Image 01 Image 03

Keith Ellison Thinks It’s a ‘Very Good Idea’ For Congress to Regulate CEO Pay

Keith Ellison Thinks It’s a ‘Very Good Idea’ For Congress to Regulate CEO Pay

Weird. He makes a lot more than his employees.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) thinks that the government should regulate CEO pay. Ellison paraded a study showing that CEOs generally make 339 times more than a median employee.

Hmmm…I wonder if he thinks we should apply this same principle to his office.

Ellison made the remarks when he appeared on Bloomberg:

From The Washington Examiner:

Bloomberg’s David Westin asked, “Are you favoring the government actually regulating the relationship between CEO pay and the average worker?”

“I think it is a very good idea, and I think we should start talking about it,” Ellison responded. “This is a broad conversation that needs to, of course, take in policymakers like me,” the congressman said. “But shareholders and investors need to be worried about this too because I do not think this leads to the overall health of the company. I think it takes care of a few people at the tip-top.”

Ellison criticized what he called “exorbitant” salaries for CEOs. He said the differences in pay were “bad and extreme.”

Something tells me that Ellison doesn’t know how all of this works. Like how the CEOs worked their way up to that position and their workload includes more duties and longer hours than a median employee.

The CEOs aren’t just lounging back in their offices doing nothing. It’s their responsibility to keep the company profitable and running so those said median employees have a job.

Let’s look at Ellison’s salary and the salary of those who work in his office. Ballotpedia has his base salary at $174,000. reports that the employees of Ellison “earn an average of $39,718. The top earners in the office make $47,202.

That’s what, a 22% difference between his salary and the average pay? Why doesn’t he distribute his wealth among his employees?



The Democrats are desperate to take back the House but those hopes have started to slowly slip away. Democrats once held a double-digit lead over the GOP in the generic ballot test, but the latest data shows that “the GOP is now typically behind by mid-to-high single digits.”

If the Democrats want to win I suggest stepping away from the crazy and maybe learning math.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


judgeroybean | May 18, 2018 at 11:07 am

Since the majority of high earners are liberal democrats, it would be amusing to see how they react. After all, they put guys like Ellison in office.

    Kevin Smith in reply to judgeroybean. | May 18, 2018 at 11:15 am

    Democrats would find a way to exempt rich liberal democrats from this stupid government regulation or law.

    puhiawa in reply to judgeroybean. | May 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm

    They will simply move their pay from earned income to a capital gain, like they did when they argued for tax increases. The public is insane to believe anything these types say.

CEO: Our government has decided I may not earn more than the average employee pay, no matter how hard I work.

Marxists: Yay!

CEO: So I’ve decided to retire and shut down the factory. You have 2 weeks plus severance pay. Good luck.

Marxists: Huh? But…

Actually, the difference between the average salary in his office and his base pay is 346%.

Henry Hawkins | May 18, 2018 at 11:28 am

Pure socialist pandering to the Working Man.

Ah, the major selling point of socialism and communism, equality in pay. Except the people at the top get all of these astounding government “benefits” which the common herd does not. Such as much better housing for the same rent or no rent, free personal motor vehicle, membership of exclusive stores, free seats at the ballet, free air travel, enrollment in prestigious schools, usually free of charge, etc. The selling point of socialism; all pigs are equal. But, some pigs are ALWAYS more equal than others. Go figure.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Mac45. | May 18, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    What’s worse is they get all of these benefits TAX FREE. They don’t have to buy with post-tax take home pay and anything with sales tax means they pay even less on that front.

The next step is to make ALL pay the same, no matter the job. Doctors making as much as a janitor means-a lot of janitors who could have been a Doctor.

We regulate medical insurance rates. Yet, the costs are progressive.

With capitalism, the steps are moderated, and the corrections are limited. With socialism, the steps are frequently large, and the corrections are often catastrophic. Mortal gods do not perform well in practice, and rarely have pure motives.

I dare him to say that directly into Jay-Z-s face

The 1% narrative must have worn out its usefulness or is polling badly in fund raising marketing. Asking Ellison to compare the gross and net marginal personal income tax rates of the CEOs to those of workers is wasted time because he doesn’t care. He wants to start a “conversation” about income inequality

22% more? Isn’t 174,000 something like 438% more than the 39,718 average or did I waste my time in school?

    02sbxstr in reply to kjon. | May 18, 2018 at 1:19 pm

    Apparently you wasted your time. 174,000 is 338% more than 39,718. You made a common mistake: 174,000 is 4.38 times 39,718, but 4.38 times is not 438%. 200 is 2 times 100, but 200 is but 100% more than 100.

So he wants to cut pay for people who run companies that produce goods and services we need, but He’s fine with 10 million a year for throwing the ball around on the field, or making some sounds on the stage.
He knows his audience: most of those people despise management, which is not difficult to do if you are prone to jealousy. In a democracy, this is a successful tactic.

That’s why we were originally designed as a Republican, with limited voting rights and indirect elections. We are now closer to a democracy, and closer to digging our own grave.

    guyjones in reply to beagleEar. | May 18, 2018 at 8:16 pm

    Precisely. This is a key point that free-market advocates need to make.

    The Dumb-o-crats love vilifying CEO’s, most of whom are actively engaged in creating jobs, prosperity and shareholder/retiree wealth (via capital appreciation and dividend payouts), but, meanwhile, the Dumb-o-crat Party worships at the feet of pro sports athletes, rappers/pop singers, movie producers and actors, all of whom outearn the average CEO, while doing little to nothing to create economic growth or prosperity for anyone else.

    Typical Dumb-o-crat hypocrisy and idiocy.

The article has a typo:
“That’s what, a 22% difference between his salary and…”
Ellison makes roughly 250% more than his staff

The Friendly Grizzly | May 18, 2018 at 1:02 pm

I’d rather we regulate congressmen.

Ever notice how these malevolent marxist morons are so concerned with intruding, inspecting, and interferring with other people’s private concerns?

This Ellison moron needs a serious beatdown. At the ballot box, of course.

Dejectedhead | May 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm

So Democrats don’t like it if CEOs get too much pay because everything has gotta be equal….but they also don’t like raising employee pay because it’ll gentrify an area if employees make too much money (See the Seattle Head Tax). They also favor taxing more and more of people’s income for reasons.

Quite a platform you got there DNC.

“That’s what, a 22% difference between his salary and the average pay?”

Must be some kind of typo. Ellison makes 4.38 times more than the average pay of his help.

So says a parasite that votes on his own salary and benefits. How about eliminating his pension and make him live on SS like other Americans.

The perpetually fiscally illiterate Dumb-o-crats need to be called out on their incessant demagoguery vis-a-vis CEO compensation, because, it’s a drum that they enjoy banging on, and, an effective talking point.

Most CEO’s are creating jobs and shareholder wealth, the latter group including millions of retirees and pension funds. Are there overpaid, poorly-performing CEO’s? To be sure, but, their compensation is a shareholder issue, and, should be handled as such.

Lastly, let’s all observe that the Dumb-o-crat hypocrites never complain about the obscene levels of wealth possessed by their close friends in the pro sports, film and music industries (e.g., Lebron James, Steven Spielberg, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jay-Z, Beyonce, etc.), even though members of this group are likely to far outearn the average CEO, while doing absolutely nothing to create jobs or put money in any American’s pocket, except their own.

4th armored div | May 18, 2018 at 4:26 pm

i wonder how the gov’t unions feel about this –
they will NOT get higher pay and swamp rats will just get base pay plus all they can steal (the usual modus operandi) in gov’t.
LOL once a community organizer always a communist.

don’t see Bernie and wife turning back part of their salaries –
wife is a double or triple dipper.

where are bezos, soros and goldman sachs shmucks ??

Ellison still rakes in less on the government dole than his racist/bigot hero, Farrakhan. But give him time:

Keith Ellison, Louis Farrakhan and Iran:

Hate-mongers obama and farrahkan togther:

1. I have voted my shares in stocks on some stockholder proposals such as requiring companies to disclose lobbying and such. They’re such liberal jerks I’ve decided I’d like to see how much they’re spending on dems and rinos.

2. Look up that goofy f***** ellison and his quote – goes more or less – “there’s plenty of money, it’s just that the government doesn’t have it”.
And that’s a big relief. Minnesota you should be ashamed.

3. For such “humanitarians”, they sure are money grubbers. Toss a dime down Constitution Avenue and you’ll see major injuries among liberals fighting over ownership.

Someone needs to point out that “the study” Ellison cited was produced by his own people, it wasn’t some kind of responsibly conducted and peer-reviewed research paper.

Also, as one might expect, it’s deeply dishonest. Ellison talks about this as if this is typical of American companies in general, knowing that the media will run with it as propaganda. For Example “The Hill” starts an article on this with the passage, “a study that found CEOs in the United States, on average, are paid 339 times more than their workers.”

No, no, no, no.

Ellison cherry-picked 225 companies OFF THE FORTUNE 500 LIST to tally. These aren’t average companies, they are the largest corporations in the world and completely atypical of the salaries of “CEOs in the United States” in general.

In actual fact, the “average CEO” in the US (across *all* companies) makes $178,000 the last time I looked, which is on par with the average dentist. They’re not Scrooge McDuck.

Also, in the video clip Ellison says “for example Mattel” as if to imply that was a typical example in order to further the “CEO pay is insane across the board” narrative, when in fact the Mattel case was the very highest example of them all, it was the most atypical example out of the atypical “top 225” sample.

Her actual salary wasn’t that high, although you’d never know it reading “The Hill”s sloppy coverage, they write: “At the toy manufacturing company Mattel, for instance, a median employee would have to work for 4,995 years – or 111 45-year careers – to make the same amount as its CEO’s annual salary, according to the report.”

Horse crap. Her *annual salary* wasn’t that big, she got a big one-time chunk of stock equity when she came on as CEO in February 2017 (Ellison’s “report” looks at 2017 only) in order to give her an incentive to grow the company (because her stock’s value would rise or fall with the company’s own fortunes). It’s not like she was going to get that handed to her every year of her employment.

And lo and behold, she couldn’t stop Mattel’s slide and its stock (and her own stock equity) is now worth half of what it was when it was granted to her — but of course Ellison is still counting the *original* value. Oh and she’s been let go as of April 2018…

Like all socialists, Ellison cherry-picks misleading information in order to whip up hatred and resentment towards business and commerce, so as to stir up support for further government control of the means of production.