AIG Bonuses

[softwareNerd]

And the Secretary of the Treasury says he needs more power to take over other financial firms and insurers.

The Rational Capitalist blog has a good post on this topic.

[Benpercent]

And the Secretary of the Treasury says he needs more power to take over other financial firms and insurers.

This is getting pretty scary. Had the Democrats won a very clear unstoppable majority, we would be socialized in a matter of one Presidential term

Looks like I'll be opening up a mattress fund tomorrow! This probably explains why my credit union was full to the brim (and then some) with parking today at lunchtime. I called to ask what had happened, but nobody answered nor did I receive the promised callback.

Edited March 24, 2009 by Benpercent

[Space Patroller]

And the Secretary of the Treasury says he needs more power to take over other financial firms and insurers.

This is getting pretty scary. Had the Democrats won a very clear unstoppable majority, we would be socialized in a matter of one Presidential term

This is right out of ATLAS SHRUGGED: "I need wider powers!". Was it Wesley Mouch?

Are you sure the Administration hasn't been secretly reading AS?

Would it surprise you if the head of the Endowmnets for the Arts and Humainties is named Ellsworth Toohey (or his brother Hoc)?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The House is backing down on its anti-bonus rhetoric after Obama said the law they tried to pass is unconstitutional and after he told them he wanted to entice more companies to go along with the bail out proposals. Unfortunately, they may pass a bill giving the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to deny bonuses he considers to be too high.

I guess the Secretary of the Treasury is becoming the economic dictator

[Space Patroller]

The House is backing down on its anti-bonus rhetoric after Obama said the law they tried to pass is unconstitutional and after he told them he wanted to entice more companies to go along with the bail out proposals. Unfortunately, they may pass a bill giving the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to deny bonuses he considers to be too high.

I guess the Secretary of the Treasury is becoming the economic dictator

Isn't that the case of "Let he who is *with* sin bigtime not only cast the first stone but make it a boulder fired from a friggin' catapult?

[MichaelH]

The House is backing down on its anti-bonus rhetoric after Obama said the law they tried to pass is unconstitutional and after he told them he wanted to entice more companies to go along with the bail out proposals. Unfortunately, they may pass a bill giving the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to deny bonuses he considers to be too high.

I hope the rhetorical retreat is too late. They have already shown what "free" government money entails. When the government tried to take away the golden parachutes, they sent a clear signal to executives everywhere. One can only hope the executives are paying attention.

[gags]

This bill just stinks of unconstitutionality and it seems that more and more evidence is piling up in that regard:

The Congressional Research Service reached the conclusion that while certain aspects of the proposed taxing schemes may raise concerns under the Fifth Amendment and “ex post facto” clause, the strongest arguments against their constitutionality arise under the bill-of-attainder analysis.

The two main criteria that courts look to in order to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are whether specific individuals are affected by the statute, and whether the legislation inflicts a punishment on those individuals. Both bills appear to meet the “specificity” prong, according to the analysis. The closer that a tax rate gets to 100 percent on income already earned, the more likely that such a tax would be seen by a court as rising to the level of punishment, according to the analysis.

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?ARTICLEID=31170

[MichaelH]

This bill just stinks of unconstitutionality and it seems that more and more evidence is piling up in that regard:

The Congressional Research Service reached the conclusion that while certain aspects of the proposed taxing schemes may raise concerns under the Fifth Amendment and “ex post facto” clause, the strongest arguments against their constitutionality arise under the bill-of-attainder analysis.

The two main criteria that courts look to in order to determine whether legislation is a bill of attainder are whether specific individuals are affected by the statute, and whether the legislation inflicts a punishment on those individuals. Both bills appear to meet the “specificity” prong, according to the analysis. The closer that a tax rate gets to 100 percent on income already earned, the more likely that such a tax would be seen by a court as rising to the level of punishment, according to the analysis.

http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?ARTICLEID=31170

Unfortunately, politicians have good reason to support the bill, especially if it will be overturned. They pass the bill, knowing it will be struck down. They don't actually get to enforce the tax, but get to say they have "done something" about the issue. They still get an image win with the American public.

Ugh.

[Edit: The public is more reprehensible here for supporting the tax. The politicians try to do what the people support in order to get re-elected.]

Edited March 31, 2009 by MichaelH

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Peter Schwartz, former president of The Ayn Rand Institute, has a good op-ed piece on the AIG bonus scandal.

Mob Rule Comes to Washington.