The first week has become the worst part of each month. That’s when bad economic news gets worse—or at least when the bad news is first announced. On Friday, February 6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a loss of 598,000 jobs in January, bringing the total to 3.6 million since December 2007.

The collapsing economy is creating more and more “have nots,” as in those who don’t have a job. If you’re not a “have not,” you’re probably worried about becoming one.

In this atmosphere, it’s no surprise that the biggest “haves”—Wall Street CEOs—are coming under heavy fire for their exorbitant pay packages. They raked in enormous bonuses while their companies lined up like individual Oliver Twists asking for hundreds of millions of federal bailout dollars.

They’ve made themselves inviting political targets. On February 4, President Barack Obama took aim by issuing an executive order that would limit executive pay to $500,000 annually at financial institutions that seek “exceptional assistance,” as opposed to TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) capital injections, from the government in the future. 

The only addition to that base pay would be restricted stock options that only vest when the government is paid back. In addition, golden parachutes would be limited for the top 25 executives.

As he has done frequently in his short time in office, Obama used the bully pulpit to make his point. He excoriated the Wall Street crowd, calling the disbursement of “customary lavish bonuses … the height of irresponsibility.” He was just warming up. “That’s shameful,” Obama said. “And that’s exactly the kind of disregard for the costs and consequences of their actions that brought about this crisis: a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else.”

Wall Street executives have become fodder for many Democratic causes. Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, used CEO pay as a rhetorical device in promoting his favorite legislation, a measure that would make it easier for employees to form unions.

In a Capitol Hill rally on February 4, Miller said the bill would give workers leverage to raise their wages and increase their benefits, making it possible for them to gain their fair portion of gains from their productivity that are now going to “corporate elites” like CEOs and shareholders.

But there is hope yet for the embattled Wall Street CEOs. Just as the executive pay rules included in TARP last fall did not put a crimp in the compensation spigot, the new ones may not shut off the cash flow either.

For one thing, the executive order only applies to companies that ask for “exceptional assistance” in the future. Those that sought it last fall—including American International Group, Bank of America and Citigroup—are not affected.

In addition, the rules apply only to people at the top of the financial firms, leaving the door open for many other multimillion-dollar bonuses farther down the corporate ladder. Critics quickly pointed out the shortcomings of the plan.

Some assert that Wall Street leaders have the insight, financial acumen and leadership ability to deserve every penny of the tens of millions—or even hundreds of millions—of dollars they receive. Of course, the disastrous shape most of their companies are in creates at least an embarrassing if not devastating counterpoint to this argument.

Quite apart from their talent, though, the executives have something else just as important going for them—their collective political war chest. The pilgrimage to Wall Street for political donations each election cycle is a bipartisan phenomenon.

Obama did quite well trolling the Street. He raised $14 million of his $750 million from the “securities and investment” industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Companies that received federal bailout money last fall made $37 million in federal campaign donations.

Contributing money to a candidate is not inherently corrupt. In fact, it’s a form of free speech that should be defended—as long as the sources of campaign cash are transparent.

But it does pay to follow the money in politics. Politicians might nip at the hand that feeds them. But they probably won’t chomp down with executive pay laws that have real teeth.