ABC Shows President Bush Hitting CEO Pay, But Not Defending Tax Cuts

Photo of Ken Shepherd.

Yesterday, President Bush became the second sitting president to ever take a stroll on the New York Stock Exchange floor (Ronald Reagan was the first to do so). Bush also gave a speech at Federal Hall in which he defended his tax cuts, as well as No Child Left Behind, and his policy initiatives in general. But his policy remarks got no attention last night on the evening newscasts, which instead hyped his talking points on CEO pay and income inequality, two liberal themes.

I wrote more about that here. Here's an excerpt:

...network reporters downplayed the good economic news – particularly ABC’s Betsy Stark, who highlighted liberal-sounding applause lines in the president’s Wall Street speech on the “state of the economy” while leaving out the president’s defense of his tax cuts.

CBS’s Katie Couric and NBC’s Brian Williams both briefly addressed the economy’s strong growth rate and the president’s speech, but ABC’s "World News" was the only program among the three New York-based newscasts to offer viewers a fully packaged story on Bush’s "state of the economy report."

"It’s hard to imagine a warmer reception" than how stock exchange traders greeted Bush on the floor of the NYSE, ABC’s Stark conceded. But, she added, "his message to the nation’s leading capitalists was laced with tough love" as he warned corporations to pay executives based on merit and performance.

Following Bush’s remarks on CEO pay, which sounded similar to the media’s usual shock and awe at corporate salaries, Stark said, "For the first time in a high profile way," Bush "acknowledged that not everyone has shared equally in the recent economic prosperity."


But while the clip Stark aired featured the president saying "income inequality is real," Bush immediately added that "the question is whether we respond to the income equality we see with policies that help lift people up or tear others down."

Yet rather than informing her audience of the policies the president favors related to income, Stark turned her attention to casting doubt on the economy’s overall health.

The new GDP number “bolstered the perception of economic success,” she said, but “for now, though, a majority of Americans have another view” as “most say they disapprove of his management of the economy, despite these good numbers.”

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Don't like the words I use? Too bad...

If Leftists cared so much about equality, why don't they advocate charging every single American 15-17% a head for income taxes?

But no, equality for them is stealing from CEOs because they dared to get to that lofty level.  The Leftist answer for everything is committing legalized armed robbery, pure and simple, and then rewarding and subsidizing those who worked the least. 

Steal, steal, and steal some more.  It is much easier than having everyone in society go out and produce for themselves. 

(And the tax cuts DO work.  For those who disagree, consult the Laffer Curve.)

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???"  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

I not only care about equal

I not only care about equality, any fair tax I'd support would be less than a tithe (I'm just that way about the relative importance of big government) but I think I detect a bit of a blind spot on the right WRT executive pay, and Carl Ichann(sp?) on Cavuto put it pretty well. High executive pay is fine, but with high pay comes a natural shareholder expectation for excellence in CEO performance, not perfunctory performance where you spend half the day playing golf (I'm paraphrasing here, but I think I'm close). Remember, this guy takes over weak companies, so he's seen a LOT of weak CEOs with high pay. Are today's CEOs that much better than the ones from the '50s & '60s? I sure as hell don't see it... Current arrangements where executives (who, wisely, tend to own barely-any shares of their own companies) appoint eachother to boards for the sole purpose of massively-overpaying eachother are, at their root, organized theft from shareholders. A system that allows something which walks, talks, quacks, and looks like organized theft from shareholders to go-on invites big-government regulation, which will lead to even-crappier CEO-performance than we see today.
JMR

Nice cloaking device sarc

You're correct, share and share alike at the board level, but then who cares, as long as they don't bring the entire edifice down. ( sure they might, but until then it's a nice superhip face that makes the illusion of the richest kingdom continue ). ( government intervene on their million dollar campaign buds and best 100 corpo flights a quarter friends ? HAhahahhahaaa!!!!! )

 The catalyst is "collapse" - see kenny boy. That's " intervention " and " more regulation ".

 Hey, that's why I say who cares, as long as they don't bring it all down. Of course they aren't worth stratopheric at all, but then neither was the King of Siam or any other, ever.

 natural shareholder expecta

 natural shareholder expectation for excellence in CEO performance

Here is where checks and balances come in. If the CEO - and therefore the stock - underperform, the shareholders can walk. Then they'll have to get a performer (or a government bailout, if they're big enough).

The last thing we need is another government regulation. Cost controls do not work, every time they're tried. Consult Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell.

  Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.

Ancient paradym:   How does

Ancient paradym:   How does a laisez faire style economy manager ever get credit?

He shows a profit, uc.

He shows a profit, uc.

And that is the 'bottom line'.

ACA

...

Acaiguana says:  "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.

I'm so sick of the left spinners

I'm so sick of the left spinners. A warmest greeting for Clinton would have lauded personal prosperity and 22 million jobs ( all presumably 30 dollars an hour and above living wage with full benies) and the longest growth ever and the phantom lying surplus bs line.

When Bush is given the warmest of welcomes, they don't even mention the stock market is at an all time historical high, and imply instead it's the crony evil rip off relationship thing going on,and probalby mumble Ken Lay during the commerical break.

 Nice subtlty, I hate to admit it but they are experts, I'm sure their massive left leaning elite liberalsim prepares their mind and lips for the near effortless partisan slant.

Bush really lost me with this

Bush really lost me with this. Be it minimum wage or CEO pay, I do not want 535 people in DC....536 if you count the POTUS....controlling what people make.

Leftism is vile, but it is especially vile when coming out of the mouth of a non-leftist. Or, maybe he's really not all that much of a non-leftist. 

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!