I have been living off of $8.75 per hour for the past two years, and have been quite comfortable. This tells me that for every person in a household, an employee should be entitled to $8.75 per hour. For instance, in a home with two parents and a child, each parent should receive $26.25 per hour, and they will live quite comfortably.

These CEO's do absolutely nothing for the company that a group of lower paid individuals couldn't do more efficiently. The problem with NOT allowing government to control their pay is that the shareholders that have voting power are all friends with the CEO's, so they won't vote to decrease pay based on horrible performance.

I'm tired of CEO's driving companies into the ground and STILL receiving humongous severance packages. This practice needs to stop. Also, high pay doesn't guarantee good work. High pay just guarantees high pay. Good work can only be guaranteed by making pay dependent on results. If the company earns good profits, pay the executive more. If the Company loses money, pay them equal to what the average employee of that company receives, because the CEO obviously only did average work.

Outlandish executive pay is perfectly fine when corporations are making money. But the myth of the 'heroic CEO' is one that has led us to where we are now: the executives get paid lavishly, cannot be removed except by Boards populated by their cronies, run the company into the ground, and then pick up their so-called 'deferred compensation' on their way out the door. Who gets screwed by this deal? The shareholders — the OWNERS.

In the United States, the Boards of Directors are completely unequal to the task of setting executive pay. Why? Because they cannot be replaced by shareholders in a single election cycle! It takes three cycles to vote out an entire board; that means that it takes TWO cycles to get a majority. In the interim, the OWNERS can neither fire the CEO nor change his pay.

While mandatory government caps on pay might therefore be unwarranted, therefore, what is NOT unwarranted is a regulation that requires direct SHAREHOLDER approval of executive compensation.

As for capping pay offered to executives who head companies that receive taxpayer money as their primary funding — I don't mean local banks that get a million or two, but corporations like General Motors, AIG, and Citigroup that would have been LIQUIDATED were it not for the taxpayer cash given them — OF COURSE that makes sense. Pay is based on performance; these corporations are where they are because performance was poor.

And y'know what makes it all so funny? Most if not all of you probably have piddly net worth, sustaining your standards of living on excessive borrowing just like these banks. The day will come when your job also disappears, and you'll find out just how hard it is. Then you'll understand why we have public services.

Oh, and, isn't the Board elected by the Shareholders?

Now, I would agree, as a shareholder, trying to get a Board to do something, (i.e. firing the CEO or reduce the CEO's salary), can be difficult. However, how are the shareholders ever going to remove the federal government from running the company?.

Let's see, the government reports to, "We the People," (hereafter "WE") and on behalf of WE, the government assume control of the WE Company owned by WE (because they tell We the CEO makes too much money, etc.). Can WE tell the government to leave the WE company alone? Why not? After all, the government reports to We, the shareholders of the government, aka, the government's boss?

Should the government have to buy the WE company, or a portion of it, from the WE shareholders, based on an agreeable price? And, if the WE Company doesn't like the offer, can the WE shareholders tell the government to, "take a hike?"

What's wrong here? If We own the Company, why does the government, that works for WE want to buy it from WE?

Sound a little confusing? Well, just wait until the government takes over the WE company. That's when the confusion begins.

Therefore, I, as a shareholder of the USA, want to now place my vote to have the government sell the US Postal Service, AMTRACK, NASA, Fanny May, Freddy Mack (well, we can just close Fanny and Freddy), and all other business entities run by the WE the People government.

If others will vote along with me, then WE will have a nice sum of money to pay down some debt and WE will be able to reduce our spending. Also, the shareholder run companies who buy the government entities will no doubt run the US Postal Service, AMTRACK, NASA, Fanny May, Freddy Mack, and all other business entities run by the WE the People government more efficiently and produce more jobs. : ) : ) : )

Socialism has no Free Markets,just Messiahs and

Czars that report to him!

Now, some people say that a bank will loan you money but stipulate how you should use it. Maybe that is okay for a bank but it is not for Government! Government has no business or RIGHT to tell anyone…. ANYONE what they can and cannot earn! "Oh, but the Government is handing out taxpayer money for a bail-out so they have that right." NO THEY DO NOT!

First of all, the Government is not a bank. Second, the Government has no business acting like a bank. Third, if the Government didn't act like a bank, they would not have to make such stipulations, now would they?

Mark my words, once the Government gets away with telling ANYONE how much they can and cannot earn, it will never stop. The Government will soon tell the common worker (such as myself) what the limit of their salary is. And why not, if the Government gives the company money to keep operational, it then has a right to protect it's investment. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!

In conclusion, the biggest and best Golden Parachutes do not occur in business or on Wall Street. The biggest Golden Parachutes are awarded to Government officials (Senators, Congressmen, Cabinet Members, etc.). But if course, they can do what they want because not many people know of this….. at least until now!