The editorial says "for business, social, and moral reasons CEOs should voluntarily moderate their compensation." No one voluntarily gives up money or power; that's a lesson from history and why democratic governments have to have a check and balance system.
Business groups are always complaining about environmental restrictions and other limits imposed on them, but in many ways it's their own fault. How can stockholders control an out-of-line executive as long as the profits roll in?
As for morality, how about executives who lay off thousands and then vote themselves raises? That's not immoral - it's amoral. Boyd Collins, Arcadia, Calif.
Letters are welcome. Only a selection can be published, subject to condensation, and none acknowledged. Please address them to "Readers Write," One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115.