I gather there is a fair bit of support on these boards and among the general U.S. population for limiting the salaries and otherwise restricting executives of financial institutions that received capital injections under TARP (not necessarily direct handouts, but "gifts" nonetheless in the form of low cost capital). The reasoning being that if they are willing to accept taxpayer funds, then they should be subject to public scrutiny and certain limitations.
How about other recipients of taxpayer funds under the economic stimulus package? If funds go to private construction firms for infrastructure projects, should the executives at those firms have their salaries limited and spending restricted? What about funds distributed to green energy startups, alternative fuel manufacturers and the like? Should their compensation be scrutinized and, where necessary, limited? Small, local business that receive funds distributed down through the state and local levels?
And how about individuals who receive mortgage debt relief (ultimately on the backs of other taxpayers). To what scrutiny should they be subject, if any, based on the fact that they are benefiting from public money? If, for example, a struggling homeowner receives a promotion that greatly increases her salary after having benefited from taxpayer funds, should she be responsible to pay some of it back to the treasury? Should her spending be scrutinized until the money is paid back?
For the record, I have a hard time with the restrictions on bank executive compensation, even where TARP funds are involved. I know as a matter of fact that many banks were leaned on by regulators to take the money and loan it out, even if they didn't need it for solvency purposes, didn't contribute to the problem and, frankly, didn't really want the money. I also have a real issue with the terms of the capital injection being changed after the fact in a very haphazard fashion, which I think sets a bad precedent and creates harmful uncertainty.
But for those who do support attaching strings to taxpayer "bailouts," how broadly should the restrictions apply?