Bailouts and bad analogies

This comment on PajamasMedia is typical of the sort of cretinous tendencies common to both lay conservatives and liberals like when it comes to having no appreciation for such minor nuances as who is being supported by what income:

Obama pulled the $500K figure out of the blue. What does that amount represent, in his world? Clearly, Tom Daschle and Bill Clinton couldn't live on that. What if he feels, tomorrow, that $300K is now the limit? $100K?

If you want to talk about obscene income, let's cap the earnings of Hollywood Celebrities. Today. And all the NFL players, too. I mean, it's only FAIR.

-Sara for America

Sara is absolutely correct. It is wrong for the federal government to assert any prerogative, even as a normal stockholder, to limit executive compensation. I just don't see any difference between partially nationalized banks and private, self-sustained movie studios and sports franchises. There just isn't any real difference between Johnny Depp getting paid $50 million by privately funded Disney to star as Jack Sparrow in the 4th installment of Pirates of the Carribean and the CEO of a failed, partially nationalized bank getting paid tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses, most of which will come from taxpayer money.

My bad. I'm clearly destined for the path of Marxism.