State spending

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

In a recent interview The Free Press had with Gov. Tim Pawlenty, he laid out this pattern of government spending in Minnesota in part as justification for holding the line a bit.
His quote directly: "The average two-year increase in the state's budget from 1960 to present, Elmer Anderson to Tim Pawlenty is 19 percent. When Carlson was governor he got it down to 12 percent, and Ventura about the same. On my watch, there's abeen a 9 percent average increase"
Numbers can be deceiving, but it sure looks like a lot of spending growth. Any thoughts?

[Bob Jentges]

In a recent interview The Free Press had with Gov. Tim Pawlenty, he laid out this pattern of government spending in Minnesota in part as justification for holding the line a bit.
His quote directly: "The average two-year increase in the state's budget from 1960 to present, Elmer Anderson to Tim Pawlenty is 19 percent. When Carlson was governor he got it down to 12 percent, and Ventura about the same. On my watch, there's abeen a 9 percent average increase"
Numbers can be deceiving, but it sure looks like a lot of spending growth. Any thoughts?

Not from me, other than I agree with your comment: "but it sure looks like a lot of spending growth." One more thing. For those people whose income is to some extent based on the increase in cost of living I bet they would be satisfied with a 9%increase.

[Dan Conner]

In a recent interview The Free Press had with Gov. Tim Pawlenty, he laid out this pattern of government spending in Minnesota in part as justification for holding the line a bit.
His quote directly: "The average two-year increase in the state's budget from 1960 to present, Elmer Anderson to Tim Pawlenty is 19 percent. When Carlson was governor he got it down to 12 percent, and Ventura about the same. On my watch, there's abeen a 9 percent average increase"
Numbers can be deceiving, but it sure looks like a lot of spending growth. Any thoughts?

Seems like a lot to me. However, this wouuldn't be the first time the Governor has "lied with statistics." We'll se if the DFL answers this. That's a 456% increase, without factoring in compounding. It would be more interesting to factor in the combined COLA increases during that time. It was particularly high un the early 1980's. Of course there are other things that need to be factored in like, increase in the number of miles of roads, streets, people, schools, students, etc. That would increase things beyond simple cost-of-living. By itself, it loos very high, but in the context...

[Ellen Mrja]

I'm not as brilliant an economist as Pawlenty, but isn't spending growth a meaningless figure without a corresponding look at revenues, services expected, population growth? I'm with Dan on this one. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

In my opinion, Pawlenty's proposals for balancing the budget using "slash and burn" policies that would devastate the weakest amongst us are cruel; his strategy appears to be using Minnesotans to rise to the top of the Republican contenders' list of 2012 as some sort of fiscally-conservative wunderkind.

He ought to be ashamed. Instead he lectures us about 'no new revenue enhancements' and flies out of state to another high-profile meeting with leaders of the party that got us into this mess.

[Bob Jentges]

I'm not as brilliant an economist as Pawlenty, but isn't spending growth a meaningless figure without a corresponding look at revenues, services expected, population growth? I'm with Dan on this one. There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

In my opinion, Pawlenty's proposals for balancing the budget using "slash and burn" policies that would devastate the weakest amongst us are cruel; his strategy appears to be using Minnesotans to rise to the top of the Republican contenders' list of 2012 as some sort of fiscally-conservative wunderkind.

He ought to be ashamed. Instead he lectures us about 'no new revenue enhancements' and flies out of state to another high-profile meeting with leaders of the party that got us into this mess.

If any State legislators have accused Gov. Pawlenty of telling "lies" about the figures in his budget proposals I have not heard them yet. They probably have more information on the subject than we do.

Considering the present state of the economy I think a 9% increase in spending is enough. Our elected officials can debate how/where that increase should be apportioned or what, if anything, needs to be cut, but I prefer an increase in spending of 9% or less.

[Dan Conner]

Considering the present state of the economy I think a 9% increase in spending is enough. Our elected officials can debate how that increase should be apportioned or what, if anything, needs to be cut, but I prefer an increase in spending of 9% or less.

I think you are in favor of what? Do you know? If the 9% figure is a biennium budget increase, it isn't very much, especially since Pawlenty has left so many programs underfunded because of chronic underfunding. I agree with Ellen. She is thinking about what needs to be done with these programs, not the cost. I don't think you care what the programs accommplish because you care only about the cost.

There are now studies out showing the richest people in our state pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the middle income people. That's not only wrong, it's an injustice. However, Pawlenty doesn't want to increase their taxes, he just wants to gut programs for the needy in the State.

Bob, I think you are arguing on a different plane. I think Ellen, Liz and I feel government has a morale imperative in our state and federal government. We believe it exists for people. I think you believe it exists to protect wealth. The Constitution (you know the thing you used to point out the errors of Congress with) stresses the common good of people, not protecting the rich. It is the wealthy greedy money protecting mongers that have got our country in this fix. Now, I think it is time for them to get us out. They need to start to pay for those wonderful opportunities they had to earn all their money. The tax evading Swiss bank account people need to visit the graybar hotel.

[Howard Dittrich]

[QUOTE=Dan Conner;747]
There are now studies out showing the richest people in our state pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the middle income people. That's not only wrong, it's an injustice. However, Pawlenty doesn't want to increase their taxes, he just wants to gut programs for the needy in the State.

Dan,

Have not seen these studies, where are they? Can you provide any links.

Thanks, Howard

[Bob Jentges]

I think you are in favor of what? Do you know? If the 9% figure is a biennium budget increase, it isn't very much, especially since Pawlenty has left so many programs underfunded because of chronic underfunding. I agree with Ellen. She is thinking about what needs to be done with these programs, not the cost. I don't think you care what the programs accommplish because you care only about the cost.

There are now studies out showing the richest people in our state pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the middle income people. That's not only wrong, it's an injustice. However, Pawlenty doesn't want to increase their taxes, he just wants to gut programs for the needy in the State.

Bob, I think you are arguing on a different plane. I think Ellen, Liz and I feel government has a morale imperative in our state and federal government. We believe it exists for people. I think you believe it exists to protect wealth. The Constitution (you know the thing you used to point out the errors of Congress with) stresses the common good of people, not protecting the rich. It is the wealthy greedy money protecting mongers that have got our country in this fix. Now, I think it is time for them to get us out. They need to start to pay for those wonderful opportunities they had to earn all their money. The tax evading Swiss bank account people need to visit the graybar hotel.

Dan, regarding the 9% figure, it's the figure (or at least one of the figures) Joe Spear used in his first post in this thread when he asked for our "Thoughts".

Back to my last post in this thread where I said: "Our elected officials can debate how that increase should be apportioned or what, if anything needs to be cut...".

[Dan Conner]

Dan, regarding the 9% figure, it's the figure (or at least one of the figures) Joe Spear used in his first post in this thread when he asked for our "Thoughts".

Back to my last post in this thread where I said: "Our elected officials can debate how that increase should be apportioned or what, if anything needs to be cut...". Ok, Joe used it, but was it annual or biennial? The budget is biennial.

[Bob Jentges]

Ok, Joe used it, but was it annual or biennial? The budget is biennial.

I will not speak for Joe, but I think he was probably aware that that the State's budget is bienniel. That is pretty much established as
fact on B2 in The Valley, Online, Freep Forum of this mornings edition of The Free Press.

Also, in my opinion this mornings Our View in The Free Press makes some good points on the State budget issues berore us.

[Dan Conner]

I will not speak for Joe, but I think he was probably aware that that the State's budget is bienniel. That is pretty much established as
fact on B2 in The Valley, Online, Freep Forum of this mornings edition of The Free Press.

Also, in my opinion this mornings Our View in The Free Press makes some good points on the State budget issues berore us.

Well you used it. Don't you know what you used? There is a significant difference in 9% for 1 year or 2. You threw out the 9%, so I thought you know what you meant. It would be a good idea if you found out. Why don't you ask Joe?

If it is for the biennium, then it isn't too bad, especially coming from a reduced budget to begin with. I certainly think your statistics need a little more analysis.

[Bob Jentges]

Well you used it. Don't you know what you used? There is a significant difference in 9% for 1 year or 2. You threw out the 9%, so I thought you know what you meant. It would be a good idea if you found out. Why don't you ask Joe?

If it is for the biennium, then it isn't too bad, especially coming from a reduced budget to begin with. I certainly think your statistics need a little more analysis.

I was aware the State is on a two year budget cycle when I made my first post in this thread. I do not see anything I posted herin that should give you the impression I was not. In Joe's initial post he quoted Gov. Pawlenty as saying the average "two year" increase in spending during his terms was 9%, when comparing it with some of his predecessor's.

As I see it the major difference between Joe, me, and you here might relate to the degree of increase over the years, including Pawlenty's terms as Governor. From the onset Joe and me seemed to agree it "seemed like a lot". In your first post you said: "Seems like a lot to me". In one of your subsequent posts you said: "If its for the biennium, then it isn't too bad...".

My position remains as previously stated: "Considering the present state of the economy I think a 9% increase in spending is enough."

[Dan Conner]

I was aware the State is on a two year budget cycle when I made my first post in this thread. I do not see anything I posted herin that should give you the impression I was not. In Joe's initial post he quoted Gov. Pawlenty as saying the average "two year" increase in spending during his terms was 9%, when comparing it with some of his predecessor's.

As I see it the major difference between Joe, me, and you here might relate to the degree of increase over the years, including Pawlenty's terms as Governor. From the onset Joe and me seemed to agree it "seemed like a lot". In your first post you said: "Seems like a lot to me". In one of your subsequent posts you said: "If its for the biennium, then it isn't too bad...".

My position remains as previously stated: "Considering the present state of the economy I think a 9% increase in spending is enough."

Well, I think it is important to be clear for readers that they understand it is for 2 years--not 1. It is unimportant that you feel it is enough, but it is important that misinformation is not given that influences what other people might think. Remember, you were in agreement with Ben that it was wrong to misuse statisitics. It's also important for us all. A 9% biennial budget increase breaks out to less than 4 and 1/2 % a year. Then, everyone has a opportunity to make an informed decision. Certainly, 4 and 1/2% sounds far less dramatic than 9% and people don't normally think in biennial terms, they think of annual terms.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, I think it is important to be clear for readers that they understand it is for 2 years--not 1. It is unimportant that you feel it is enough, but it is important that misinformation is not given that influences what other people might think. Remember, you were in agreement with Ben that it was wrong to misuse statisitics. It's also important for us all. A 9% biennial budget increase breaks out to less than 4 and 1/2 % a year. Then, everyone has a opportunity to make an informed decision. Certainly, 4 and 1/2% sounds far less dramatic than 9% and people don't normally think in biennial terms, they think of annual terms.

If anything I said in my posts misled readers about the length of the State budget cycle I did not intend for that to happen.

I am going to bow-out now, but maybe you can continue the discussion with Howard Dittrich, should you choose to answer the question he put to you.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

It's 9 percent over two years. Average 19 percent over every two yeas since 1960. Howard. Here is the link on the tax "incidence" study the state is required to do each year. The press release, in my opinion, kind of dodges the "rich-poor" question and talks more about "regressive-progressive" But if you look at the report, you eventually get the numbers.

here is the pdf report http://is.gd/oxBv

Somehow, the press release has disappeared from the state web site.

[Howard Dittrich]

Joe,

Thanks for getting me the link. Not sure if my reply belongs here as this thread is labeled "state spending". If there is a better place for it let me know.

Dan,

Your statement "There are now studies out showing the richest people in our state pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the middle income people" is not supported by the information provided by the link Joe provided. The State of Minnesota's income tax is progressive not regressive.

The argument could be made that when consumer taxes are included Minnesota does have a slightly regressive tax structure and the tax study does show this. This argument fails when it is pointed out that many of the "consumer taxes" are based on the activity being undertaken by the tax payer and not by the tax payers income level. This argument also is suspect when you consider that to some extent these same "consumer taxes" are optional. IE if you do not participate in that given activity you do not pay the tax.

Howard

[Ellen Mrja]

Pawlenty today announced he wants state employees in the MAPE and AFSCME unions to take 48 days of unpaid furlough over the next two years, 24 days per year. The state would get to decide who would take them and when.

Asking working people to give up one month's pay for the state is excessive. Does he have any concern for average Minnesotans? Let's remember to show him the same support when he leaves for the RNC nominating convention in 2012.

[Bob Jentges]

Pawlenty today announced he wants state employees in the MAPE and AFSCME unions to take 48 days of unpaid furlough over the next two years, 24 days per year. The state would get to decide who would take them and when.

Asking working people to give up one month's pay for the state is excessive. Does he have any concern for average Minnesotans? Let's remember to show him the same support when he leaves for the RNC nominating convention in 2012.

Many private industry employees are already facing somewhat similar situations.

[Dan Conner]

Joe,

Thanks for getting me the link. Not sure if my reply belongs here as this thread is labeled "state spending". If there is a better place for it let me know.

Dan,

Your statement "There are now studies out showing the richest people in our state pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the middle income people" is not supported by the information provided by the link Joe provided. The State of Minnesota's income tax is progressive not regressive.

The argument could be made that when consumer taxes are included Minnesota does have a slightly regressive tax structure and the tax study does show this. This argument fails when it is pointed out that many of the "consumer taxes" are based on the activity being undertaken by the tax payer and not by the tax payers income level. This argument also is suspect when you consider that to some extent these same "consumer taxes" are optional. IE if you do not participate in that given activity you do not pay the tax.

Howard

I beg to differ. If you look at the link Joe Spear just sent to us, it explains there was considerably greater regressivity in the Minnesota income tax. That seems pretty straight forward to me. Look on page 21 of the report. Having even a slightly regressive tax structure is a far departure from what was intended to be a progressive tax structure. It is the wealthy that can best afford the additional taxes, not the working poor. Your arguement about not consuming yields a less regressive tax? That seems like a perversion of the intent of a tax structure. So what you're saying is, don't buy anything that has a sales tax, so your tax rate won't be so regressive? Doesn't seem to logical to me. Especially for an economy needing consumption.

[Dan Conner]

Many private industry employees are already facing somewhat similar situations.

However, there weren't enough from insurance companies facing this. In spite of a heavy downturn in their business, they saw fit to give extravagant pay raises to executives. Those executives should be fired, not given bonuses. That seems to be a prevalent problem in too many large corporations. The executives make a fortune, regardless of corporation performance, and the stock holders end up owning "blue sky."

[Bob Jentges]

However, there weren't enough from insurance companies facing this. In spite of a heavy downturn in their business, they saw fit to give extravagant pay raises to executives. Those executives should be fired, not given bonuses. That seems to be a prevalent problem in too many large corporations. The executives make a fortune, regardless of corporation performance, and the stock holders end up owning "blue sky."

Although this thread is titled "State spending" I agree that private industry executative pay and bonuses need to be explored. I think that is probably best done by stockholders and/or owners of the specific corporation/business.

I do not know how many, if any, insurance company employees have been asked to take unpaid furloughs or if their has been "a heavy downturn" in the insurance business in the recent past. But from my recollection one way the company I worked for tried to stay competative in the market was by keeping staffing "lean", yet sufficient to provide the service the policyholder was promised.

The reason for my brief reply to Ellen's post was to point out that it is not only state employees that are facing cut-backs. I read an article in the Star Tribune (I think) last week that indicated the state was the largest employer in our state, and that Minnesota ranked 10th in the nation in full time state employees per 10,000 residents. So employees of large and small operations apparrently face a similar prediciment right now, and I am sympathetic toward each and every one of them.

Also, I heard a news clip that Governor Pawlenty said the state employee furlough proposal was part of a plan to aviod layoffs, not to cut costs. We can agree or disagree with that comment. Personally I would be a little skeptical. It would probably apply more to a manufacturing business when the demand for their specific manufactured product has declined, than it would to a service business like insurance or government where the call for service continues.

The sooner we can get all employees off these involuntary unpaid furlough situations, the better.

[Dan Conner]

Although this thread is titled "State spending" I agree that private industry executative pay and bonuses need to be explored. I think that is probably best done by stockholders and/or owners of the specific corporation/business.

I do not know how many, if any, insurance company employees have been asked to take unpaid furloughs or if their has been "a heavy downturn" in the insurance business in the recent past. But from my recollection one way the company I worked for tried to stay competative in the market was by keeping staffing "lean", yet sufficient to provide the service the policyholder was promised.

The reason for my brief reply to Ellen's post was to point out that it is not only state employees that are facing cut-backs. I read an article in the Star Tribune (I think) last week that indicated the state was the largest employer in our state, and that Minnesota ranked 10th in the nation in full time state employees per 10,000 residents. So employees of large and small operations apparrently face a similar prediciment right now, and I am sympathetic toward each and every one of them.

Also, I heard a news clip that Governor Pawlenty said the state employee furlough proposal was part of a plan to aviod layoffs, not to cut costs. We can agree or disagree with that comment. Personally I would be a little skeptical. It would probably apply more to a manufacturing business when the demand for their specific manufactured product has declined, than it would to a service business like insurance or government where the call for service continues.

The sooner we can get all employees off these involuntary unpaid furlough situations, the better.

It's tragic when anyone, who performs well, loses their job. That's the rub. Many employees facing layoff, private and public, are laid off, even though they have done everything asked of them and done it well. The dichotomy is that it doesn't seem to apply to executives. They hold their jobs whether they perform well or not. It's the production workers that get laid off.

I disagree that executive compensation is best handled by stockholders. Many of the stockholders have been rebelling because of their lack of input and sway in the corporation. Small stockholders are ignored in stockholder meetings. If the process was democratic, the way it was intended that would be fine, but unfortunately, the process favors only large stockholders and those with many proxies. The board then issues a large percentage of shares to the same executives that ignore everyday investors. It's a rigged game and the little guy loses. The playing field needs to be leveled. Executive compensation needs to be discussed and voted on in annual stockholder meetings, not board meetings.

I hear you say you're sorry people are laid off and I know that many in private businesses are also being laid off, but that shouldn't mitigate/justify the tragedy of state workers being laid off. You talk about the number of Minnesota State workers compared to other states. What is your point by that? It sounds like you are rationalizing laying off state workers. If not, then the statement is unnecessary. Minnesota has long been proud of better, more comprehensive, state services than most states. Certainly that might be a reason justifying more staff.

As far as staying lean is concerned. That is the same mission of the State. There is nothing unique between State agencies and private business there. Many companies have found that they have suffered from bloated staff, just like state governments. So, each must cut. However, I feel the real tragedy in all this is when corporate executives get enormous raises even while cutting large numbers of staff and when corporate profits decline. Consequently, much of the salary savings is eaten up by bloated executive salaries. This doesn't happen with state governments. I think it is time bloated executive salaries receive public airings at stockholder meetings, to include all compensation. Then, stockholders can vote on it.

Our economy will prosper as long as the masses are employed. Not when more and more people are laid off to support ever higher executive compensation.

[Bob Jentges]

It's tragic when anyone, who performs well, loses their job. That's the rub. Many employees facing layoff, private and public, are laid off, even though they have done everything asked of them and done it well. The dichotomy is that it doesn't seem to apply to executives. They hold their jobs whether they perform well or not. It's the production workers that get laid off.

I disagree that executive compensation is best handled by stockholders. Many of the stockholders have been rebelling because of their lack of input and sway in the corporation. Small stockholders are ignored in stockholder meetings. If the process was democratic, the way it was intended that would be fine, but unfortunately, the process favors only large stockholders and those with many proxies. The board then issues a large percentage of shares to the same executives that ignore everyday investors. It's a rigged game and the little guy loses. The playing field needs to be leveled. Executive compensation needs to be discussed and voted on in annual stockholder meetings, not board meetings.

I hear you say you're sorry people are laid off and I know that many in private businesses are also being laid off, but that shouldn't mitigate/justify the tragedy of state workers being laid off. You talk about the number of Minnesota State workers compared to other states. What is your point by that? It sounds like you are rationalizing laying off state workers. If not, then the statement is unnecessary. Minnesota has long been proud of better, more comprehensive, state services than most states. Certainly that might be a reason justifying more staff.

As far as staying lean is concerned. That is the same mission of the State. There is nothing unique between State agencies and private business there. Many companies have found that they have suffered from bloated staff, just like state governments. So, each must cut. However, I feel the real tragedy in all this is when corporate executives get enormous raises even while cutting large numbers of staff and when corporate profits decline. Consequently, much of the salary savings is eaten up by bloated executive salaries. This doesn't happen with state governments. I think it is time bloated executive salaries receive public airings at stockholder meetings, to include all compensation. Then, stockholders can vote on it.

Our economy will prosper as long as the masses are employed. Not when more and more people are laid off to support ever higher executive compensation.

In my Sunday morning post I said: "The sooner we can get all employees off these involuntary unpaid furlough situations, the better." I do not like to see any (private or public) necessary, productive employee have their hours cut. But periodic down turns in the economy seem to be a fact of life. When that happens if the choice is between a temporary cut in hours or some employees being layed-off, I prefer the temporary cut in hours.

My point in comparing the number of Minnesota state workers per 10,000 population to other states was that, to it's credit, maybe Minnesota is better positioned to handle temporary furloughs than some other states. I say this based on the assumption that the furloughs are justified, all considered.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think those with the most invested should have signifigant influence in the direction the company follows. If I were one of the "ignored" stockholders and was of the opinion that the company was moving in the wrong direction I would give serious consideration to selling my stock. Then those that made what I considered the bad choices that caused me to sell would suffer the consequences of those bad choices if things went bad for the company. On the other hand, if my decision to sell turned out to be a wrong decision I would suffer the consequences of my decision. Sounds simplistic, but that is how I think risk/reward should work.

[Dan Conner]

In my Sunday morning post I said: "The sooner we can get all employees off these involuntary unpaid furlough situations, the better." I do not like to see any (private or public) necessary, productive employee have their hours cut. But periodic down turns in the economy seem to be a fact of life. When that happens if the choice is between a temporary cut in hours or some employees being layed-off, I prefer the temporary cut in hours.

My point in comparing the number of Minnesota state workers per 10,000 population to other states was that, to it's credit, maybe Minnesota is better positioned to handle temporary furloughs than some other states. I say this based on the assumption that the furloughs are justified, all considered.

Regarding your second paragraph, I think those with the most invested should have signifigant influence in the direction the company follows. If I were one of the "ignored" stockholders and was of the opinion that the company was moving in the wrong direction I would give serious consideration to selling my stock. Then those that made what I considered the bad choices that caused me to sell would suffer the consequences of those bad choices if things went bad for the company. On the other hand, if my decision to sell turned out to be a wrong decision I would suffer the consequences of my decision. Sounds simplistic, but that is how I think risk/reward should work.

Regarding those with "the most invested", I think you should be aware that most executive stock is not bought, it is acquired through the option process. In most cases, it costs the executive NOTHING. It is like another benefit tacked onto their pay. The bad part of the stock option is that the executive then only serves to benefit his stock value during the option period. Many times, this does not benefit the long term viability of the company.

As far as selling your stock is concerned, most of the time stock holders don't even know how much the executives are being paid. It is not published, in many cases, or is hidden in with other costs. Executive salaries need to be publicized. That's fine that you are willing to take responsibility and that other stock holder should, as well. That's what everyone needs to do. If investors/stock holders are taking responsibility, the consumer is taking responsbility, then why can't the executive take responsibility? Executives need to be the first fired in bad times, not the last. Their pay needs to reflect company performance. Executives need to be removed from board of director seats for other companies, to avoid the "good ol' boy" syndrome afflicting companies. Generally speaking, large corporation executives get far too much pay for doing far too little.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Public companies must disclose in fairly strong detail compensation of executives, bonuses, stock options etc...It is all part of the SEC reporting requirements....Government has been putting this online since 1990s at something called "Edgar"..Here's an example of the report for ADM, a big grain company that does business in Mankato. http://is.gd/pU5N. It's the DEF14 statement (commonly known as a proxy statement) Go to page 20 for a nice chart with detail

[Bob Jentges]

Public companies must disclose in fairly strong detail compensation of executives, bonuses, stock options etc...It is all part of the SEC reporting requirements....Government has been putting this online since 1990s at something called "Edgar"..Here's an example of the report for ADM, a big grain company that does business in Mankato. http://is.gd/pU5N. It's the DEF14 statement (commonly known as a proxy statement) Go to page 20 for a nice chart with detail

Very interesting, Joe!

I did not see any long lost relatives listed, but I did notice that in 2008 my long time former employer owned 8.2% of ADM's common stock shares.

I am making note of "Edgar" for possible future reference.

Thanks, Joe.

[Dan Conner]

Public companies must disclose in fairly strong detail compensation of executives, bonuses, stock options etc...It is all part of the SEC reporting requirements....Government has been putting this online since 1990s at something called "Edgar"..Here's an example of the report for ADM, a big grain company that does business in Mankato. http://is.gd/pU5N. It's the DEF14 statement (commonly known as a proxy statement) Go to page 20 for a nice chart with detail

I stand corrected. It is published. I hope Mr Woertz can struggle along with only $17,000,000/yr. That's a whole lot of soy bean oil. It's amazing how they are so allegedly indispensible, but are readily replaced by another equally indispensible person. I'll bet the company could do just as well, and probably better, by cutting their pay to a fraction of what they get. Afterall, they are just an employee.