If these banks expect us, the taxpayers, to bail them out, they need to do so on our terms. That the average person is going to have to dip into their pocket to save some major corporations with CEOs making ridiculous amounts of money, but that the banks are not willing to cap their pay when they are the ones in trouble, is a joke. Yes, in the free market it is up to the individual company to determine executive pay. But when they are drowning and expect a government bailout they need a reality check. Because the government is intervening, they have the right to stipulate restrictions on executive pay.
Think about it on a small note. Let's say Johnny Q has a failing restaurant and by some miracle of a chance the government had offered to bail him out as opposed to having the restaurant file for bankruptcy. Now, this would never happen because the government could likely care less about an individual small business because it has little to no financial interest in it. But let's pretend it does for the sake of example. So the government is bailing Johnny Q out- Johnny Q shouldn't dare expect a huge salary out of this. . .right? Or do you think his pay should remain the same when his business is losing money and wouldn't make it without government intervention?
Let's be honest- a failing business simply cannot afford to pay its executives outrageous salaries. If their executives are incapable of understanding that, I'm sure there are many capable high-level professionals who will gladly take their place. One of the major reasons these banks need to be bailed out is CORPORATE GREED! How do we expect to alleviate the greed if our intention is to continue feeding it? If this bailout plan is to be passed, it is the government's job to be a watchdog over these companies to determine what went wrong so it does not happen again!
If caps are not put on executive pay, there should be no bail out. Period. Let these high-paying executives lose their jobs and see what it's like to not have the same means they did when they were receiving inflated salaries. Most average Americans are feeling the heavy burden that this sagging economy has caused. Rather than having the wealth trickle down, it ran dry somewhere and we are paying the consequences by not being able to afford the cost of living and suffering through a much lower quality of life. These executives are working for struggling banks-therefore their pay must be reflective of this. When a company is doing poorly, all employees feel the effects. Why should huge banks be any different? What need do we have to spare top-pay executives of feeling the effects of a downturned economy?