Executive Compensation and TARP funds

There are a number of companies that took TARP funds and from a percentage of a company's capital view effectively is owned by the government, 51% or more of the capital is held by Uncle Sam. Executive pay for those companies should come under review and modification by the government, they are the owners. The same rules should apply to companies wherein the government has a minority stake, less than 50%, the stakeholders should determine compensation and who should lead the company based on their ownership percentage. Looking at Citigroup the government owns less than 50% but seems to be able to manage the company the same as if it owned over 50%. This is bewildering to me. What are the rights of the majority owners (stock and bond holders that hold over 50% of the company capital). Why can the government, effectively, push them aside when it comes to compensation or even who should run the company? Bewildering.

I certainly agree that compensation needs to be tied to performance and new rules should be instituted to reward/punish risk and earnings contribution. The idea of claw back based on future results appears to be unmanageable. What happens if the employee leaves etc.? I favor a compensation plan where the bonus is spread across future years based on when the results will be realized, this might be 3, 10 or more years. The bonus an employee receives each year should be weighted wherein the payout percentage in the latter years is heaviest and in the early year(s) far less. This provides time to understand if the investment strategy has proven itself out/failed. Tracking this for say the top few hundred investment pros/executives will be hell to manage and cost some money but will need to be done.

Since when did insurance companies become 'THE' solution for all of the health care issues?

It seems in the past an insurance company role was to assess risk and based on the results, established policy coverage terms, set prices and issue policies. This resulted in the insurance company receiving premiums and making payments, as required, to the policy holder. Insurance companies weren't seen as 'the' most important player in 'minimizing' the policy holder risks....nope...the policy holder was held accountable for minimizing risk.

Today the health care discussions are focused on what is wrong with health insurance companies. These companies are, and should be, criticized for their policies on 'pre-existing conditions' and always pushing back on claims before making payments. I also wonder when they became the experts on our health care experience so that we hold them responsible for correcting the inefficiencies? It is bewildering to me how they ended up in this role and whether they should have the role, I think not. Heck, when it come to health care reform I'd just like to get a consolidated bill from the labs, doctors, technicians etc. for diagnosis and treatment for a health issue.

Why do business taxes make sense?

It seems logical to me that if we raise revenue through business taxes, new or current, that the majority of that tax just comes back to 'a' consumer in higher prices for the business service/product. It also seems true that by raising the cost of the business service/product they become less competitive on the world scene, likely resulting in lost business which than may translate into a loss of US jobs. In either case 'we' pay. What am I missing?