One Buttload of Froot Loops
John Dunagan
As Dubya rounds up his Cabinet replacements for the second term, among them is Commerce nominee Carlos Gutierrez, CEO and Chairman of Kellogg, maker of breakfast crack. Forbes has the skinny.
The 30,000-ft view: If Gutierrez is confirmed as new Commerce Secretary, he steps down from the board, cleans up his desk in Battle Creek, and Kellogg pays him his 2004 bonus, lump sums for two investment plans, and pension starting in '09. Dude made ~$2.7 mil last year.
So, these are my questions:
- Is this outrageous? I don't suppose for a minute that this prevents him from sailing through confirmation, but does this allow progressives to talk about the issue of CEO compensation in public? And if so, what have we got to say?
- Gutierrez is obviously Hispanic. Calculated move on Rove's part to co-opt [edited: Hispanics] for the Republicans, or not?
- Is Kellogg doing anything wrong? Do we have to eat Cheerios for the next four?
Discuss.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Dec 31, '04
A. No - Who cares how much money he made? Progressives can talk until blue in the face about CEO compensation. Joe Sixpack is not going to be surprised that the guy in charge of making all the world's Cheerios made $2.7 million last year. How much did LeBron James make last year? Brittany Spears?
B. Perhaps - Although he seems to be a legitimate bootstraps-pulling Horatio Alger story so far (does that piss you off?). BTW, La Raza is the Mexican faction that wants to reclaim California, while Gutierrez is Cuban. A common language does not necessarily equal a common political culture.
C. Probably not - Did you hear something specific or are you just musing about a possible quid pro quo?
Dec 31, '04
Uhhh, not sure how you make those connections...
Explain what CEO compensation and closing out of the biz world in order to enter into the political world has to do with the man's confirmation? Something to talk about? You think he should not get paid according to his contract? CEO's are well-paid at huge companies liek Kellogg - that's the way out real world works.
Your second point is, at best, rude, and at worst ignorant (la Raza is a Mexican movement ad Gutierrez is not Mexican, he's Cuban IIRC) and racist in a veiled sense. Offensive as well. What would you ask these questions (honestly) if he was being nominated by a progressive democrat? Do you really think Republican nomination of a Hispanic person is automatically a power play or manipulation? Seriously - Do your homework before posting assumptions and overgeneralizations based on last names, please.
You can eat all the Cheerios you want, or not if you don't. I doubt progressive conservatives (does that term make you uncomfortable?) will be easting Cheerios because of this, but it almost sounds like that's the idea behind you thoughts, or like someone could somehow force it. Pretty stupid comment if you ask me. Ridiculous and false, too. Yeah, that's not a real answer I know - but it wasn't exactly a real question, either.
Read some of the other entries made here. I don't always agree with them, but at least they teach me something good - regardless of my political position. They're often reasonable, well-thought-out and not so one-sided and blatantly cynical.
At least that's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
3:22 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
Thanks for posting, PanchoPdx.
I agree with you in that during the age of the NBA, pop music, etc., $2.7 million's just a number. And no, I don't necessarily begrudge him in and of itself for pulling in that kind of money: as Babe Ruth might have said - 'he had a better year' than Britney or even LeBron.
[BTW, it's Apple Jacks, Frosted Flakes (Zucaritas south of the border) and Froot Loops, not Cheerios (a General Mills product).]
But that number is a starting point for comparing Gutierrez' compensation to that of the janitor, or the person who monitors the printers to keep them from jamming. Living wage, outsourcing jobs, forced political contributions, etc.
So obviously, there's some overlap between Commerce and Labor here, and I believe it's fair during Gutierrez' confirmation hearings to at least raise the discussion of how Kellogg employees are treated and compensated. Gutierrez didn't make all that breakfast crack by himself, after all.
As for Gutierrez' story, it certainly does not piss me off that he's self-made if in fact he IS self-made. I'm sure we'll hear everything about how he came up; if it's legit, good on him.
And I couldn't care very much less that he's Hispanic. I don't work that way.
The definition of La Raza is duly noted: I've heard it used by Hispanics, perhaps incorrectly but nonetheless, in context to Hispanics as a whole, but I'll defer to your definition for now. I believe I can even edit my post to reflect that new knowledge. (I'm new to this regular-contributor thing, but I'll learn.)
As for a Kellogg boycott, you nailed it. I was musing. But if there's a whiff of impropriety at Kellogg, you know someone will get something going.
Me, I can't eat straight Cheerios without a cup and a half of brown sugar and some banana slices.
3:43 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
To clear some stuff up for Greg:
Asked, and answered. This whole blog's for "something to talk about," so, you betcha. As for the relationship, that's how it works: Kerik got bounced from consideration for Homeland Security because of what he did in the "biz world."
It was a question, not a point - that squiggly mark on the end is an easy way to tell. But I'll put you down as a 'no.' Apparently, Team Bush never nominates Cabinet positions for ulterior reasons (reference Rice, Condoleeza; Chao, Elaine; or Powell, Colin); right?
Asked, and answered.
Dec 31, '04
Hi John -
Thanks for answers, cool.
I guess we have a fundamentally different way of approaching things. It sounds like you bring things up in "prove-to-me-he-was-not-self-made" style, and I tend to believe that he is self-made, without evidence having already been presented to the contrary.
Innocent til proven guilty, so to speak. My research on the guy so far seems to yield a decent guy who's worked very hard to get where he is today.
I won't disparage the janitor, but I also won't start that argument here, since it always seems to end up going the same place. I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree there. :)
I agree, that's what the blog is about. I just think there's a good way to present things that doesn't assume something's bad before I get to know the person or situation. Pre-judging anyone is wrong, in my book.
As for the past Bush nominations, I think they were made because they were the best people for the job. My opinion.
I'll certainly keep reading, and it will be interesting to see what you and others have to say.
Dec 31, '04
Is this outrageous? I don't suppose for a minute that this prevents him from sailing through confirmation, but does this allow progressives to talk about the issue of CEO compensation in public? And if so, what have we got to say? - No more of your business than me knowing how much money you make. If he was on a government salary or paid for with my taxes, then it is an issue. I have the option of not buying Kellogg's, I don't have the option of not paying taxes.
Gutierrez is obviously Hispanic. Calculated move on Rove's part to co-opt [edited: Hispanics] for the Republicans, or not? - This is ridiculous and I have no idea what you mean by "obviously Hispanic." This sounds contemptous at best and at worst dismissive of his abilities as a human being. You would have griped if he was white bread or an amalgram of every know race. Do you begrudge the fact that this administration has minorities in positions of power?
Is Kellogg doing anything wrong? Do we have to eat Cheerios for the next four? - Again, very simple - If it troubles you that much, don't eat Kellogg's (I don't know about Cheerios, they are manufactured by General Foods.)
I am hoping this is a clumsy attempt at wit, since it is not a very well-reasoned argument.
4:13 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
I agree, that's what the blog is about. I just think there's a good way to present things that doesn't assume something's bad before I get to know the person or situation. Pre-judging anyone is wrong, in my book.
In mine as well - but asking tough questions to seek facts, while it may not be comfortable to the person being asked, still isn't prejudice, nor does it assume the worst.
Take Colin Powell for instance.
As a Democrat, I point to that nomination as the one nomination Team Bush did get right (or at least, the best one they made). There isn't a question someone could ask him, short of what his role was in burying the investigation of My Lai at Pentagon level, that would have embarrassed him in the least. I believe he got near-unanimous confirmation for State.
So then what? Bush/Rove surrounds him with neo-cons who constantly undermine him, blows him off at Cabinet meetings, uses him to peddle lies to the United Nations, and then boots his ass in transition with the usual backroom mumbo-jumbo about not being a 'team player.'
Now Condi Rice is nominated for Secretary of State. Bad move, but in asking the hard questions that would bring her misdeeds to light, many folks, honestly or otherwise, are going to have misgivings if any Senator dares to ask tough questions of a black woman. That would be a catastrophic mistake.
I therefore see no reason why we can't be absolutely open about everything that matters about every Cabinet position. And that's just as true of Gutierrez for Commerce as it is for any other.
This isn't a beauty contest. These people run our country.
4:20 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
Race remains, I'm convinced, the single largest social issue confronting the US. For the most part this remains a black/white issue, but Latinos play into the calculation as well.
It remains an issue because citizens have never confronted it directly and because politicians exploit rather than address it. In order to steal the South, the GOP has embarked on the cynical and racist Southern Strategy. Not all Republicans do this, but those that don't look the other way while their party members do.
Democrats, however, continue to have a patronage attitude toward nonwhites--one senses sometimes that although Democrats support black and hispanic "issues" (to the degree such things exist), they still have an us-and-them posture. Further, Dems tend to have a 1965 attitude toward race, and view nonwhite voters as members of rigid blocs.
But given Bush's use of the Southern Strategy himself, it's reasonable to question the reason he selects nonwhites. But at this point, re-election isn't an issue, and tapping CEO of Kellogg's means tapping a badass (as opposed to, say, white nominees like Kerik). Better that Dems quit looking at the color of the Republicans' skin and instead focus on their politics.
5:29 p.m.
Dec 31, '04
Better that Dems quit looking at the color of the Republicans' skin and instead focus on their politics.
OK. So the answer to question #2 is an overwhelming No.
Then, is it okay to ask about Gutierrez' position on trade with Cuba? For example, is it proper for Kellogg to be allowed to sell Zucaritas and other food products in Cuba for 'humanitarian reasons' while such things as bandages and sutures go lacking there, or should all of industry play by the same rules?
But since everyone's so quick to turn their laserlike focus on the race question (I guess it's sexy), let me briefly reintroduce the other two:
If Gutierrez is confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, to what extent are we allowed to question his continuing compensation, while in office, by Kellogg? Will Commerce policies now be written to benefit the food products industry? Will Kellogg have disproportionate access to the ear of the Commerce Secretary, similar to Enron and Halliburton's disproportionate share of same with regard to the President/Vice-President?
How much do you believe, Mr. Gutierrez, is a fair living wage for an hour of menial labor? Did Kellogg pay that while you were making $2.7 million in 2003?
What percentage of Kellogg employees and plant workers were on government assistance?
How often and how successfully has Kellogg been sued by its consumers, and do you believe as does most of the rest of this Administration that if limits could be placed on awards for damages from such lawsuits, American industry would flourish and restore the 3 million jobs it lost through outsourcing and other cheap-labor, harmful policies?
Harp on me daring to mention that Gutierrez (like Gonzales) is Latino if you like, everyone. But there are tons of other questions that need to be asked of this nominee.
And given Bush/Rove's track record so far with nominees (Kerik, Gonzales, Rice), as the minority party and 'loyal opposition', noone should get a pass.
Dec 31, '04
As someone who often eats Cheerios (the box has a big G on it for General Mills) and who is a native of Michigan (and thus knows where Battle Creek is, the home of Kellogs), I would suggest 2 things: A) be sure of basic facts (like who makes Cheerios) B) to approach the issues of executive pay, use the approach Gen. Clark used. He knew how many times a private's salary he made as a general. He didn't see why CEOs had to make much more than that differential unless they were extremely successful at producing a profit.
Jan 1, '05
I think attracting latino votes is only a small part of the calculus here. The much greater part, as implicitly answered by Pedro and Steve, is so Republicans can have a stick to beat up anyone who opposes the nomination, calling them "reverse racists" or some such nonsense. They still think "white guilt" is a weapon at their disposal, and some progressives still seem willing to put up with it.
Just wait until there are US Supreme Court spots to fill, and you'll see this phenomenon in full flower.
Jan 1, '05
JD, Did you mean to say PanchoPDX instead of Pedro (me)?
Jan 1, '05
I have nothing against opposing Mr Gutierrez' nomination. However, opposing it on grounds that he is Hispanic just to get votes, come on.
If you were to oppose him because of his qualifications (e.g. He has no business experience at all) his origin notwithstanding - fine. Since when is his race even an issue?
Jan 1, '05
You're right, sorry Pedro...
Now Steve, are you really suggesting that Bush gave no thought to race in this nomination? The subject didn't occur to anybody until LIBERALS cynically brought it up??
Jan 1, '05
No, you are right the Bush team has large caravans of people carefully cruising well-defined racial areas searching for someone with the right racial background and geneteic characteristics.
I am not a Bush fan, but if he selected only white people you would jump on that. He selects minorities and you jump on that. You don't think you are being slightly unreasonable?
Jan 1, '05
JD,
Please stop. If I laugh any harder I'll get a sideache.
Your cynical comments demonstrate your annoyance at a talented minority working for the Bush administration. You read his bio and want to like him, but since he just signed up to work for Darth Vader cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head.
Why don't you just come out and call him an Uncle Tom(as)?
Tell the world Gutierrez is crapping all over Che Guevera's memory, because he doesn't act like a good minority is supposed to act.
When I was in college (some years back), it was the prevalence of this sort of mindset that drove me to change my registration from Democrat to independent.
Jan 1, '05
Double standard?
When BC promised "a cabinet that looks like America" that was neither racist nor cynical. But since W is not our "first black president", it's not the same. Is that the way it works, JD?
6:00 p.m.
Jan 1, '05
Harp on me daring to mention that Gutierrez (like Gonzales) is Latino if you like, everyone. But there are tons of other questions that need to be asked of this nominee.
John, I was making a general comment more than responding directly to your question. My comment was intended to indicate that we should talk MORE about race, and MORE HONESTLY about it. In the case of Gutierrez, I don't know that race is at issue. But when the Supreme Court comes open, if Bush floats a nonwhite candidate merely because he thinks Dems can't oppose him on racial lines, that's when it's fair to call it a cynical, racist move.
I guess more directly to your post, I'd say Gutierrez is one of the least controversial nominees Bush has made recently--one with adequate (if obviously partisan) credentials. So many of Bush's other nominees are incompetent or worse.
Jan 1, '05
Is anyone here following the 'torture jet' story and the fictitious Portland man who supposedly owns the jet? What about the law firm, Jordan, Caplan, Paul & Etter who acts as the man's registered agent? I think the firm is in downtown Portland. It's a creepy story so far.
I've got more info on my blog and links if someone wants to help with this story. http://newframes.typepad.com/new_frames/2005/01/mysterious_port.html
Jan 1, '05
Uhm, was THAT what I said, Steve??
Not sure where that came from either, Pancho...
Making my argument for me, Ramon?
Let's get back to reality here for a minute: you guys are all the same person, right? Your tactics are all identical: respond to what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.
And I'd find it very hard to believe that there really are 3 different rightwing wackjobs trolling ten times a day on a blog that's explicitly "for progressive Oregonians." Don't you have a revival meeting or a cross-burning to go to instead?
Here's a thought for future posts S/P/R: try for quality, not quantity.
Jan 1, '05
On a total side note, Can one of you explain to me why so many in the blog community do not just use their real name? Why the alias, more than one, or any alternatives to your own name?
I also get the feeling there are some prominent or elected officials masquerading as random posters so as to convey their views which do not align with their public persona.
Just wondering.
Jan 1, '05
Because unstable right wing nut jobs like Lars Larsen carry loaded weapons.
10:24 p.m.
Jan 1, '05
John, I was making a general comment more than responding directly to your question. My comment was intended to indicate that we should talk MORE about race, and MORE HONESTLY about it.
And so was mine, Jeff. Sometimes the juxtaposition of posts confuses the issue, but I understood that, I assure you. That's why the quote you used contains the clause, ", everyone." Don't worry - I didn't take your post as a direct rebuttal of my own, and in fact, I agree with most of the points you made in it.
The post you just quoted from is more about the tone of the first few respondents - that somehow my asking the question is meant as a rebuke to Hispanics because they're not acting the way I (or Democrats, as a whole) expect them to. That wouldn't be accurate, either.
Jan 1, '05
Good for Pedro! Why should people have to reveal their names to strangers on a blog? Has it ever entered the mind of those who want all bloggers to use full name that there might be ordinary citizens with a concern for safety? That some blog entries (not to mention Lars and his radio show) could make a person glad a total stranger doesn't know their identity?
Jan 2, '05
LT,
Very true..with 1st and last names..you could search them and post information about them on this blog or others.
Jan 2, '05
Aaron says """Very true..with 1st and last names..you could search them and post information about them on this blog or others.""""
Is that what happens to those who write letters to the editor?
Are there people who are afraid of nut Lars?
Jan 2, '05
To be able to check background on a person is not bad. I had searched Christopher Frankonis,
Alias, The One True b!X's, after the WW piece was posted. It was informative to see Christopher's activities and such to better gain an understanding of who he is and where he is coming from. Unless he had something to hide or is not proud of his participation and activism what's wrong with knowing a real name to check on?
I certainly do not get the impression from his postings that he has any problem with anyone knowing who he is. I think he about as far left as one can be,(further left than Lars is right) but he doesn't seem to hide it. On the other hand I think there are plenty of others who not want their public persona to be the same as their real deal. They are called phonies.
Jan 2, '05
Shit! You've got me, Steve, so I guess I'd better come clean: I'm Gordon Smith.
7:18 p.m.
Jan 2, '05
On executive compensation... It seems to me that there oughta be a law -- or at least a basic ethical guideline - no one should make more money than the president of the united states.
There is no organization more complicated. No job harder to land. No organization that matters more. No person who is more influential. No person who spends more money or brings in more revenue.
There is no job that is harder than that of POTUS. So, why should anyone make more than that?
(For what it's worth, the president makes $400,000. That's a recent increase, signed into law by Bill Clinton. Clinton himself only made $200,000 his entire term.)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know: we probably can't make that a law. But as an ethical matter, shouldn't we ask the question, "what are you doing that's more important and more valuable than what the president is doing?" And as a matter of taxation, shouldn't income taxes hit a new, higher rate at that point?
7:58 p.m.
Jan 2, '05
Kari wouldn't you have to factor in all of the non-monetary compensation of POTUS when figuring his/her total salary? Housing, transportation, meals, etc. There is very little they actually have to pay for... so even if you factor out the whole private jet thing and don't account for how much it would actually cost to rent The White House, you can probably easily add a couple hundred thousand onto that per four year term.
Hey, what can I say, someday I'd like to clear the half-mil mark. ;-)
But I do believe that people who make more should be taxed more - with two percent of the people having 98% of the wealth, it just seems fair. And it's not like they can't afford it. Of course I say that from somewhere in that 98% of folks who shares two percent of the wealth... so... what do I know. lol.
Anyway... regardless of all of that...I'm pretty sure you can't make the salary cap a law. That would be a little too anti-capitalist for most Americans to swallow.
On a total side note, Can one of you explain to me why so many in the blog community do not just use their real name? Why the alias, more than one, or any alternatives to your own name?
Some of us stick our feet in our mouth so often that we'd just rather no one knows who the hell we are except our close personal friends who love us in spite of our affinity for the taste of shoe leather. Or maybe that's just me.... lol.
8:11 p.m.
Jan 2, '05
Can one of you explain to me why so many in the blog community do not just use their real name?
...and I've heard from at least one person using a pseudonym here on BlueOregon who fears for his/her safety. Have no idea what the circumstance is...
Also, there's at least one other person using a pseudonym here at BlueOregon because he/she is a well-known person (not an elected official) - but would prefer to comment freely and not have repercussions in his/her professional life.
As someone who has experienced just that (years ago), I can understand the impulse.
My only request: Pick a pseudonym, and stick with it. Your privacy is your own, but folks should be able to connect one of your comments with another.
Jan 3, '05
JD,
For the record, I do not post as Ramon or as Steve Schopp.
I don't consider myself a "rightwing wackjob" either, I just find it particularly hilarious when the politically correct chickens come home to roost.
Apparently I'm not the only one.
<h6></h6>Steve,
I use a pseudonym so I can express myself freely without concern of repercussion in my professional life. I don't treat it as an opportunity to lie about my take on things.
You can feel free to discount my thoughts if you'd like, but I should point out that my knowing your full name hasn't really changed the way I view your comments.
You could be "Steve Schopp" or "Captain Bunnypants", I really don't care. After I read different posters enough times to identify their perspective, I usually come up with my own names for them anyway.
1:08 a.m.
Jan 3, '05
As long as this thread has been derailed (or the original topic discussed as much as it's going to be, I'm not sure which), I might as well say this - I post with my full name only, and JD is a different person - in case people were wondering.
IMHO, it's probably just a little on the paranoid side to think that what you post on here is going to get you hurt, or otherwise subject to repercussions. We're still under the rule of law here in America - stalking/hurting/beating someone for what they post is still illegal.
Jan 3, '05
So it's time for Let's Play One of the Oldest Games in Politics - "Shoot the Messenger." Count me out.
That only shows that exposing JD's ugly double standard really struck a nerve. I couldn't help it. The target was huge, gratis JD's word choice "Froot Loops" that is so offensive on so many levels.
One of the biggest problems we face in politics and policy-making is the application of multiple standards.
Far worse than posting under a blogname is posing one's ego tripping as ideology, with one set of rules for "those with whom we agree" and another set of rules for everyone else.
This backwards rule is the norm in Portland and MultCo government. Call it "Might Makes Right" or "The Ends Justifies the Means". It is faithfully followed by the Moscow on the Willamette editors of the Oregonion. I mean Oregonian. (You know, the local publication that is subsidized by out-of-state $$$ from all-style, no-substance Vanity Fair-ites - the out-all-night-in-Manhattan decadent lifestyle crowd.)
Let's repeal this law. Sten & Blackmer could start drafting an ordinance to ban the masquerade. True blue progressives are capable of better than this.
Jan 3, '05
What's the harm in posting anonymously, as long as one isn't playing games such as posting under different names? Steve, you should just concentrate on the arguments. With your mentality, it might actually be a good thing that posters remain anonymous, since you seem likely to drag in their outside record rather than just deal with the argument made.
Now, reading this comment:
"Don't you have a revival meeting or a cross-burning to go to instead?"
I have to think that "JD" is not the person's initials but rather those of a beverage he or she has just over-indulged in.
Jan 3, '05
OK, one final comment, then. I think the original question is should minority status matter for cabinet positions? I guess my Reductio ad Absurdum approach was a reach by implying that Bush looking for minorities in selecting candidates could be extended to trolling certain areas for people regardless of their qualifications.
However, even if he was selected based on minority status, then why is this wrong? If so, then how does this differ from EEOC programs (which I feel are OK.)
I actually enjoy reading some of the better-reasoned responses on this blog. The name-calling I can do without, however. In addition, I agree with some topics (like way too much money/people spent in Iraq), disagree with other things (more government involvement in private sector) and kind of go huh? on some topics (OregonLive being a good website is a progressive issue?)
As far as names, I only use Steve. My only comment is that if my choices are: 1) Someone saying what they think under an assumed name 2) Someone not saying what they think under their own name I'll choose the former.
Jan 3, '05
Steve, I think you are misreading the original post. I don't think JD's post says we should oppose Guttierez, rather raises some points and asks should we be worried about them.
The comment that's been objected to so strenuously here--Gutierrez is obviously Hispanic. Calculated move on Rove's part to co-opt [edited: Hispanics] for the Republicans, or not?--says nothing about using race as a reason to oppose Guttierez. JD just asks if others think this nomination may be partially electorally motivated.
Objecting to this claim is silly--virtually all Cabinet nominees are appointed in part to satisfy certain electoral constituencies.
Along with Gonzalez's promotion to Attorney General (with SC nomination to follow), it is part of the Karl Rove's electoral's strategy to counter growing Democratic strength in the Southwest (as to the poster above who asks why GB is doing this, the answer is that GB is thinking about Republican power in the future, not just his own second term).
The fact that Guttierez can be sold as a Horatio Alger story only makes this him a more compelling nominee.
1:38 p.m.
Jan 3, '05
That only shows that exposing JD's ugly double standard really struck a nerve. I couldn't help it. The target was huge, gratis JD's word choice "Froot Loops" that is so offensive on so many levels.
<h2>This is sarcastic, right? I have a hard time following the mock-offense.</h2>