We all get a great sense of schadenfreude when formerly profligate corporations get their comeuppance in this way but the pay czar role (whether in the form of an individual or a political committee) is in reality fraught with problems for taxpayers.<p>If the government is to be anything than a long-term host for parasitical companies, the idea is to have the companies turn around. Yet who worth his salt will remain at such companies if the compensation needed to keep them competitive with otherwise similarly situated companies is not there - or, worse, was there but was cut by a "pay czar' for who knows what reasons (especially bad if people have their pay cut in order to appease popular prejudices)?<p>Yet what "pay czar" worth his salt will <i>not</i> want to scrutinize all salaries closely for companies that have been feasting at the public trough? Of course, that is his job and he must do it to be responsible.<p>Sometimes such cuts will be more than warranted; other times, they will be arbitrary. There really is no good measure for determining which is which. Hence, it can all become political or not and only the bureaucrats and politicians will ever know - of course, those directly affected will also know and they will not likely stick around for more if they are indeed working hard only to have political factors wind up hurting them economically with no recourse but to have to suck it up.<p>And so the whole system is calculated to do anything <i>but</i> help the companies turn around, at least as this might happen through having competitively paid and motivated individuals in positions of ultimate responsibility.<p>I do not say this out of sympathy for the corporations. Most of them richly deserve all that they are getting right now. But the poor taxpayer is not well-served either, as a losing approach goes from bad to worse in all likelihood, with the taxpayer perpetually on the hook for more.