A few months ago, I commented to a few friends that my three-part plan for corporate America was sock it to 'em, sock it to 'em, sock it to 'em. The remark was made in jest, but at the same time Ihad no idea how bad things were.

The Sept. 18 issue of USAToday stated that the federal government had promised $300 billion to enable people to meet their mortgage payments, and $600 billion to financial institutions. Then we were told that another $700 billion was needed to save the financial markets, and if we didn't do it yesterday, something dire will happen.

Maybe. Do these guys know? Is it possible to work from the other end? Can we pay the people instead of Wall Street?Or do a combination of both?

Whatever the case, the $700 billion could be contributed by the super rich. According Forbes Magazine the combined wealth of the 469 billionaires in the U.S. is $1.6 trillion - over twice the $700 billion required. If each would give 44 percent of his wealth to the government, we'd have the $700 billion.

I suppose that 99 percent of those who read this letter will think my idea is crazy. But why?Most of us know that in a fair world no one would be able to work long enough, hard enough or smart enough to make a billion dollars. Surely someone who has made a billion in our unfair world knows this. Maybe we should push and bully them a little. Maybe a lot. If we ask young people to risk death and devastating injury in dubious adventures in Asia, we shouldn't worry too much about asking old men to part with money they will never need.

So what of the future? It is clear that many rich people need some oversight and control. To that end I suggest a $2 million per year maximum wage, and a $1 billion cap on personal wealth with any excess going to the government. Socialistic? yes. But that is better than what we have, now - which is the government taking from the middle class and giving to the rich.