Who is ready for their morning dose of anger? That is what I thought this morning when I found out about the higher pay at some investment banks following the recent bailouts. Well, let me qualify that -- it isn't necessarily higher pay, but some execs will receive the same amount as they did before the bailouts. Some Wall Street firms, enjoying improving profits are on track to "pay employees as much as, or even more than, it did in the pre-crisis days." The top six U.S. banks have set aside $74 billion to pay employees, up from $60 billion last year, according to the Washington Post.

On Monday, the stock market rose 498 points -- a move that many attributed to the announcement over the weekend of a plan to buy $1 trillion in toxic waste that uses government loans to lure investors -- such as hedge funds -- into buying extremely risky securities.

That sounds like the same thing that got us into the financial crisis in the first place. It also sounds like the sort of thing that hedge funds do for a living -- and those hedge funds are making a handful of skilled people into billionaires.

The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that "More than 40 financial firms have been hit with pay-related proposals, including Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS). Most of the targets are recipients of government capital from the Troubled Asset Relief Program."

This is great news and represents an increase of more than 60% over last year, according to RiskMetrics. Of course, it doesn't matter nearly as much as it should: The "say on pay" votes are really just advisory: All that they do is put a little box on the proxy ballot where shareholders can say how they feel about their company's egregious executive pay practices.

Can President Obama force CEOs to take a massive pay cut? While many others in the economy -- particularly the millions of regular Joes and Janes who have lost their jobs -- are helping to push down wages, CEOs have been immune from the pay cuts. But if Obama forces CEOs who take government money to limit their pay to $500,000 -- 25% more than Obama takes in -- will that cause all CEO pay to tumble? I think the answer is "no."

Why? Many reasons. First, no CEO in his or her right mind would volunteer to take government money given the ensuing pay cut. For example, if the CEO of a car company made $14 million in 2008, why would that same CEO volunteer to make $500,000 in 2009? Instead, the CEO would seek a position with a company that did not take government money and therefore did not limit the CEO's pay.

Just when you think you've heard it all, you hear more. In the last year, Wall Street -- or more specifically, the brokerage units of New York financial companies -- lost $35 billion. (Worldwide, financial institutions have taken $1 trillion in write-offs of bad assets). Those firms received a large proportion of the $350 billion TARP and persuaded the Treasury to guarantee losses from hundreds of billions worth of their financial toxic waste. Their reward? $18.4 billion in bonuses.

How much of the TARP went to paying for those bonuses? The banks have cleverly neglected to report that. But let's face it -- money is fungible. So if they did not use the money from the deposits they received from the Treasury to pay bonuses, our tax dollars freed up cash they may have had from other sources that did go to paying those $18.4 billion in bonuses.