Here's an interesting idea.

I could be a real jerk and just say "discuss," but let's consider this for a second.

On the one hand, there's the argument (made by libertarians, conservatives, etc) that the government has no right to do this. It's meddling beyond its acceptable limits. Sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, making us suffer under a socialist form of taxation in which those working hard and making the most are being penalized at the expense of everyone else.

And Yet:
As has been discussed rather extensively here, these guys aren't exactly Rhodes Scholars, or even of average intelligence. They ran their frickin companies into the ground. They don't appear to be especially bright, or concerned with the companies they run, or especially hard-working, either. It's about easy money, not long-term profits gained through toil. They made their money by being lucky idiots. So I don't buy the last third of argument #1.

At the same time, there are definitely sonme merits to that first position. Bailouts are arguably unconstitutional, as is any attempts by the federal government to regulate how much a corporation pays its CEOs and other top executives. Congress does not in fact have that power, nor does the Executive branch. And Lessig may be right about those being capped jump ship to other, unrestricted companies.

The question becomes, is it OK for the government to impose caps on corporate salaries? Ron Paul would argue that it's not only unconstitutional (because gov't isn't allowed to meddle like this, including bailouts) but also immoral. That's where, from my perspective, the water gets murky. Is it immoral to tell someone that they need to use federal bailout money for the purpose it was granted--i.e., fixing the system--rather than lining their own pockets with big celebratory bonuses? We could argue about whether or not the bailout is OK in the first place, but that's not what I'm after right here and now. The question right now is, are the proposed salary/bonus caps acceptable, or should the government not set such limits on its bailout cash?

What I find particularly interesting about this is the proposal mentioned in the first link, or rather, its source. this is an idea brought forth by a company executive. I always find myself pausing when I hear someone making massive amounts of money per year saying "take more of my income in taxes, please." Mostly, it is out of admiration. Here, as I see it, is someone expressing the root of what it means to be patriotic. Here is a person able to see beyond themselves, to so believe in the interconnectedness of every American citizen that they recognize their duty, as a successful individual, to help those around them. This is a person who recognizes that a country's greatness stems not from the wealth and prestige of single citizens, but the collective health, wealth, and happiness of its citizens.

To which Paul would say, sure--let HIM pay higher taxes if he wants to. Why should anyone else have to? It's a pointed question, but one that I think many of us, if we really considered it, might see this as a slap in the face of the concept of America as a nation. If the individual and her personal desires are to be supreme over all other considerations, then what we have is not a coherent nation. We have a bunch of individuals. Good, bad, indifferent, passionate, what have you, we have individuals. Over the last several decades, Americans have been increasingly encouraged to see themselves that way, and while it is important to maintain a view of oneself that is NOT simply a number, a member of the faceless mass, it is also necessary to remember the consequences of taking this idea too far. If, in the end, each of us is simply ourself, purely an individual, then we lose the ability to come together as a group, to make positive change. It's a process that a number of theorists--Erik Swyngedouw, in particular--have noted in the field of labor relations and industry, and which has likewise permeated our culture.

What fascinates me about Ron Paul's book The Revolution is that it proposes to increase the pressures toward this individual-centrism, making all taxes voluntary, allowing each person to decide for themselves whether or not they will give money to the government that ultimately has a responsibility to protect them from outside aggression, police their streets, and possibly perform other responsibilities that, while not spelled out in the Constitution, ought to be. Things that these individuals would not want to be responsible for doing themselves. Yet Paul argues that in such a society, more people would voluntarily stretch beyond themselves, take care of their neighbors, participate in their communities, and the like. I'm not sure I buy it. Seems to me that this sort of thing would only encourage the "but it's about me" mentality, not combat it.

People need to be retaught that being a citizen of a country is not merely a convenience for them, or a right. Privilege is privilege, and with it must come both the recognition of having it, and also the acknowledgement that privilege comes of necessity with responsibility. We must relearn to see ourselves as citizens of the nation, as parts of something larger than ourselves.

The question I then have to ask myself is, how do we accomplish this without turning totalitarian fascist?