For instance, a large company odviosuly would pay their CEOs more and a cap not dependent on company size would just give a pay advantage to smaller firms who take bailout money. If anything, a certain percent of the companie's size should be the limit to a ceo sallary.

With that being said, I would rather there was no CEO cap then the current system. I do feel that an ideal cap system would be better. I do disagree with most of the other points in the post. The responce is very partisan and doesn't bring up the other sides of the issue.

In this economic times, where "experienced" government, and business workers caused this problem, it is crucial that we get new blood into the system. Even if a cap on CEO sallary will restrict the most experienced CEOs, the experienced CEOs in other companies that do not need bailout will not be capped. Getting a bailout is a clear indication of a poor strategy of the business, which means that they need new thinking.

During these times, when other CEOs are willing to recieve $1 untill times improve, the incentives to help your company are much greater then during good times. Even if there is some reductions in incentives from inneficent payments to CEOs to avoid the rule, compared to sallaries of CEOs those are minimal. The incentives during this crisis increase because CEOs do not just work to get increased pay, but to actually keep their company (and their job afloat).

There is also the issue of how some free market systems aren't present in determining CEOs anyway. Potential CEOs who are willing to be a CEO for a lower price are not able to bargin when another CEO is determined. A CEO is FIRST chosen by the board, who then determine the sallary. It is impossible for a perspective CEO to say that they would do that work for a lower price.

"Tax revolt" is also an important issue to be taken into account. Even if that can just be percieved as populist rantings that don't effect the economy, it is still important. The economy is based on people's confidence, and people may be less confident in their system if they feel that their money is being wasted. If someone does believe in the bailouts, then it is unlikely that they would continue from fear of backlash if CEO pay isn't capped.

Of course, intervention into the economy will normally inherently scare investors, so that is still mixed. And investors are theoretically one of the best determinors of the strength of the market. I am curious what turn the stock market did when CEO caps were first brought up.

Mr. McIntire, Is right in one respect, this is only the first step in a far left agenda. This Congress has but one goal and that is to implement as many Socialistic policies as they can during the short time they will have control in Congress.

However, I disagree that the United States has ever had a truly free capitalistic economy. If we study our history we find that Congress has always passed legislation favorable to BIG BUSINESS and rarely takes the side of the working man. When pushed to legislate against industry we get vague, weak legislation like the “Sherman Anti-Trust Act” that took thirty years and a strong, popular President before any Trusts and monopolies were broken up.

As fun as a history lesson would be here, I think we need to get on topic. I do not have a problem with President Obama limiting Executive Pay. If they want to argue that it goes against the free market idea and undermines capitalism, then they should not have asked for or taken government money. Capitalism works on the idea that the strongest will survive. If a company makes bad decisions and wastes money then they are destined to fail and if we are truly capitalists I say let them fall; someone else will rise to take their place.

http://tinyurl.com/bs4lh3

He has perks, and stock options, but his pay as CEO, while managing an almost unheard-of turnaround at a company that has since been consistenly more profitable than just about any other company in it's category, has been $1 a year.

Most of his wealth comes from the OTHER enormously successful and profitable comany he owed, Pixar, now part of Disney.

No one would object in the slightest if these executives were performing in accordance with their stratospheric pay; but the truth is, if I failed as miserably in MY job as they did in theirs, there would be no issue with my pay, either, as it would be $0, because I'd be out on my ass.

There's a simple solution to this problem. If these executives do not want their pay capped…they don't have to take taxpayer money.

Of course as with every story, there is blame to go around everywhere. Government regulators are expected to provide the oversight to protect the common man from corrupt business practices. Company executives and boards are supposed to look out for the "long-term" interests of the stockholders, not short-term soaring stock prices that bring them inordinate bonuses. And, stockholders are supposed to be responsible company owners and follow the activities of their companies. Likewise, voters get what they vote for, Democrats who bring home the pork and move us closer to socialism or Republicans who bring home a different pork and move us closer to socialism.

Two things have become very clear with this latest economic mess. First, government cannot be omnipresent, omniscient, or even trusted to protect us from everything that can go wrong or that can be corrupted in the private sector. In fact, government can be corrupted just as easily, maybe more easily, as the private sector. And second, and probably most important, unless the people of this country get up off of our lazy, blame-the-other-guy butts, take action, and start behaving responsibly, ethically, morally, and legally, we can never expect our leaders (both public and private) to behave any better and put the country's and people's interest ahead of their own.

Bottom line, if government starts to establish fair compensation for executives, look out, you're next!

If some executive wants my money why should he or she be making more money than me?

I believe exhorbatant salaries are a disgrace in any case. I do not believe anyone is worth a million a year. A person is where they are by circumstance more than anything else. Take a typical man or woman off the street and they can CEO with the best of them.

Given of course they have common sense which these days seems less common the higher on the food chain one climbs!

Especially politicians!