We have our first indicator of how much of a populist Hillary Rodham Clinton will be in her presidential campaign. In a message to supporters on Sunday, she observed that "the average CEO makes about 300 times what the average worker makes" while many American families are still having a hard time getting by, Reuters reports.

That statistic is accurate. The difference between executive and average-worker compensation is about twice as large as it is in places like Switzerland and Germany, where CEO compensation is already very high compared to the rest of the world, as Wonkblog has reported previously. What's more, the gap in the United States is about ten times as large as most Americans realize.

For Clinton, executive compensation is a safe target. You can find plenty of economists with no interest in soaking the rich who agree that our system for negotiating CEO salaries is inefficient and wasteful. The question is to what degree talking about executive compensation will mollify Clinton's critics on the left.

The largest source of the recent increase in inequality of income appears to be that investors are getting larger returns, according to the Congressional Research Service. Some of those investors are CEOs who are being paid in stock rather than cash, partly as a result of several decisions by Congress about how investors and corporations are taxed. When executives are taxed at a lower rate, for example, they have more of a financial reason to demand as much as they can get out of a corporate board of directors.

If Clinton doesn't talk about raising the tax on capital gains or something similarly concrete, she might not be able to convince liberal Democrats she's serious about addressing inequality of income. On the other hand, that kind of proposal would be more controversial among moderates.


Welcome to Wonkbook. To subscribe by e-mail, click here. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. Follow Wonkblog on Twitter and Facebook.


What's in Wonkbook: 1) Rubio 2016 2) Opinions, including Brooks on body cameras for cops 3) The coming Social Security debate, and more

Chart of the day: Inequality of income increased sharply under President Clinton. Should Hillary Rodham Clinton worry about that fact? Jim Tankersley in The Washington Post.

1. Top story: Rubio declares run

Rubio suggests his rivals are old news. "Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a son of Cuban immigrants who is serving just his fourth year in the Senate, launched his presidential campaign Monday night by declaring himself the leader best suited to steer the country into what he called 'the new American century.' ... With his young family by his side, Rubio, 43, cast himself as a youthful, insurgent alternative to Clinton, 67, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, 62, a close friend and mentor of Rubio’s who is also preparing to run for president — though he did not mention either political rival by name." Ed O'Keefe in The Washington Post.

Rubio can't raise as much money as Bush, but he still has a chance. "'Jeb is building the New York Yankees. Marco is playing Moneyball,' said [Rick Wilson, a Florida-based GOP strategist.] ... Rubio's team has already put an emphasis on big data. A secret-money group linked to Rubio's super PAC commissioned a detailed, 270-page report on early-state primary voters last year, representing a trove of information that could help the senator target specific constituencies and develop campaign messages. He is almost certain to have the funds to compete. While Bush has locked up most of the major donors from the Florida fundraising network he opened to Rubio in 2010, the senator can rely on a cadre of wealthy benefactors who are eager to see the fresh-faced upstart reinvigorate the party." Michael J. Mishak in National Journal.

Can Rubio actually bring in Latinos? "Rubio's team hopes Hispanics will be drawn to the historic nature of his candidacy, something he highlighted Monday by announcing his campaign from the port of call for Cuban refugees who fled Fidel Castro. He also spoke movingly about his immigrant parents, using their journey to the United States as a symbol of the American Dream. But his sponsorship of a bipartisan immigration bill in 2013—and his subsequent abandonment of that measure—has made him an enemy of conservative activists and immigration advocates alike." Michael J. Mishak in National Journal.

YORK: Immigration has damaged Rubio's reputation. "Now, Rubio freely admits his approach to immigration reform simply could not work. There were all sorts of things many Republicans found objectionable in the Gang of Eight bill, but just one proved to be an absolutely insurmountable obstacle. The obstacle was this: The Gang of Eight would have given millions of illegal immigrants legal status before the measure's tough enforcement provisions were in place and running. Congress would have handed out the status along with a promise that enforcement was on the way. Much of the public, including many Republicans, didn't believe it. ... It was a costly lesson; for a while it seemed Rubio had blown his presidential chances altogether. And he remains damaged. But now, with flaws in other GOP candidates coming to the fore as the campaign begins, Rubio has a second chance." The Washington Examiner.

SALAM: If Republicans want Latino support, they need a better economic platform. "Most Latinos, like most other Americans, vote on the basis of class interest. So far, it doesn’t seem as though Bush will offer working- and lower-middle-class Latino voters much more than bromides about free enterprise and about how cutting Social Security and Medicare will somehow guarantee all Americans a brighter future. ... Many Latinos back the Democratic Party not because they are single-issue immigration voters but rather because they support the party that fights for expanding Medicaid and other means-tested programs that aim to give low-income households an economic boost." Slate.

Primary source: The transcript of his announcement in Miami.

Quote of the day: "Our leaders put us at a disadvantage by taxing, borrowing and regulating like it’s 1999." -- Sen. Rubio.

CHAIT: Actually, the government was running a surplus in 1999. "In 1999, the economy was booming, yielding wage gains up and down the income spectrum that the subsequent Bush recovery never produced. The government was not, in fact, borrowing at all, but instead running a large surplus. The best criticism of that era’s economic policies is that both parties giddily acquiesced to deregulation of the financial industry that played a role in the crash eight years later. But that criticism represents the opposite of Rubio’s charge that government engaged in excessive regulation. The line is perfectly emblematic of Rubio’s worldview, which axiomatically associates prosperity with a reduction in taxes and borrowing and regulation, with no need to reconcile its assumptions with real-world results." New York.

Musical interlude: A Clinton is running for president, and a Bush looks like he will too. So we might as well party like it's 1999. Here's the title track from Prince's "1999" (Warner Bros., 1982).

Which Rubio is running for president? "At his best, the Republican junior senator from Florida demonstrates that his party is more than a collection of oppositionists and ideologues. Rubio has earned a reputation for policy ideas that are more pragmatic than partisan... There's another Marco Rubio, too. The one who abandoned his position on immigration when his party's base demanded it, who says human activity isn't to blame for climate change, whose positions on foreign policy -- opposing efforts to engage Cuba, for example -- reflect an outdated view of the world and of U.S. power. ... A talented politician, Rubio is capable of being both thoughtful and reckless. There's no question which quality makes for a better president." The editors of Bloomberg View.

2. Top opinions

BROOKS: Equipping police with body cameras is a good idea, but it has a serious cost. "Most people don’t even seem to recognize the damage these cameras will do both to police-civilian relations and to privacy. ... Privacy is important to the development of full individuals because there has to be an interior zone within each person that other people don’t see. There has to be a zone where half-formed thoughts and delicate emotions can grow and evolve, without being exposed to the harsh glare of public judgment. There has to be a place where you can be free to develop ideas and convictions away from the pressure to conform. There has to be a spot where you are only yourself and can define yourself." The New York Times.

TRAISTER: Clinton's experience as a woman in positions of power will define her candidacy. "There are perfectly legitimate reasons to feel antipathetic toward her and her candidacy. She’s a Clinton, she’s hawkish, she’s inauthentic, she’s a centrist, her ties with Wall Street are far too tight, she didn’t condemn her husband’s infidelities as sexual harassment. But what is simultaneously true is that she became a politician in the context of having lived her life as an anomaly: She has climbed first and higher than any other within the nation’s most exclusively male power structure, a trajectory especially likely to shape a woman born at a time at which the only plausible path toward political—let alone presidential—power was through marriage, and then through convincing millions of people that she is not too liberal, too feminine, or too castrating." The New Republic.

COHN: A contested primary would divide the Democratic Party and damage Clinton. "A credible and vigorous primary challenger would be the single likeliest thing to increase Democratic dissatisfaction with her candidacy. It would involve a full year of a liberal Democrat and allies reminding liberal Democrats of all of the reasons they thought Mrs. Clinton was a problematic candidate in the first place. Mrs. Clinton has a good chance of fending off these charges with a unified Democratic Party. Republicans won’t attack her for being overly hawkish on national security, and Democrats won’t countenance a Republican like Jeb Bush or Scott Walker attacking Mrs. Clinton on her ties to Wall Street. ... But without a unified party, she could face recurring and resonant attacks on all of those issues." The New York Times.

FRIEDERSDORF: Clinton's introductory video felt generic and corporate. "If the War on Terrorism or global economic competition requires the next president of the United States to identify some cheerful, clean-cut, ethnically diverse Americans with winning smiles and glowing complexions, Hillary Clinton is up to the task. Her team even made sure to include both dog and cat owners... Every sentence could've been uttered by any politician." The Atlantic.

COOPER: Conservatives' defense of economic liberty risks incoherence. "Though ordinary people rarely talk about it in this way, property is underpinned by exactly the same kind of coercion that bolsters civil rights or tax laws, as is the entire superstructure of what we refer to as the free market system — that is, by government coercion. Therefore, conservatives can't be principled anti-coercion advocates unless they are willing to throw out private property, which they obviously aren't. Coercion can't be bad when it supports things you don't like and good when it supports things you do — no matter what some conservatives maintain." The Week.

3. In case you missed it

Four Blackwater guards convicted of murder and manslaughter in Iraq will go to prison. "A federal judge Monday sentenced a former Blackwater Worldwide security guard to life in prison and three others to 30-year terms for killing 14 unarmed civilians in a Baghdad traffic circle in 2007, an incident that fomented deep resentments about the accountability of American security forces during one of the bloodiest periods of the Iraq war." Spencer S. Hsu and Victoria St. Martin in The Washington Post.

Congressional Republicans will vote to repeal the estate tax almost entirely. "Under the latest plan, backed by farmers and business groups, estates would pay no taxes. Furthermore, heirs wouldn’t owe any capital gains taxes on the increased value of assets over the deceased’s life. That move -- simpler and more generous than previous repeal efforts -- would let billions of dollars in income and assets escape all U.S. taxes. The plan would cost the U.S. government $269 billion in lost revenue over a decade." Richard Rubin for Bloomberg.

An approaching Social Security deadline gives Clinton an opportunity. "House Republicans passed a little-noticed procedural rule back in January that will ensure a heated debate on the Social Security at the height of the presidential campaign. As things stand now, in the final three months of 2016, the Social Security Disability Insurance trust fund will run out of money and beneficiaries will see an immediate 20 percent cut in benefits. ... What House Republicans have actually done is set up a battle that will force the two parties and their respective candidates to take a position on whether to expand or cut Social Security benefits in late 2016—just as Americans are picking their next president. As advocates for expanding benefits will happily tell you, an overwhelming majority of voters support expansion." Pema Levy in Mother Jones.


UPCOMING EVENT: Washington Post Live presents “Executive Actions — Reimagining Industries in a Changing Economy,” April 24 at George Washington University. Register to attend an intimate conversation with five CEOs, including MGM Resorts’ James Murren; Richard Plepler of Home Box Office, Inc.; Desiree Rogers of Johnson Publishing Company; Eric Spiegel of Siemens USA and John Viehmeyer of KPMG, Global and USA.