Americans should be concerned whenever government gets involved in business. The two are very different animals with completely different goals. Tying them together is rarely a good idea.

This is especially true with members of the ruling class -- lifelong politicians with decades on the public payroll -- who have never experienced running a business. They don't have to worry about changes in their industry, how to afford health insurance or whether paychecks will bounce, either their own or those of their employees.

Washington's ruling class also does not feel the pain of recessions. Government grows even when the economy slows.

However, there are times when government regulation is a very good idea, like when it sets out to improve public safety and health with automobile crash standards, food inspection systems, clean-air standards, consumer protection and the like.

Government also should have the authority to get involved in how top executives are paid, but only when they work for companies that have been bailed out with billions of taxpayer dollars.

That regulatory task has fallen to Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's so-called pay czar. He is taking on an industry where corporate bigwigs get paid tens of millions each year, plus enjoy a bevy of benefits that would make a sultan blush.

Besides piles of gold, these execs are given the use of private jets, apartments, posh country club memberships and exotic corporate retreats.

The packages are routinely awarded no matter what the company's success. After years of poor performance, Home Depot's top dog left with $200 million. GM's chief executive officer is slated to receive $5.5 million in pay and stock this year. Imagine what he might have received if the company was not stuck in a financial ditch.

The Wall Street Journal's Brett Arends reports that giving execs higher pay doesn't improve company performance. He quotes a study from an NYU professor that shows the more the benefits then the worse the return to shareholders.

If that holds true, then government-imposed salary caps on bailed-out companies might actually help them pay back taxpayers sooner.

OK, so that's a long shot. But it's a nice daydream.

-- Tom Bell

Editor & Publisher

822-1491

tbell@salina.com

Join the Discussion:

Salina.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here. Read our full online terms of service policy.

The Syko One says....
Your first sentence says it all, Tom. Strange you should be so enamored by the concept of government sticking its nose into the business of small private business owners. I see no difference between government telling private business owners who they can cater to and telling major corporations how much they can pay their execs. You can't have it both ways. Either government is involved with private business decisions, or it is not!
10/25/2009

---

Post a comment
Your best chance of getting your comment posted:

• No profanity
• Be civil
• Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Comment:

Poster:

Enter text seen above:

Read our full use policy.