Obama’s Hypocracy
Ryan | 9 07 2007If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!
From GMU Economics Chair Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek :
Today’s New York Times reports on Sen. Barack Obama’s record-breaking fund-raising spree to finance his bid for the Presidency. Last quarter Sen. Obama raised, as the Times puts it, “a whopping $31 million.”
These funds, of course, are all voluntarily contributed. The fact that I, personally, do not care for much of what Sen. Obama espouses is irrelevant: lots of people like what he says. They like it enough to contribute to his campaign. The result, designed by no one, is a huge campaign chest for Sen. Obama. He will be well-financed to pursue his ambition. (In my opinion, this ambition is an especially greedy and venal one, but that’s just my opinion.)
In May, however, the very same Sen. Obama called for Senate hearings into allegedly excessive pay for CEOs of corporations.
The Senator is either ethically inconsistent or intellectually inconsistent (or both). The pay of private-sector CEOs is determined by market forces. No one — absolutely not a soul — is forced to contribute money to fund CEO salaries. Those who pay such salaries do so voluntarily.
The point is very astute, and the fact remains that both Obama and the CEOs are entitle to their large sums of money because both of them received it by voluntary payments–the only difference is that the CEOs actually helped produce something worthwhile in exchange for the donations they received.
Last 5 posts by Ryan
- For Republicans, a rock star is born - September 5th, 2008
- Campaign '08: Knocked Up - September 1st, 2008
- BREAKING: it's...it's...Palin?! - August 29th, 2008
- Scarcity, Shmarcity - June 26th, 2008
- The Greatness of Southpaws - June 26th, 2008
Popularity: 11% [?]
Sphere: Related Content
The Obama’s Hypocracy by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
[...] Read more here: Ryan [...]
Obamability :: Obama’s Hypocracy | 9 07 2007[...] Read more here: Ryan [...]
While I agree that CEO's are entitled to large compensation,
Arthus Erea | 9 07 2007While I agree that CEO’s are entitled to large compensation, I disagree in that the situation is the same as Obama’s. A CEO gets chosen to run a company and is paid accordingly. However Obama (and every companier) chooses to run for public office and then says what he will do if he recieves it. Then, people can chose to donate towards that goal. That means the people are not paying Obama as compensation for doing a job (as CEOs are) but are rather paying to put him in office. CEOs are compensated for their time, and are paid money to be used for personal expenses. Meanwhile, political campaigns are donated to so they can cover all the expenses of marketing, etc. If you want to compare the two situations, you should be comparing the total profits of a business and the total donations to a political campaign.
I agree with Arthus Erea.
Simmons | 9 07 2007I agree with Arthus Erea.
I have to object to this statement. As the
Chou | 10 07 2007I have to object to this statement. As the saying goes, easy come, easy go. The CEO’s have to work for their money, as harder work and better planning leads to more money. For Obama, he spends United States dollars (AND he gets some federal money) on completely unnecessary things like better buses, better hotel rooms, etc. How long do you think that $173 million is going to last? Not very long. What will this encourage him to do if he gets elected? Exactly. Tax and spend much much more.
"The CEO's have to work for their money, as harder
Arthus Erea | 10 07 2007“The CEO’s have to work for their money, as harder work and better planning leads to more money.”
Candidates have to work for their money, just as much as CEOs. By delivering better marketing, speeches, and ideas they are able to raise more money.
As for Obama spending money on unnecessary things like buses, I’d say that buses are a lot more necessary than the things CEOs spend their money on - immense estates, luxury cars, and private jets. You tell me which is more necessary…
The difference here is that candidates get some money from
Chou | 10 07 2007The difference here is that candidates get some money from the government. That means they get money from the American people. Why should I pay taxes to help someone else’s campaign? CEO’s don’t make me pay money for their luxuries (although Steve Jobs and his iPhone come close). Obama is making me pay money so he can stay in a fancier hotel. Which is fairer? And what do you think he’ll be encouraged to do if he gets elected?
Its not for Arthus or me or anybody else to
Ryan Fazio | 11 07 2007Its not for Arthus or me or anybody else to decide whether the items the CEOs buy are “necessary”. the bottom line is that so long as the items were bought with the CEOs money, and not with money obtained by force (ie through fraud, government privilege), the CEO has a right to the items because they are his property. It is not anybody else’s business what that CEO does with his property so long as he is not coercing anybody else–which he of course is not.