Post readers may ask that question given that the Post told them that: "Congress wanted to guarantee that the $700 billion financial bailout would limit the eye-popping pay of Wall Street executives." The rest of the article explains how the bailout legislation, as approved by Congress, is not likely to impose any serious limits on executive pay. So, Congress was apparently unable to do what it wanted. This is striking because most members of Congress are not morons. Congress is usually capable of passing legislation that does what it wants. For example, when they have wanted to fund the war in Iraq, they have been able to pass legislation that actually funds the war in Iraq. When they wanted to cut taxes for the wealthy, Congress was able to pass legislation that actually cut taxes on the wealthy. Why did Congress find it so difficult to pass legislation to limit executive compensation on Wall Street, if that is what it really wanted to do? Let me suggest an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps Congress really did not want to cut executive compensation on Wall Street. After all, word has it that members of Congress gets lots of campaign contributions from very high paid Wall Street executives. Of course, giving taxpayer dollars to the richest people in the country is not very popular with ordinary taxpayers. So, it might be in the interest of members of Congress to appear to be trying to rein in executive compensation on Wall Street, even if this is not their real intention. In other words, the restrictions of executive compensation put in the bailout bill were just a charade for the kids. Is my explanation correct? I have no idea, but of course the Post has no idea either of what Congress really "wanted," so why is it trying to tell readers what Congress wanted in the very first sentence of a front page news article.
--Dean Baker