It depends what you mean by wrong…

According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton says that if she becomes president the federal government will take a more active role in the economy “to address what she called the excesses of the market and of the Bush administration.” Scary stuff for anyone who still believes in the free market.

She said that economic excesses — including executive-pay packages she characterized as often “offensive” and “wrong” and a tax code that had become “so far out of whack” in favoring the wealthy — were holding down middle-class living standards.

“Wrong” is a rather subjective word. Some of us still believe that the worth of a CEO should be determined by stockholders rather than the President of the United States. We may wonder what exactly is going to be accomplished by putting a ceiling on CEO salaries? Will the extra money be procured and sent out to needy folks in refund checks? I guess this must be part of the same populist economic stimulus plan that entails taking the profits from oil companies for the common good.

More than that, though, one wonders if Clinton’s disgust for excessive profit extends to the salaries of her movie star and investment banker benefactors? Or her husband? Sure, Hillary might be offended by the chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd C. Blankfein, hauling in a $67.9 million in bonuses last year. The money, after all, could be put to better use paying her husband $650,000 for four more speeches. Now, that is what really helps the middle class.