washingtonpost.com
Pearlstein: Big business CEOs v. Obama

Steven Pearlstein
Wednesday, July 7, 2010; 11:00 AM

_______________________

Pearlstein: Big business CEOs v. Obama: Great article, but of course, there's little incentive on the part of big business to play, correct? We are being told that come November, Congress will turn Republican and, therefore, the rest of the "radical" Obama agenda will die. Given that, why should business look to do anything but make the administration look bad? Of course, this completely ignores what may be better for the nation...

Steven Pearlstein: That's a good question. There are some in the business community, particularly at the Chamber of Commerce, who have come to exactly this conclusion and have decided to play for all the stakes. Their hope is to knock the Democrats out of power in the congress and paralyze the Obama administration so that it can accomplish nothing, setting up for a Republican victory in 2012. The Chamber, along with the National Association of Manufacturers, has become an arm of the Republican Party for all intents and purposes. On the other hand, most big business folks probably understand that this is a two-party system and they have tohave relationships in Washington that are robust enough to withstand all probable electoral outcomes, in which case making enemies of the administration that is in charge of the veto pen and the regulatory apparatus and the trade representative's office isn't a wise strategy.

_______________________

Big business and the rest of us: Dear Mr. Pearlstein:Does the current hostility of CEOs and bankers to the Obama Administration express the resentments of an oligarchy that believes its privileges are threatened? Is this situation similar to many other historical struggles between entrenched oligarchies and the rest of the populace that believes that it is being short-changed? Do you continue to believe, as you seemed to several months ago, that the U.S. economy no longer functions fairly for the majority of Americans?

Steven Pearlstein: Making the system work more to everyone's benefit is exactly what is needed, and what Obama in various ways is trying to do, but the business types don't accept that premise. They think that if the market provides the top 5 percent with more than half the benefits of economic growth over the last decade, then it must be right because the market said it was right. They simply can't process the idea that that might be a symptom that something in the machinery of capitalism has gone awry.

_______________________

Why doesn't the President say this?: Steven: I'm neither an Obama or big business groupie, but why doesn't the President (and perhaps you) kindly say the following to big business: "You might think we're unfriendly to business. You might think the previous President was very friendly to business. However, for a variety of reasons, the laissez-faire attitudes of the previous administration haven't exactly worked out so well for business, consumers, or the economy. So why aren't you willing to take a chance on a new approach that rewards investing for the long-term instead of trying to goose everything for the short-term?" Now allow me to say the same thing more crudely: why the heck would we want a business environment that promotes subprime garbage, allows Goldman Sachs to do whatever it wants, and allows management to loot the company coffers all in the name of business friendliness? At least you seem to have some sense about this.

Steven Pearlstein: Why don't you become a newspaper columnist. You'd be pretty good at it. The problem is that the business types would never agree to such a debate.

_______________________

Big Business CEOs: I would think that most CEOs would welcome the Government taking health off their hands - a headache gone, and more money for them.

Steven Pearlstein: You would think so -- and until a few years ago, that was precisely the position of big business, that they wanted to be out of the health care business. But when the Obama process got going, it was clear they didn't trust the system enough to believe that they would ever be relieved of it, and they would be left with the worst of both worlds -- to be perceived by employees as being responsible for health insurance, but without the power and responsibility to manage it well. So they came back around and demanded that everything about the current arrangement, at least at it related to big companies and their employees, remained exactly the same. And by and large they got that.

_______________________

R&D: A great column as usual. I have a question about "allow[ing] all businesses to deduct the full cost of investments and research in the year they were made." Most R&D is a long-term investment, and a company laying on a research division, say, is making a multi-year commitment. I think it's important that any new initiative not allow businesses to "forward fund" R&D for tax purposes, which would make a whole new financial crisis possible (R&D swaps anyone?). Or am I just being paranoid? (I don't know how I could think that Wall Street would game the system.) Thanks again.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, yours has been the prevailing view in accounting and tax circles. Theoretically it makes sense. In practice, it makes the tax system very complex and subject to a lot of games because the depreciation rules have become complex and subject to abuse. Also, as relates to R&D, I think expensing is a better way of providing a bit of subsidy (in the form of the time value of money) than a credit, which business demands every time there is a recession and even when there is not a recession. So rather than continue the tax games and the political games with R&D, why don't we just go to expensing and leave it at that -- that's my view anyway.

_______________________

Is it possible...: Could the CEO's really be deliberately keeping the economy down to influence November's elections?

Steven Pearlstein: They're not that manipulative and, in any case, that might be a dangerous game for them to play. But they aren't h iring and they are, for the most part, risk averse people who follow the crowd and buy into the group-think and take their cues from Wall Street, where the investing mentality has long since been replaced with a trading mentality. What they are doing, however, is using their reluctance to hire and invest as a lobbying tool to stomp their feet and demand they get their way on policy issues, out of the belief, or the pretend belief, that their business decisions have been driven by the adverse policy environment, when in truth that is just a gross exxageration.

_______________________

Endgame?: Is all this talk about fighting between CEOs and the Obama administration a precursor to a sentiment to extend the Bush tax cuts? All this talk of "uncertainty" among businesses and investors seems to feed right into an argument that GOP and conservative Blue Dogs would adopt to differentiate themselves from the administration.

Steven Pearlstein: The tax threat they are most upset about is his proposal not to allow multinational corporations to defer paying the full US corporate profits tax on foreign income until the profits are repatriated to the U.S.. This is a complicated subject and I actually have some sympathy with the corporate position on this, since our approach is at odds with virtually every other country in the world. But rather than sit down and strike a larger tax deal with the administration on taxation of capital, the business community prefers to focus on this one thing. It is another lost opportunity.

_______________________

november: so that we will have absolutely no way to stop them. I think many people are fearful of this - companies too.

Steven Pearlstein: The people who come up with these conspiracy theories obviously haven't spent much time around the United States Senate.

_______________________

Private Sector Productivity: Steve, it seems to me that at some point, the American public is going to become more angered and frustrated by the increased demands of business for workers to be more and more productive. The American workforce is already very productive and being abused in this climate of high unemployment and little to no new hiring by firms with enough money to pay executives extremely disproportionate wages. At what point do you think that big business will get pressure from their workforces to hire?

Steven Pearlstein: even harder. Given how the labor laws have been thoroughly gutted, they also know there is almost zero chance of buying themselves a unioin organizing campaign if they push too hard.

_______________________

Your Obama infatuation: Given your constant cheerleading for Obama, do you think that he has done anything wrong in his attempts to fix the economy? To put it a different way, do you have a poster of Obama on the ceiling above your bed?

Steven Pearlstein: If you're going to paint me as an Obama toadie, you might try doing your homework a bit more thoroughly.

_______________________

A few bad apples doesn't ruin the whole batch: Hello, just because a few bad apples inflict great damage upon the public for their profit, all big business is not painted with the same brush. Bill Gates and other are calling for clean energy investment and innovation to create jobs while the Oil and Coal industries criminal negligence has proven to be a killer of jobs and the environment. Do you think that distinction should be made more often?

Steven Pearlstein: They have more of a responsibility to criticize those organizations, rather than leaving it to union leaders and newspaper columnists, whose criticism doesn't carry the same punch.

_______________________

business executives: Big business's concerns seem to reflect those of a diseased and pathological mind set.

Steven Pearlstein: You raise a good point. The business community likes to say what it dislikes most is uncertainty, but by fighting about every aspect of every issue, it creates the stalemates that are at the heart of that uncertainty. The problem with that, I think I've discovered, is not as much with the CEOs as with the vice presidents for external affairs and the lobbyists and the association heads, whose reason for being is to fight and win all those fights, at any cost. The problem with the CEOs is that they don't rein those guys in enough and force them to make the tradeoff between "winning" the last 10 percent versus the cost of continuing the policy uncertainty.

_______________________

Big business CEO's vs. Obama: Many big business CEO's are responsible for their companies contributing to the major economic conditions that the country is facing at this time. The majority of the American people begged the President and Congress to put policies in place to prevent this from happening again. So, why do the CEO's think nothing should be done to change the way they have been doing business? Also, it seems that many businesses are alive financially, but they are REFUSING to hire, even modestly so. They can help bring the economy back, but are so angry that they will punish the American people, rather than hire people who will in turn spend money and purchase their goods and services. What do the CEO's hope to accomplish by using this tactic? What exactly and precisely would a Republican Congress/President have done differently than the Democrats have done to fix the economic/business/jobs problems and kept the CEO's on their side and giving to their coffers? Is what the Dems and the President have done as bad and ineffective as the CEO's say?

Steven Pearlstein: And in Obama they think they have that bogeyman that they can use to deflect responsibility onto somebody else.

_______________________

SCOTUS: Mr. Pearlstein, Have corporations purchased the SCOTUS in addition to our representatives?

Steven Pearlstein: And in Justice Alito, you have what can only be described as a corporate hack with mediocre legal skills.

_______________________

Political Elite: Don't have a clue what life is like for most of us outside of the major metropolitan areas in the Northeast. Cap and trade, carbon taxes and other parts of the progressive agenda do not work in Montana, Nebraska or Mississippi. Electric cars and solar power sound great but when the nearest grocery store is 75 miles away an electric car is not practical, we need our pick ups and SUVs. A Leaf or Tesla won't work. Maybe the political elites need forced reeducation at a local community college in North Dakota or at Big Red. The Ivy League schools they graduated from didn't teach them a thing.

Steven Pearlstein: drive your Dodge Ram anywhere you want to. But what you are saying is that you should not have to pay for the environmental damage you cause by doing so in the form of higher gasoline taxes, or higher electric rates for power generated by coal, which impose costs on everyone else on the globe. That's all cap in trade is about -- making consumers pay the full social costs of the goods they consume. In fact, you want the government to subsidize these products through sweetheart drilling and mining contracts on federal lands, and by using general tax revenues to pay for roads and bridges in rural areas that don't have the traffic to justify such expenditures. The problem is that you guys are, in an economic sense, free-loaders, and we don't want to pay for your free-loading any longer.

_______________________

CEOs, small business owners: As a rather anti-Obama Republican, I have to admit I have very little empathy for the big-time CEOs. Being super rich instead of ULTRA super rich doesn't make me shed tears. However, I am a small business owner. While things have picked up slightly, I am sure not hiring anyone. Why? I am uncertain what health-care reform will cost me and what new/increased taxes are on the way. If there was a more positive, pro-small business environment out there (meaning, in Washington), I would hire more people. I currently employ 12 and could go to 15 or 16, but I won't with the uncertainty. Also, every (and I mean EVERY) small business owner I know is feeling the same and making similar decisions. The CEOs aside, do you feel small business owners have a more substantial gripe with Obama and Washington?

Steven Pearlstein: Health care reform cuts lots of different ways for small businesses. If you currently offer insurance, you should be glad because it is going to reduce the rate of increase in your premiums in pretty short order. If you don't, well then you are looking at the possibility that you may have to contribute something to the pot in some way. There's no way around that if you want to go to a system of universal coverage while maintaining the current employer-based system of health insurance, which the country has decided it wants to do. So the question is whether the country is going to reform its health care system and move to universal coverage, or not. It's a one time change, it involves some disruption and uncertainty, but before long the costs and benefits will be known, people and businesses will adjust and the economy will move on.

_______________________

Health Care uncertainty: Steve, I still don't understand the relationship between this 'uncertainty' on health care reform and the hiring of people today. The big thrust of health care reform does not come into play until 2014. Would Steve Jobs pass on hiring and developing another innovative product because of the spector of health care costs in 2014?

Steven Pearlstein: Yeah, well that's the point, isn't it. The business community gets into this group think, and get's everyone worked up so that they actually start to believe their lobbying talking points.

_______________________

Sitting on cash: Steve--can we dispense with the canard that corporations are "sitting on piles of cash"? It's nonsense. For the most part, this "cash" is short-term government liabilities or commercial paper. In other words, it's not cash at all. Someone has to hold those notes at each and every point in time until they expire. This is NOT money "sitting on the sidelines"--it's money already borrowed and spent by government. If there was a mad rush to dump the notes and convert to actual cash, the notes would be worthless.

Steven Pearlstein: Oh, please. This is money listed on balance sheets as either in cash or short-term liquid securities. It is cash in any sense of the word. It is available. Yes, it might raise short term interest rates a bit if they were all to cash it in at the same time. But with short-term rates paying less than 1 percent, this is hardly a threat to the economy. Give me a break!!

_______________________

Former Exec Here: What people who haven't been senior managers don't always understand is this: as a C-level executive, you're not only competing for market share in your field. You're also competing for investor dollars and your only real obligation is to your shareholders. Thus, sitting on profits--or investing in other companies, or doing anything else that directly improves earnings per share--is better management than "creating jobs," whatever that really means.

Steven Pearlstein: What it tells me is that companies and top executives may be a lot less imaginative and creative as they claim to be, or certainly a lot less courageous.

_______________________

President Obama: Could help the economy if he just told Paul Krugman and his buds to shut up. He just needs to stay another trillion dollar stimulus bill will not work and I will not sign it. Govt stimulus is very inefficient.

Steven Pearlstein: not Obama's role to tell Paul Krugman to shut up. Paul Krugman rants and raves about stimulus because Washington has decided it doesn't want stimulus. Krugman lost this argument, so why does the other side have to do anything. The reality is not what happens in the blogosphere. It is what happens in the legislative process. And right now, there is no stimulus nor any prospect of stimulus. Right or wrong, that is the end of the story.

_______________________

Rural Nebraska: Thank you for being so blunt. Actually, cap and trade works for those of us in the hinterlands willing to sell carbon offsets.

Steven Pearlstein: And bless you for that.

_______________________

Steven Pearlstein: Good discussion today. Out of time. No column next Wednesday (going up to New England for a long weekend) so there won't be web chat. We'll pick up in two weeks.

Post a Comment


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2010 The Washington Post Company