Anyone advocating a "litmus test" is creating a false dichotomy. Isn't it possible to oppose extravagant CEO compensation and argue that paying that compensation via federal funds is even worse?

Excessive executive compensation is not only bad for society and for the economy, it's not even in the (long term) best interests of the company. The current system encourages extreme short term thinking, so that's exactly what we get. Since officers of publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the shareholders, there's a strong argument that the current system is a violation of securities law.

That's the systemic argument, and people have been making it for at least a decade. Corporations -- via their officers -- have been opposing that argument just as long.

But once the government steps in to "support" these companies, it seems reasonable that the government should be able to impose some conditions on that support. So even if the systemic problem didn't exist, or you disagree that it's a problem, the government would still have an independent reason to assert some control now.

As for the red herring that "it's been paid back", I disagree that it has been paid back. Consider all funds provided since the beginning of the crisis, via all facilities, and the discounted (or non-existent) amount of interest paid -- plus the revolving door from the discount window to short-term bonds and back -- and the big banks have been given billions of tax dollars.

So pointing out executive compensation in Hollywood does nothing to mitigate or excuse what's happening on Wall Street. Instead, it's an example of the continuation of a problem that pre-existed the current crisis. That problem still exists, and what is happening on Wall Street now is still worse.

And once again, "conservatives" are making the argument that someone else is doing something sort of similar that's also bad, so no one should criticize the massively larger offenses of the financial set.