals.

Even among better-off Americans, those with household incomes over $100,000 a year, 68 percent support limiting executive pay at these companies. Then again, the affected salaries presumably are more than a little above the $100,000 level.

October 21, 2009 in Economy | Permalink | User Comments (28)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Cut them to 'the bone' (only a few hundred thousand dollars a year) and lets see how they do. CEO pay has become a ridiculous scam aided by incestuous board back scratching (you approve my golden parachute, and next week I'll use my seat on your company's board to approve yours). Some people deserve their millions of dollars per year, but far too many of these CEOs are now just free loading on the gravy train.

Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 21, 2009 3:47:54 PM

There needs to be curbs placed on CEO and executive compensation in all American Corporations.

There needs to be significant curbs placed on CEO and executive stock options.

If the Obama administration does not deal with these issues, the excesses of the stock markets, will continue.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Oct 21, 2009 4:20:42 PM

The market should dictate executive pay -- not the government. The market should have also let the bailed out businesses fail.

Letting the government get too involved in the private sector is a "slippery slope" to communism and we all saw how well that works.

We're all screwed.

Posted by: David | Oct 21, 2009 5:32:33 PM

We are a "Christian country", aren't we? Remember the Republican convention in 2004, where the cross of Jesus graced the speaker's podium.
Jesus told the rich man, "Sell all you have and give to the Poor." The book of James decries those employers who cheat their workers in the field and warns those employers that the cheated employers will raise their cries to Heaven, and that Heaven will hear those cries.
Yet, our corporate culture constantly slashes the wages and benefits of workers and gives CEO's bonuses that they never earned. Is this Christian?
Michael Moore provides some alternatives in Capitalism a Love Story. He provides several examples of industries where workers themselves call the shots. He points out that in Germany, workers have a voice through their unions.
So, if we are supposed to be a Christian country, let's act like a Christian country. Forget the brouhaha over prayers in public schools and put Jesus on the board of Directors. Remember the miracle of the loaves and fishes, by sharing, every one had enough to eat. Let's follow that example.
Can I hear an a-men????

Posted by: William Joseph Miller | Oct 21, 2009 5:33:19 PM

well there s too much greed and not enough taken care of on the bottom i still see jobs starting people at 8 dollars an hour thats like 1980's starting salary .we need to get them to start moving the bottom up then they'd have less to hand out at the top. yes the gov need to tax or penilize and bonus over 5000 dollars thats pleaty for the normal person in almost any case with really steep penatalities for huge bonuses this will stop a lot of it or at least put it back into the comunity or even the penalties from such said bonuses could be put into Social secrity . that whould help all the people out not just the gov.there's better ways then the ways the gov or the big coes ect anyone making too much monies to do things . we the people need to start standing up and putting them in there places , if we someone like goldman saxes doind what they do we need to stop buying and using them till there broke .ect so called putting them in there places!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Brian | Oct 21, 2009 5:45:54 PM

How does the government intend to keep these businesses competitive when the top business minds in these particular companies will move elsewhere to get properly compensated for their efforts. Altruism is fine in fantasy land, however we are dealing with the harsh reality of a competitive business environment that is going to see the energy and intellect of these companies stripped dry.

Posted by: Christopher | Oct 22, 2009 12:08:54 AM

This is about executive pay for BAILED OUT companies - not for all CEOs!

Without your company CEO, there would be no company. Without that company there would be no one to hire lots of you - and pay you a living wage.

If people want to complain - then complain all you want, but CEO pay (and other execs) is not about to be controlled by our government. Bailed out companies are another story. They don't deserve a dime until they start producing something other than decline. If not, they can quit.

Posted by: JonF | Oct 22, 2009 4:46:49 AM

The comment was made that pay cuts might cripple these companies by putting second raters in place.
I submit we already HAVE second raters. We seem to be forgetting these people made mistakes a firstyear MBA graduate would have avoided and they FAILED MISERABLY.

Posted by: MikeC | Oct 22, 2009 7:19:35 AM

Be careful what you wish for. Government is getting too involved in the private sector. These companies should have failed if they could not survive without government intervention. Now that the government has become "involved", freezing pay is a good idea - cutting it by 90% is not. Most of us - not being CEOs - do not truly understand their role in business or why they have been allowed to earn so much. It is better for the stockholders / boards to determine salary / benefits. It should also be very clear that any change in salary is only applied until such time as these companies repay the taxpayer. Too many people seem to think that redistribution of wealth is OK - it is not. We all have the potential to become "wealthy" if we are determined enough to make the sacrifices needed to become wealthy.

Posted by: tired of it all | Oct 22, 2009 7:33:10 AM

guess what's going to happen after the current execs say adios to the administration and walk out instead of taking a 90% pay cut. the administration will have to replace them with more gietner-esque eggheads who have never achieved anything in their lives. why? because no decent executive will take these jobs with such low pay. and although i'm upset that they got these bonuses, the blame for that lies with congress...after all, they're the ones that passed the bailout (which authorized these bonuses) without actually reading the legislation. when the story came out initially about these bonuses, didn't geitner admit that he didn't even know it was in the law? we're being led by a bunch of buffoons.

Posted by: davidfrat21 | Oct 22, 2009 12:06:12 PM

the current economic situation should serve as a warning to those in favor of single-payor government-run healthcare. congress (democrat and republican) forced the banks to give suspect loans. they passed bailout after bailout without even reading the legislation. now the taxpayer is paying the price for their mistakes. instead of even hinting at accepting ANY blame, congress now says it's all the markets' fault, all the fault of wall street greed, all the fault of everyone but themselves. they create debacles, then they run from accountability. how are all of you going to feel when, instead of 401ks tanking, it's people dying because of bureaucratic ineptitude? and who is then going to be blamed once government is in control of everything? wake up...at least private industry has to answer to someone (the voter and government regulation). once government has been ceded control of everything it will answer to no one. americans SHOULD fear government encroachment more than anything else...that's one of the bedrock principles of our nation's founding. how is it that so many have either forgotten that or never learned it? as distasteful as private industry may be, it can never carry the potential for social destruction that overbearing government can. if you don't believe that, then sit back and consider the fact that, as out of control as industry has been, has it not been exposed and reigned in in the public mind? then ask yourself, if government is in total control, to whom will it answer? the answer is NO ONE.

Posted by: davidfrat21 | Oct 22, 2009 12:15:51 PM

for those so in love with the idea of government capping executive pay, i ask, what limits then should there be on government capping anyone's pay? should government be able to say that lawyers can only make so much money? how about doctors? actors? athletes? mom and pop operations? please, tell me where you would draw the line? and on what basis will we say it"s too much?

Posted by: davidfrat21 | Oct 22, 2009 12:21:04 PM

Just proves how stupid Americans really are.

Posted by: Joe Eckhardt | Oct 22, 2009 1:33:02 PM

I think share holders should get a binding vote on executive pay. I hate seeing the bulk of the company's profits (or debt these days) going as a form of bonus money to these executives. I believe mutual funds should not be able to vote their shares without consulting the people who own shares in these funds.

Share holders need a bill of rights.

Posted by: Barry McMillan | Oct 22, 2009 2:36:11 PM

We have been paying the highest executive pay ever and look at the type of people we have ended up with. Incompetant greedy people. They give each other huge pay rises by being board members on each others companies. Most people know this, the whole setup is corrupt and has nothing to do with the supposed talents of these charlatans. I hope the government limits their pay and keeps watching them.

Posted by: John Williams | Oct 22, 2009 5:02:02 PM

Of course their pay AND their perks packages should be slashed. Let them live in the real world where the majority of us live. If they don't like it, leave and let someone else try the to do the job. There are so many people looking for work, including executives and licensed/degreed professionals, that I am quite sure the talent exists that would jump at the opportunity to work for a million dollars and no bonus. Watching the news last night they made it sound like $1 million is pocket change. Well, give it to me and I can retire! I for one am sick and tired of the rich getting richer and those of us who make up the majority either stay the same or lose traction. The days of these ridiculous salaries that are more than most companies rely on for their entire annual budgets should have ended many years ago. And don't even get me started on the bonuses and perks. The last time I got anything more than a token holiday bonus was more than 15 years ago.

Posted by: sdurr | Oct 23, 2009 7:03:40 AM

What in the US Constitution, or any other law, gives a White House appointed czar the legal power to cut anyone's pay? Whether CEO's make too much money is a side issue. I can't see any legality in czars, who have never even been confirmed by Congress, given authority to run the country in any way. I can see them as only advisers to the President.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 23, 2009 8:14:16 AM

There is absolutely no justification, whatsoever, for the exec compensation in Corporate America. No one should be getting paid that much money, for simply being a hired manager.

Congress needs to address this problem, and pass legislation limiting corporate compensation.

Let's encourage CEO's to build their business, instead of manipulating the stock values, for themselves to cash in on.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | Oct 23, 2009 9:01:35 AM

Akron New York hate blacks so much that at their living qaurter they use metalic matters to take off their head.2009

I sent $20 USD to Canada and $19 received in Canada for the USA dollars-sent from Rite Aid in Akron New York.

I believe they rob me

Posted by: im hurting | Oct 23, 2009 5:49:15 PM

If someone gave me 17 billion to play the market at zero % interest, plus lets me make the rules...Hey send it on. What is with the failure to regulate Wall Street? Maybe the conspiracy theorists are on to something.


And, what about Regulating Over the counter derivatives? That is what got us into this problem and is a major way the Wall Street Crooks game the system.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 25, 2009 11:42:45 AM

Post a comment