"The U.S. Treasury Department's pay czar pushed outgoing Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth D. Lewis into giving back $1 million he received so far this year and forgoing the rest of his $1.5 million salary for 2009, say people familiar with the matter. The move makes Mr. Lewis the biggest target so far of Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury's "special master" for compensation. The pay czar also asked that Mr. Lewis pass up any 2009 bonus from the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank. Mr. Feinberg pushed for the deal because he thought the package of retirement benefits and unvested stock Mr. Lewis takes with him when he steps down at year's end -- currently worth at least $69.3 million, according to securities filings -- was large enough. Mr. Feinberg doesn't have the authority to modify the retirement package." - (Deborah Solomon & Dan Fitzpatrick/Wall Street Journal)
Note the last sentence: "Mr. Feinberg doesn't have the authority to modify the retirement package." That is absolutely correct! The U.S. Treasury Department's pay czar has assumed or, most likely been granted a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution.", and therefore his action as reported is an egregious violation of the US Constitution. Regardless of what might think of the original compensation package of the Chief Executive of BofA, this exercise of unconstitutional power should contribute to the long overdue awakening of Americans to the increasing dictatorial powers being assumed by their FedGov
Many of these companies begged the government for help in the bailout. You could make the argument that the government has a say in these cases.
However there were a couple of banks that didn't want any bailout money or government interference, but they were forced to take the money. This is completely different.
As a side note, most of these banks have paid back (with interest) the bailout money in full. Take it as you may.
