Rappers who's primary talent is singing - and I use that term in the most liberal sense - about how they will abuse women are spared. Basketball players who can run the court, although routinely finding themselves in court, are spared. $20MM center fielders who lead the league in strike outs are spared.

The reason? EZ. Execs are associated with Republicans, although our incompetant friends from Goldman lay waste to that. And the others are entertainers, and between our sick adoration of entertainers, and their association with the left, innoculates them.

Silliness.

Clearly, you need lots of money to get first-rate executives like that.

the fact of the matter is that most of these people have contracts — which Congress is constitutionally precluded from modifying — and money is fungible.

Weren't republican senators demanding lower pay for UAW workers as a condition of supporting the bill? The current UAW contract goes through 2011.

You’re not going to attract first rate CEOs to come in and fix a failing business at junior executive pay.

Even Warren Buffet says CEO compensation is currently ridiculous. You can't tell me that it's impossible to find a smart businessman who will work for $1 million a year. Executive pay at the moment is nothing but theft from the shareholders, enabled by incestuous corporate boards.

That said, while we are busy scolding private enterprise, has anyone taken a look at the performance of government recently? War on Poverty - failed. Medicare - going broke. Social Security - constant triage. Infrastructure - crumbling. Freddie and Fannie oversight - blind. (That's you, Barney and Chris.) Not to mention Senate seat peddling Governors..... etc etc

And yet we keep letting government grow larger, taxation higher, accepting poor results..........and electing many, many of the same pols over and over.

The analog to the Board compensation committee is the voter.

He who lives in a glass house........

(I have no problem with the hardcore capitalists at the tops of these firms accepting the creative destruction. The alternative is to continue 'private profits, socialized losses'.)

First, the government is in a frenzy to DO SOMETHING NOW despite not having the foggiest idea what’s going on.

Yeah, that was my major concern with the bailout in the first place. Suddenly we need $700B, pronto! It sounded very suspicious as I told colleagues at the time. There was little time given for the public to analyze and reflect.

In hindsight (for me), clearly one wouldn't want to limit the pay of incoming CEOs to clean up the mess. It was really only meant as punishment for the ones who f**ked up and were in need of government assistance. And considering the existing contracts couldn't legally be changed, there was really no point at all, was there?

Just to be clear, though, we as shareholders should be more demanding that CEO bonuses are linked to our own profits and possibly to the company's net gain in jobs. It doesn't do much good to cut 1,000 jobs at $50K/year if the CEO gets a $50 million bonus.

With respect to the current crisis, I'd remind James that compensation is a bid and ask process. Bidders only need to beat other employers. Who, in this market, really wants to hose down executives with cash? I'd think few, and to preserve pay structures created in fat times is probably not required.

There's another issue that I think is worth considering: the compensation base for the financial industry is completely unmoored from the realities of today's financial industry. The expectations need to change to match the changing circumstances and there's no time like the present. As evidence I'd present the significantly lower capitalization and earnings of the companies involved.

This isn't a problem unique to the financial sector. If we hold to the notion that executives' pay should be based on performance (a fiction, I'll grant, but humor me), how should executives in industries that have taken huge losses and have almost no capitalized value be compensated? It seems to me that in some cases in which tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of capitalized value has vanished and the assumed debts number in the tens or hundreds of billions that $1 a year might be paying too much.

the fact of the matter is that most of these people have contracts — which Congress is constitutionally precluded from modifying —

Hmmmmm... Kinda like the UAW contracts with the Big 3?

You’re not going to attract first rate CEOs to come in and fix a failing business at junior executive pay.

Ah, like the first rate CEO's that led these companies to the edge of the cliff they are now at?

As I observed last week though, tide is turning a bit on what confidence we have in macroeconomic prescription. A snippet from an otherwise puff piece:

Despite his quicksilver mind and professional expertise, Cowen, like so many of the nation’s great economists, failed to anticipate the severity of the current crisis. And when it comes to putting the economy right, Cowen warns: “We still don’t know what we’re doing.”

You’re not going to attract first rate CEOs to come in and fix a failing business at junior executive pay.

Of course, because there are only about three first-rate CEOs, you're more likely to attract second and third-rate CEOs...