In my opinion there are some things that are representative of politicians in general and of liberals in particular. Following are excerpts of an opinion article in today's Naples Daily News, written by Thomas Sowell. Sorry if it is so long, but I wanted to include enough of the article to make sure that the thought line is able to be followed.
I also expect the "liberal hammer" to fall on me about this, from some on this forum, so let it fall.

"There is an old Russian fable, with different versions in other countries, about two poor peasants, Ivan and Boris. The only difference between them
was that Boris had a goat and Ivan didn't. One day, Ivan came upon a strange looking lamp and, when he rubbed it, a genie appeared. She told Ivan that she could grant him one wish, but it could be anything in the world.
Ivan said, " I want Boris' goat to die."
Too many people are like Ivan, who wanted Boris' goat to die. . . . .

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/...s-its-ivan-an/

Instead of a hammer perhaps we can discuss the issue.

The comparison of salaries between CEO and sports figures is bizarre. How many people think sports stars are overpaid? Have you looked at the prices for tickets lately. I paid $350 dollars to attend the Solheim Cup in Chicago this summer. A friend told me last week Yankees tickets in the lower level were going to be priced at $3,000.00 a game. How many people can pay that kind of price. I haven't been to a Broncos game since John Elway retired.

A better comparison would be to look at the CEO's pay versus an average of the rest of the employees pay. In my company we used to get a holiday bonus, a percentage of our salary, no more. That was changed to a performance bonus based on our PSP and the companies goals. The company sets aside a pool of money for the bonus and then sets the companies performance goals. But one rule you need to know about is that only the top performers...the ones that get a exceeds expectations can get a 100% bonus for the PSP portion. The problem is NO ONE is allowed to get that rating. Then the companies goals have to be met to get a 100% funding of that portion. Would you like to venture a guess at how often that has been funded at 100%? In the 8 years this has been going on.....NEVER. Every year they send out the press release that we have made more money than ever before. Then the next week they send another....which goes like even though we met these goals we missed this one so the bonus will not be fully funded. Most times the goal is missed by so much you wonder why it was set there. I think though the worst problem is that all the incentive to excel has be taken away..no one has a reason to perform above the meets expectations level.

My CEO doesn't want to live where the company is so he flies back and forth, on the company dime in first class...when I hang out in economy. I am required to take the cheapest fare, even if it includes a 4 hour layover or flying west to go east, or I get reported to my bosses manager. I could go on about how there is no pension anymore nor healthcare for retirees but you probably already know that.

CEO's pay should be brought into line.....

No hammer just my thoughts and experiences

When it comes to executive pay - we all have the power to limit it if you wish. For example if you feel that Comcast is not a very well run organization and the CEO makes too much money then don't buy Comcast. If you think that the CEO of Dardin restaurants makes too much then don't eat at Olive Garden. If you do buy these products, or eat at these restaurants etc. then the organization itself (and board and shareholders) has the choice as to how much to pay its executives.

Now corporations that expect a government payout and still want to pay their executives like it did during the boom times... that's a different story. I think that if they share in the success during the good times that they need to feel the pain during the bad times. You get paid for results.

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

When it comes to executive pay - we all have the power to limit it if you wish. For example if you feel that Comcast is not a very well run organization and the CEO makes too much money then don't buy Comcast. If you think that the CEO of Dardin restaurants makes too much then don't eat at Olive Garden. If you do buy these products, or eat at these restaurants etc. then the organization itself (and board and shareholders) has the choice as to how much to pay its executives.

Now corporations that expect a government payout and still want to pay their executives like it did during the boom times... that's a different story. I think that if they share in the success during the good times that they need to feel the pain during the bad times. You get paid for results.

I do not totally disagree with your or cologals posts, for different reasons on each.

In cologals case I believe that there will always be those that set the income for others and those that feel they deserve more of the piece of the pie. All people, at one time or another, have worked on the deserving end of the equation. Those that have risen to the level of setting the wages have to answer to their superiors (the board or shareholders) for keeping labor costs down. Not their own wages of course! It is unfair, but unchangeable! The governments role is not to try to "micromanage the business" as Sowells' article said. It is up to the corporate board or the shareholders to decide who gets what. You know that, cologal.

Russ, I agree with your point of how we all can affect businesses with our purchasing power. Look what happened when we cut back on the purchase of gasoline! I also agree that CEO s should share the pain, but at the shareholders and corporate boards whip, not the governments. As Thomas Sowell said "We have just seen one of the biggest "free home demonstrations" of what happens in an economy when politicians tell businesses what decisions to make."

We must be ever careful of the powers that we grant government less they turn those powers on us.