Less than three weeks ago, when asked during a Congressional hearing whether he’d consider scaling back his $22 million pay package, Ford (F) Chief Executive Alan Mulally replied, “I think I’m OK where I am.”

He thinks differently now.

Mulally and fellow Big Three auto maker CEOs Rick Wagoner of General Motors (GM) and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler have all agreed to $1 salaries as part of restructuring plans aimed at righting their ailing businesses and securing billions of dollars in government loans.

The symbolism in these high profile pay cuts is obvious. But are there tangible, material reasons CEOs should not be paid tens -- or even hundreds -- of millions of dollars?

Ask Ford’s or GM’s shareholders.

Or, better yet, the shareholders of any of the giant Wall Street banks that took on inordinate amounts of risk via huge bets on mortgage-related investments in order to pump up profits and, by extension, the salaries and year-end bonuses of their executives.

Former Merrill Lynch CEO Stanley O’Neal walked away with a $161 million pay package. Citigroup’s (C) ousted CEO Charles Prince departed with $105 million. Washington Mutual’s CEO Kerry Killinger got $44 million when he was shown the door.

Broc Romanek, editor of CompensationStandards.com, a board advisory Web site, said he can think of several reasons huge CEO paychecks can be bad for business.

First, bonuses and salaries based either all or in part on attaining short-term profit goals can cause CEOs to adopt a short-sighted approach.

“If the pay arrangement metrics are such that there is a huge payout if there is a home run, the CEO might take on a very risky strategy,” said Romanek.

Consider the Wall Street titans who bet the farm on mind-bogglingly complicated mortgage-backed securities, only to see those securities explode and with them the value and credibility of their [former] companies.

Or the car makers who continued to market huge, gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks to consumers who were increasingly looking for smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

Romanek also cited the risk of the “imperial CEO,” or the chief executive who makes so much money he feels he is no longer accountable to shareholders. That can only lead to trouble.

Finally, employee morale is likely to suffer when the CEO continues to take home millions even as the company struggles, as most are in this difficult economy. The auto and airline industries serve as prime examples. For years union members in both sectors have been asked to scale back on salaries and benefits, at the same time their CEOs continue to reap fortunes.

“It’s way out of hand,” said Romanek.

Not everyone thinks so, however.

Jeremy Anwyl, chief executive of Edmunds.com, which tracks all things in the car industry, said Mulally, in particular, is probably worth every penny of the $22 million Ford paid him in 2007.

By creating billions of dollars in liquidity to help pay for Ford’s extensive restructuring plans, Mulally has Ford “sitting in the best position of the Big Three” auto makers.

Indeed, Ford -- unlike its competitors GM and Chrysler, both of which are facing imminent bankruptcy -- has said it could start turning a profit again by 2011.

Anwyl described the public outcry for lower CEO salaries as “an emotional reaction.”

“It’s a question of wanting to blame somebody,” he said.

The recent sharp decline in sales of U.S. cars has more to do with the awful economy than any shift in consumer tastes, he said.

“Nobody in their right mind had forecasted the sales disaster that we’ve seen,” he said.

Blaming industry leaders does little to solve the real issue of declining sales, Anwyl added, but it certainly makes for good political theater.

Instead of legislating salaries, Anwyl suggested Congress should be working on a “realistic view toward an energy policy” that reconciles Americans’ taste for big cars with the need for fuel efficiency, such as giving tax breaks for consumers who purchase fuel efficient cars.

Meanwhile, compensation experts say the issue of excessive CEO pay is likely to remain controversial until CEOs themselves take a stand.

So far, the only CEOs willing to take that stand are those seeking billions of dollars from the federal government to keep their companies afloat.