Similarly, while it may seem to make sense at first, bringing in a statist government is probably a bad idea if you're big business. B-Daddy has waxed supportive of the Obama Administration's efforts to restrict executive pay and, being a fellow who believes that people should have to deal with the consequences of their actions, I have to agree.
These guys loaded up on risk like there was no tomorrow and expected the Fed and the Congress to bail them out, which institutions promptly obliged. Where are the consequences that will change future behavior? Further, I hope this accelerates the pay back of the TARP/porkulus money, and stops further bleeding from the Treasury on this front. This is predatory government, when big special interests capture the government institutions that supposedly regulate them.Emphasis mine.
The problem with electing a Juan Peron clone is that they're, well, fascist. Mr. Big Business does indeed get to keep his private property, but only at the sufference of the fascist leader's government. In this case, Big Business supported this guy, slorped down money the government borrowed from others and now they're finding themselves shackled by that same government.
Others have fussed that this is a breach of the rule of law, but that hardly matters unless those executives want to bring suit against the government for breach of contract. Given that many of their jobs exist only because the government has handed them wads of cash, I hardly think that's likely. Besides, the rule of law wasn't what they wanted in the first place, they wanted the cash and to place the economy in stasis so that all those icky, smaller, growing competitors could be squashed through government action. Now that their pay is being cut and capped, it's a little too late to fuss about it.
That's what you get when you decided to keep a rattlesnake as a pet.