In case you missed the news last week, former Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag has taken a multi-million dollar gig at Citigroup. The move has been condemned by some critics of the well-trodden path between Washington and Wall Street, including The Atlantic's own James Fallows. To be sure, Orszag's decision is regrettable from a public policy standpoint: Citi was one of the biggest bailout recipients, and Orszag may have had input on aspects of its rescue during his tenure at the White House. But how do you avoid this problem?

On some level, it's hard to blame Orszag. After all, as OMB head he was making a fraction of what he'll make at Citi, which will certainly provide him a more lavish lifestyle if that's what he's after. Of course, it would have been nice to see him take a job at a firm that wasn't an embattled recipient of a big government rescue during his time working for the President. And since the revolving door remains active, public condemnation alone obviously isn't slowing it much.

Economist Karl Smith at Modeled Behavior has a suggestion. He says we need to pay government officials more competitively:

I do hope that economically oriented folks aren't suggesting that we use moral suasion to control government corruption. People respond to incentives. If you don't want them to sell you out then you have to pay them more.

Indeed, if Orszag had a $7 million per year salary as OMB head, he might still be there. Or he may have still left. It's possible that money had little to do with it. He may have found the job too stressful and the work monotonous. Or maybe he couldn't stand his boss. For these or other reasons, even a multi-million dollar government salary might not have kept him around.