Figuratively speaking, the chasm between the paychecks of top corporate executives and those of average workers has grown wider than the Grand Canyon.

But there's a right way and a wrong way to tackle the issue of excessive executive compensation — if there is such a thing in a free market. An arcane provision in the bill the Senate recently passed to increase the minimum wage definitely is the wrong way.

Our problem isn't with hiking the minimum wage; that's long overdue and will not be the job killer that critics claim. Nor do we oppose a series of small-business tax breaks included in the bill to pay for the increase.

But the Senate bill also includes a misguided measure to cap the amount of compensation top executives can stash in certain tax-deferred accounts. Backers insist they're only closing a tax loophole. But let's get real: This measure is a way to collect additional taxes and look tough on executive compensation.

And there's irony, as well. This so-called loophole exists, in part, because Congress originally didn't want to be accused of setting executive pay when lawmakers dabbled in this area in the early '90s. So now it's OK?

Consider this the real-world equivalent of squeezing a water-filled balloon. Smart accountants will find creative ways around this restriction. Then Congress will tinker some more, and no doubt badly.

Investors and boards of directors have to serve as compensation watchdogs, a point President Bush made last week when he urged corporate boards to "step up to their responsibilities" and tie compensation packages to performance. Home Depot's Robert Nardelli, for example, recently departed the company with a big compensation package despite lackluster performance. But having been burned, Home Depot's board has given Nardelli's successor more modest compensation and no guaranteed bonuses.

Also, investors can sell their stock if they feel that a company's top executives are overpaid or underperforming. Directors can show a CEO to the door. And new rules providing greater transparency in executive compensation provide a clearer snapshot of total benefits.

All of these are preferable to Washington trying to take charge of what's not its job.

— The Dallas Morning News