T-Diggle has yet to post, so I guess I'll start the bidding.
I'm going to argue that the salaries of executives at private firms who accept public bailout funds should be subject to to government review. The reasons for my stance on this matter will be outlined and explained below.
The first reason that the government should have some say in the pay of executives is that the government owns a part of the company. This in effect means that as a shareholder of a company they have every right to look over the salaries of the coroprate brass, if for no other reason than to see where their bailout money is spent.
For example, if you gave a private company $5 million (and it's worth $50 million), as a bailout, you own 10% of that company. Given how much of this company you own, you'd most certainly have the right to review the budget of this company.
Leading on from this point is that the government's bailout money was given for just that, to make sure that bailed out buisnesses don't go under. They aren't giving these companies millions of dollars so that the people who ran the company to the ground can keep picking up massive pay checks. To ensure that this isn't the case I'd say that the government (who as established above can be considered as a shareholder) the right to review the company's budget.
likewise leading on from the above analogy, if we replace 'private company' with 'hospital' and add 'to buy new scanning equipment', you'd be at liberty to review the budget to see if the money you gave the hospital is given to buy that new scanner, and not pay the higherups.
In conclusion, giving a company bail out money so that the bailed out company can continue to exist does give the government the right to look over a company's budget to ensure that the money is being spent sensibly. Because a company's budget naturally includes the pay of the executives. So yes the government does in this case have the right to review the pay of the top people in the company.