Can you imagine the anxiety in executive offices all across the country? Why is that you ask? The Obama Administration wants to give the SEC new powers on executive pay by forcing firms to let shareholders vote on executive pay and make executives who set pay schedules more independent.

Today's proposal, which is subject to Congressional approval, would cover all companies. The administration will also name a "special master" to monitor compensation plans for companies receiving government assistance.

House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi wants a 1933 style investigation of Wall Street. She said that the American people are demanding to know the what and how of the Lehman, Bear Stearns and Merrill collapses. She wants to pattern her investigation after the Ferdinand Pecora hearings in 1933. The Pecora review "was probably the single most important congressional investigation in the history of our country, excepting the Watergate hearings. Congress is under public pressure to find out exactly what generated $1.3 trillion in financial industry losses, the details of the $700 billion dollar bailout and the $37 trillion destroyed in world markets. In response, John Larson, of Connecticut said: "We truly want to find out what happened to this country and level with the American people." Pelosi, in a speech on April 15 said: people need "to have a clear understanding as to how we got here and what the exposure is to the taxpayer to all this."

Even though Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner could have made a better impression on Wall Street, the over-reaction to the plan he outlined seems excessive.

In just hours after the announcement, the major indices backed away from the key 20- and 50-day moving average lines and plunged to the bottom of the current trading range. For the S&P 500, the support is at 800 to 820 -- and the index closed just seven points above the top line while the Dow actually penetrated its support line.

It is hoped that Geithner's professorial lecture resulted from inexperience in explaining real issues to the public following an increase of presidential expectations. If that's the situation, then we should see more details and see them quickly.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) wants General Motors Corp. (NYSE: GM) CEO out and thinks a merger between Chrysler and GM makes sense. I am happy to hear him say that because I suggested those ideas as part of my six point restructuring plan for the auto industry. The difference is that when Dodd says this, he actually has some power to make it happen.

This morning on Face the Nation, Dodd said, "You've got to consider new leadership. [Wagoner] has to move on." Moreover, when asked if a change in leadership should be a condition of a bailout, Dodd said, "I think it is going to have to be part of it." Dodd also said, "Chrysler, is, I think, basically gone, probably ought to be merged."

This sounds like progress to me. If only Congress could push the auto industry to follow the other four parts of the restructuring plan, that would be great. However, my plan left out an important point -- even if the industry cuts unprofitable products and the related dealerships and reduces pay and benefits it will still need to agree on how much of a haircut the bondholders will need to take in a restructuring.

Nevertheless, Dodd's comments on Face the Nation represent good progress.

Peter Cohan is president of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in the securities mentioned.

It's official: Main Street does not believe that Wall Street deserves a $700 billion rescue from Congress.

By a margin of 55% to 31% in a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, American said that they don't believe the government should "bail out private companies with taxpayer dollars, even if their collapse could damage the economy," according to Bloomberg News. That's a stunning rebuke to the Bush administration.

Though Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke are thumping their chests demanding that Congress act immediately to head off the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, members of Congress are not so sure. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) indicated to reporters yesterday that passage of the bill this year was not a sure thing. Maybe that's political posturing, but it should scare investors nonetheless.

Democrats and Republicans are getting hammered by outraged constituents questioning why the government should bail out sleazy Wall Street bankers and not lift a finger to help homeowners hurt by the credit crunch. The American people have nothing against people getting rich. They do resent those, however, those who they believe cut corners, which is exactly how Wall Street got into this mess. Anti-bailout sentiment is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Democratic congressional leaders do not think the Fed's new mortgage rules go far enough and have indicated that they are considering taking power away from the Fed when it comes to protecting consumers, according to a story in today's Wall Street Journal. Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and one of the key leaders on this issue, told the Journal that the Fed's moves are a "clear signal that legislation is necessary to help protect homeowners from abusive and predatory lending practices." He also indicated that he is considering reexamining legislation he introduced last week to take power away from the central bank when it comes to consumer protection.

Rep. Barney Frank, who is chairman of the House Banking Committee, wasn't any happier with what he heard form the Fed. He told the Journal, "We now have confirmation of two facts we have known for some time. One, the Federal Reserve System is not a strong advocate for consumers, and two, there is no Santa Claus. People who are surprised by the one are presumably surprised by the other."

Bankers, seeing the writing on the wall and hoping that the Fed's changes will pacify critics, primarily supported the new rules. According to the Journal, the American Financial Services Association called the Fed's rules "measured" and the Independent Community Bankers of America said it was "an important step." But, the powerful American Bankers Association still hopes it can sway the Fed to ease the rules. It said some parts of the proposal were too rigid and "could make it harder for bankers to tailor products for their customers."