Speaking of Wal-Mart
Responsible Wealth -- a group whose members include such rich folks as Warren Buffet and members of Bill Gates' family -- says it and Martha Burk of the National Council of Women's Organizations will be present at the Wal-Mart stockholders' meeting June 2 in Fayetteville to again ask for adoption of a resolution about gender and racial disparities in Wal-Mart stock ownership among employees. Since Walton family members control most of the stock, the resolution has been voted down twice before.
The group notes that the 2006 proxy statement says that 18.2 percent of Wal-Mart total options in the preceding year went to the five highest paid officers, or .00025 percent of the workforce. None is a woman. Four of the five are white. A company-wide report on stock options, Responsible Wealth said, "will help shareholders determine whether a glass ceiling in employee equity compensation exists ..."




Comments
How many of the top reporters at the Arkansas Times are women? I think that Max and Warwick should take pay cuts and advance a woman at the Times.
ARK. BLOG Leslie Peacock, our managing editor, in case you didn't know, is a woman. Jennifer Reed, our crackerjack education reporter, is similarly situated. Alas, David Koon, Doug Smith and Jim Harris labor under the infirmity of maleness. Our busy entertainment writer, Amy Brawner (soon to have her own personal blog) is a she. Also, the art director, Erica Schaffer. A spiritual staffer, though now just a contributor, is founding mother Mara Leveritt.
Posted by: Sexist Sass | May 17, 2006 02:03 PM
I have a novel idea - why don't we work to advance the most qualified people in business regardless of sex. Sexism is wrong in all forms and as a woman who happens to be doing well I resent the implication that I have been advanced in my work just because of tokenism. Really Max - don't help.
ARK. BLOG Good idea and good for you. I suspect there are some women out there who can provide graphic testimony that the working world hasn't reached that gender-blind (or race-blind) meritocratic point just yet. And illustrating that by numbers is a useful strategy. The last time we looked, there were but a handful of women on the boards of the publicly owned corporations in Arkansas. Of the handful, several had assistance from family relationships. Now maybe that's because men are just smarter and more accomplished and better at business than women. But you won't catch me suggesting that around my house. Indeed, I think women who have risen to the top are probably doubly qualified and attained what they attained in spite of their gender, not because of it.
Posted by: Lets stick to qualifications | May 17, 2006 02:07 PM
Anything Martha Burk is involved in is screwed up.
Posted by: Me. | May 17, 2006 02:20 PM
Just remember these people (Waltons) are supporting Mac Campbell.
ARK. BLOG No doubt. He served the billionaires by working for estate tax repeal. He surely could find a way to help Arvest with special attention on state deposits, too.
Posted by: talk is cheap | May 17, 2006 02:38 PM
He also served the Credit Card industry by supporting and defending the so-called "bankruptcy reform" act. He is getting donations form all the lobbyists and special interests he has helped over they years in DC. YET very few voters will ever know because the news media hasn't said a single word about it. How can Democracy work when voters don't get the facts?
Posted by: media isn't cheap though | May 17, 2006 02:55 PM
'Let's just stick with qualifications' is DOA in this country. There are far too many groups that have a vested interest in entitlements and they will not give them up. The AT is well aware of this so I am somewhat skeptical when they feign ignorance.
Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | May 17, 2006 03:00 PM
People, like Campbell and the Waltons, look out for each other. The rich help each other. The rich hire each other. The riche elect each other.
And the sad thing is that they get many poor people and Democrats to support them by using their money.
Posted by: we don't have a democracy anymore | May 17, 2006 03:04 PM
"No doubt."
Have you asked him? It seems to me that Max that you make a lot of snap decisions based upon your own preconcieved notions but you never has the guts to actually get the facts from the people you slander. Mac Campbell has the support of a lot of good Democrats and he deserves journalism that is a little less yellow than this blog.
ARK. BLOG He's on the record on the estate tax. With his b.s. comment about the poor farmer having to spend $100,000 for life insurance every year to cover future estate tax bills. Any idea how much insurance $100,000 buys? Any idea how big an unencumbered pile of equity you'd have to be sitting on to need that kind of coverage (and how bad a manager you'd be not to have the cash flow to cover it?) Any idea how many farms have been sold on account of estate tax? (Answer: Zero.) Anybody who's worked for
Blanche on special interest legislation for every rich person in Arkansas has a burden to carry when they propose to come in and dole out the money in Arkansas. He hasn't met it.
Posted by: Mac Backer | May 17, 2006 03:24 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Hillary Clinton on Wal-Mart's board?
Posted by: Really? | May 17, 2006 03:40 PM
Yes, Hillary Baby was on WalMart's Board.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 03:51 PM
It is interesting to me that Campbell's detractors spend most of their time saying that Campbell is too inexperienced to hold office and then they turn around and act like he actually had power in Washington DC when it serves their purposes. He didn't get to set policy in Lincoln's office. You should let him be his own man. I think he is a good guy and a good Democrat. I also think he actually knows something about pensions and money management which is why I am going to vote for him over the other two.
Posted by: ddk | May 17, 2006 03:52 PM
"Any idea how many farms have been sold on account of estate tax? (Answer: Zero.)"
Presumably that is because they spent all that money on life insurance to pay off the tax bill. I hate to tell you this Max but I am a estate planner (a nice liberal attorney) and I think you should know that Campbell would be right to say that a lot of money is going to insurance companies to prevent business liquidation.
ARK. BLOG Of course some people are using that as a strategy. Fine. They can well afford it. And you know, too, how high the exemption is on estates, how it's even more for the spouse and how most of the problem in estates comes from heirs who want to get their money out and not necessarily let one or the other of a group of siblings continue to manage the family business, with assets locked up and untouchable to others. And much of this estate planning is because people are sitting on appreciated assets (never taxed in other words, except as to productive value) that will be stepped up to current basis when inherited, but cause a pretty good-sized tax bill. The point is, people who understand the policyvalue of the estate tax, not to mention the financial, are willing to move the exemption up as high as $10 million and index it (and still include the favorable loan and payout rates given small businesses and farmers), but that's not acceptable to the royalists like the Waltons and their sycophants like Campbell. Please don't tell me Alice and Rob worked for that money and should be able to keep every last dime of those billions.
Posted by: no dog in the fight, but . . . | May 17, 2006 03:57 PM
And dont forget those great women up at AT making lots of ad sales to keep the publication moving in the right direction! Couldnt function without all the ad payouts! Cheers LAR! :)
ARK. BLOG Believe me, I know and appreciate those who make the money around here.
Posted by: go girls! | May 17, 2006 04:07 PM
"that will be stepped up to current basis when inherited"
Lincoln's bill eliminates the step up in basis in exchange for repeal for small businesses. That is why the Republicans won't pass it. You should research her ACTUAL position rather than making wild assumptions about her posision and, of all things, the positions of her former staff.
ARK. BLOG I referred to existing law. I'm fully aware she has tlaked about removing the stepped-up basis. The giveaway for the billionaires is still far too great. Particularly to the Waltons, for whom she is obedient servant here.
Posted by: get a grip | May 17, 2006 04:10 PM
If 'just sticking with qualifications' was (or ever had been) a reality in this country we wouldn't have one Lilly white male government after another; neither would women/minority CEOs be the rare exception.
The reality is that there are (and have always been) various institutional/societal barriers (so-called glass ceiling stuff) that keep the status quo in place. So it's not necessarily additional 'help' that women/minorities need; it's recognition that there's no such thing as a truly level playing field...followed by the appropriate leveling.
One of my favorite 'thoughts'--ha--bandied about by the likes of O'Reilly/Rush is that things like affirmative action are insulting to women/minorities 'cause they're underlying thesis is that we're not as smart/capable. HA...we've ALWAYS been as smart/capable...even when one group was enslaved and the other considered under the law as property of the males in their families.
It's been less than a hundred years since women fought for and achieved the right to vote; and only since the 60s was equality mandated by law. In other words, we're making progress but we've got a way to go.
Posted by: zelda | May 17, 2006 05:23 PM
Campbell is on record in the paper on the estate tax issue and the economic slavery act that he and his credit card buddies called "bankruptcy reform." He has spoken out on these issues so perhaps you should do a little research "Mac Backer."
As for the claim he's inexperienced, I haven't heard that. He doesn't have managerial experience, but I'm sure he could manage to run a state office that pretty much runs itself. My concern is with his views (his own words) and the fact that half his money is coming from special interest groups most of what are from DC.
Another thing that troubles me is that he says he is an "economist." Just because you have a degree in Economics that doesn't mean you are actually an economist. Mac has never worked as an economist. And why didn't he see Enron and the other stock market problems coming if he's an economist? You really think he's going to ask tough questions with all the special interest money financing his campaign? Hell no...
Posted by: cracker backer | May 17, 2006 05:39 PM
Is it a coinincidence that many feel this land has gone to hell in a handbasket since women's suffrage was allowed?
Posted by: coincidence? | May 17, 2006 05:46 PM
Yep, that's it. That why we don't vote for any of those dumb women here in Arkansas...well, ok...one
Posted by: yep yep | May 17, 2006 06:25 PM
Is it a coinincidence that many feel this land has gone to hell in a handbasket since women's suffrage was allowed?
Yup, that's it...up until that pivotal moment the world was one big Garden of Eden.
Posted by: zelda | May 17, 2006 06:34 PM
"The giveaway for the billionaires is still far too great."
My understanding of the Lincoln bill is that non-corporate business assets (like farms but not like Wal-Mart stock) would be allowed to take a "carryover basis" and avoid the estate tax but that all other assets (like Wal Mart stock) would still be subject to the estate tax. Max may hate Blanche Lincoln and all but I think that it is unfair to her and the readers for all of his malice (actual malice for your lawyers out there) to continue on this issue. My challenge to Max Brantley is too write a detailed story about this issue and get people on the record if it is really important. I see no relevance of this issue to the state treasurer's job other than it being a useful way for Max to attack a woman we all know Max loathes through her former staff.
ARK. BLOG This bill is a giveaway to the richest interests. It has nothing to do with loathing Blanche Lincoln.Personally, she's just about impossible not to like. We certainly supported her in the general election and, on an issue or two, she's been better than the Republican alternaqtive. But she's building quite a record on the financial ledger -- giveaways to billionaires on the estate tax; special treatment for credit card companies; special treatment for financial companies; special treatment for consumer lenders. Those folks contribute the kind of money that keep her in office, but the outcome isn't always pretty for the working stiff.
Posted by: A Blanche Man | May 17, 2006 07:24 PM
"No doubt. He served the billionaires by working for estate tax repeal. He surely could find a way to help Arvest with special attention on state deposits, too."
Speaking of "actual malice" . . . Max you need to cool it. It is bad enough that you allow your posters to say that these candidates are bad people, but you are making some pretty defamatory comments that seem to have no basis in fact. Are you saying that Mac Campbell is corrupt because he worked for Blanche Lincoln? Are you saying that he should have resigned his position if he didn't agree with her on the estate tax? Are you accusing him of having criminal intentions with state monies? Honestly, tell us why the estate tax matters in the Treasurer's race.
ARK. BLOG Because, as I said in the first place, though it isn't illegal, it's a measure of whose interests come first. billionaires. credit card companies. etc.
Posted by: wow | May 17, 2006 07:32 PM
"Are you saying that he should have resigned his position if he didn't agree with her on the estate tax?"
Can you read? Campbell is on record on the issue. He did agree with her and told reporters so. Go to httpp://arkansasnews.com and do a search. He supported it and has said so. How hard are facts for you to understand?
Posted by: geez | May 17, 2006 07:51 PM
Didn't Shoffner support repeal of the state estate tax? I mean really - she had a vote. Campbell was a staffer.
Posted by: geez also | May 17, 2006 10:02 PM
"This bill is a giveaway to the richest interests."
Really? Explain please. I would like to know how the Lincoln bill works.
Posted by: dumb voter | May 17, 2006 10:09 PM
"Didn't Shoffner support repeal of the state estate tax?"
Nope.
"I mean really - she had a vote."
She was a state legislator, not federal.
"Campbell was a staffer."
Oh, just a staffer? I thought he was the "US Senate's Tax Attorney?" That's what his tv ad says. He also claims to be an economist and he's on record defending the estate tax cut.
Posted by: give it up maroon | May 17, 2006 10:10 PM
We have a (forget the number 13?) trillion dollar debt, so NOBODY should receive money tax free. Those who inherit money should pay an tax on that income just like working stiffs.
Posted by: geez times 13 trillion | May 17, 2006 10:13 PM
To geez times 13 trillion...You are an idiot. My brother and I had to sell my fathers ranch to pay the fed and state estate tax. We had to pay it in 9 months and we sold it to raise the funds. Don't you ever say that no family business has been sold to pay this terrible tax. You, Max and the rest of you socialists bloggers are the worst kinds of peices of human trash.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2006 10:39 PM
You are full of it. Did you not plan ahead? Didn't you know it was coming? Didn't you know that $20,000 could be passed to each child every year tax free? Did you try to get a loan against the ranch to pay off the tax? NOPE You inherited a ranch tax free and you couldn't get a loan and pay for it?
FYI, working people have to sell their stuff all time to make ends meet. They also would have to work and save their money if they wanted to buy a rach so shut up you big cry baby.
I beleive in making money the old fashion way...by EARNING IT so I'm no socialist you maroon.
Posted by: dear mac | May 17, 2006 10:45 PM
How can those who think they are entitled to unearned income without working or paying taxes call those of us who work for our money and pay taxes on it socialists? What a nutcase.
BTW, if you have ever seen the huge home and land Campbells parents own, you'd know why he's for ending the estate tax. It's all about him.
Posted by: your too biased to know better | May 17, 2006 10:49 PM
to dear mac and your to bias...you are wrong...are you saying if you worked hard all your life to save for your children and paid the tax on the money you made and you died you would want the IRS to take half their inheritance? is that what you are saying? By the way dear mac it's not 20,ooo a year to each child it's 11,000.
It's all a case of class envy to you wretched people. If you would get off your lazy ass and work for your family maby you could leave them something...but no you are envious of the ones who do. Lazy fucks! I don't have assets to leave but if I did I wouldn't want any of it to go to someone else's kids through some socialist program.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2006 12:00 AM
No one has ever really explained the difference to me between inherited money and welfare. In both cases, the person who gets the $$ didn't earn it.
I plan to die broke. If my kid can't make it without Daddy's money, then she just won't make it. It does more harm than good to leave your children wealth - look at anonymous.
Posted by: Roland | May 18, 2006 12:44 AM
You are right Roland. Look at the Waltons. They are prime examples of people that didn't earn their money.
By the way, about that level playingfield. Something interesting happened with orchestras. Someone noticed that they were mostly men, so they came up with the novel idea of having the people audition behind screens so you couldn't see their sex, and hiding the names so you couldn't see their sex. Surprise, surprise, suddenly the women were just as good as the men. It really changed the composition of the orchestras.
Says a lot about prejudice, possibly unconsciously expressed. Too bad we can't do something like that when it comes to politics, business and the professions.
Although I have to say I personally prefer female doctors. They usually have a lighter touch.
Posted by: rablib | May 18, 2006 02:58 AM
Could not have said it better Roland. All my money will go to charity when I die. I expect my children to earn their own way and not be lazy or expect something for nothing.
Posted by: inheritance = welfare | May 18, 2006 07:59 AM
Yeah Roland.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2006 04:38 PM
i am happy mostly - though terribly sick at times - the medicine is not a perfect fix - i think some weed would help but caant find any - Kant find any...
Posted by: bdsm fem dom | June 9, 2006 05:23 PM