« | »

House To Vote On 90% AIG Bonus Tax

From a power mad Associated Press:

House to vote on 90 percent tax for AIG bonuses

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The House is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would levy a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to employees with family incomes above $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in government bailout money.

"We figured that the local and state governments would take care of the other 10 percent," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel said the bill would apply to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, among others, while excluding community banks and other smaller companies that have received less bailout money…

Lawmakers rushed to the microphones after word of the bonuses was leaked out by the government over the weekend. Bills were quickly drawn up in both the House and Senate to impose heavy new taxes on them…

Republicans have pointed their criticism at Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, questioning how much he know about the bonuses in advance and efforts by the administration to stop them. And they complained anew about being locked out of discussions earlier this year when Democrats decided to jettison a provision in the economic stimulus bill that would have revoked the payments.

"The fact is that the bill the president signed, which protected the AIG bonuses and others, was written behind closed doors by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. There was no transparency," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

Obviously our Solons in the House don’t care that this would be unconstitutional, as we have noted previously. (And which now other Constitutional scholars agree to be the case.)

And never mind that this being put through by the same Charlie Rangel who was only too happy to shake down AIG for donations to his temple library just last year.

This is the same Charlie Rangel who was only to eager to give AIG a major tax break, as long as they contributed heavily to his campaign.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, March 19th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

31 Responses to “House To Vote On 90% AIG Bonus Tax”

  1. bdelsol says:

    I would support this bill if it included confiscating 90% of the income from those in the federal government who voted for or signed the stimulus bill which explicitly allows these bonuses to go forward. (Not having the time to actually read the bill is not an excuse.)

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      “(Not having the time to actually read the bill is not an excuse.)”

      It’s not only NOT AN EXCUSE, it’s a bold indicator of how foolhardy and flawed they’ve made our “system” (or should I say their system). So long as they’re able to put their own piece of pork into whatever bill, they could care less otherwise.

      Constitutional??? Who knows or cares? Fixing a problem or causing one? Who knows or cares? Is it well thought thru or are we shooting from the hip and pandering?

      These nitwits continue to demonstrate their total ineptness. Dangerously so.

      And btw, your confiscation idea, bdelsol, is a great one. They’d actually be receiving compensation closer to their worth.

  2. proreason says:

    This is actually great news.

    One more piece of evidence of the shameless criminality of Congress.

    At some point, even the scrambled brains of American voters will catch on that the carnies moving the peas under the shells are not exactly doing it for the customer’s sake.

    • TwilightZoned says:

      I hope so Pro. You can’t fool all the people all the time. What makes me leery is the scrambled brained of America really don’t care about criminality of congress as long as it benefits them. And the brain-dead hard core voters for O REALLY don’t care. After all, they voted with their emotions, not brains.

    • Consilience says:

      Rush sometimes refers to children as “young skulls full of mush”—I would submit we shouldn’t limit the descriptor to children. You’d have to have @#$% for brains to believe this vote was Constitutional.

      You know, the more I think about, it’s about time to speak up and frankly about these morons in Congress and assert the “We the People” proposition.

    • Right of the People says:

      I hope someone is chronicling all of this for evidence for their trials for their sins against We the People. After we take these bozo’s down they all deserve a fair trial before we hang them. I think even the uberlibs at the world court would convict.

      10-7

  3. curvyred says:

    Is that even legal?

    • Colonel1961 says:

      I don’t believe so – ex post facto is in play (or, it used to be in the United States).

  4. Odie44 says:

    This is like watching a dog get its head stuck in a peanut butter jar.

    Can’t resist.

    And now that we know Dodd, Geitner, Obama, Pelosi lied about everything – this must be vetted and squashed.

  5. Rusty Shackleford says:

    My mind is sufficiently boggled. Voting on something that should never even be an issue. By allowing this sham to continue, it paves the way for precedent in making laws to tax people “whatever we think is appropriate”. So if they don’t like Dow Chemical, they tax their execs differently than others. Or…as with Exxon/Mobil, clearly the “most evil and selfish entities in America today” by their own words…they’d best look out because the Pelosi Police will come and getcha and tax you according to her graduated, flexible, dynanmic scale that probably coinicdes with both her hot flashes and “female cycle” whichever it may be.

    I’m beyond stunned that this issue even got this far. What’s next? “Let’s have a vote on whether CO2 should be illegal”..oh…wait.

    I think I’ll just shut the world out and put it all on “ignore”. If only I could.

  6. wardmama4 says:

    Isn’t this the same Charlie Rangel who didn’t pay some taxes of his own or am I just another stupid ‘flyover state’ American who doesn’t know a damn thing?

    And has someone published exactly how much Rangel recieved in donations kickbacks from AIG?

    Indeed these people have become the Klownposse in DC – does not the average person in America realize – Today it might be AIG, tomorrow Exxon but then the next day – it will be them?

    Impeach ’em All and start again. I am beginning to believe those that remain silent are just as corrupt as the Animal Farm pig leading the charge. Oops my bad the Messiah leading the charge.

    • Colonel1961 says:

      That would be ‘Napoleon’ and the world of the left is curiouser than Mr. Jones’ Farm (nee Manor Farm).

  7. bdelsol says:

    This does give one an insight into how the left views taxation — taxes are nothing more than a way to punish groups the left doesn’t like.

    • pdsand says:

      Yes sir,
      Read the first two chapters of the President’s budget that Obama just released, it says exactly that. I forget the exact quote, but the basic idea is that the tax code should be used to achieve income inequality in this country. In fact the “failed policies of the past” is one of his major charges against Bush, that he let income inequality grow in this country by not using the tax code to punish achievers over the last 8 years.
      The real problem is that our one part media does not call them on this, and then they will in fact report negatively on a conservative “smear” when somebody uses their exact words and statements in the same sentence as the word “socialist” or “corrupt”

    • pdsand says:

      I always wondered what he was talking about, I was thinking, ‘wtf failed policies of the past?!?!’. The last 8 years were some of the fantastically economically successful years in the countries history, and Bush’s response to the recession and 9/11 was economically a raucous success. The “failure” according to Mr. Obama was that he didn’t enact socialism, of course.

  8. curvyred says:

    I think this entire episode is nothing more than political posturing – the feigned outrage – the attempt to tax the bonus recepients – nothing more than a dog and pony show.

  9. Consilience says:

    The bonus recipients should refuse to pay the tax and challenge the law in court—they would win…

    • DoctorRock says:

      That’s a sucker bet! As if they needed any more ammo, Barney wants to subpoena the names of these people – who’s families are receiving death threats! So if AIG renegs, they’ll sue AIG and win. If Chuck thinks a bill of attainder will stand up in court he’s dumber than he looks. Apparently they don’t have any smart people to help them.

  10. Consilience says:

    Notice that stretch pelosi is flanked by rangel the tax-cheat…the hypocrisy.

    • Gila Monster says:

      Rangel reminds me of some sleazy street-corner pimp hustler, lying about anything and everything just to take your money.

      BTW, who are the other two morons flanking Pimps Rangel and BoTox Piglosi?

  11. DGA says:

    Actually, my take on all this is like most of you, but I am seeing a huge push to demonize the word ‘corporation’ and anything to do with business, big or small. I couldn’t figure out what real purpose that had, other than to make it easier for congress to get away with this sort of unconstitutional pandering to their leftist moonbat base. But, really, I think it’s a scheme to make the average American employee hate his own company, and to turn on it, and, start talks with the local union thugs about bringing that same company down.

    This is an all out war on business in general, and the attempt to brainwash as many as possible into thinking that a union would be the way to “Get even with my evil rich company owners” God help us all.

    • proreason says:

      “I am seeing a huge push to demonize the word ‘corporation’ and anything to do with business”

      Spot on.

      Business is the biggest threat to the Authoritarians/Oligarchy/ComSocialists. People in business have the ability to SUCCEED, and above all else, they must prove that success is impossible without the government rationing it out.

    • Odie44 says:

      They have assaulted the “business man” in every way, shape and form. From trying to tear down a guy named Joe (small business owner) to lobbyists, to those making over $250k, oops $200k, oops $150k , any executive receiving bail out monies, cap gains, corporate tax rate, capital, investments, actual rebates…

      Bambi , his administration and Dems have single handedly assaulted supply and demand, micro / macro, horizontal and vertical, within 60 days

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      DGA,

      You pose an interesting point. I work in a union shop. When I was first hired, the company, (hereafter known as ‘the company’) was the ENEMY. Management and ‘the company’ had an agenda to do as little for the worker as possible.

      My position is mixed. I enjoy the benefits of the union but at the same time realize that to say, today, in a time of turmoil that “we should jsut shut the company down” is professional suicide. I generally do not like/admire/respect that position

      On the other hand, in the earlier part of this decade, the union proved to be an effective bargaining tool that preserved the value of the workplace while affording the company the ability to make a profit. Indeed, we approached it from the standpoint of “we aren’t out to destroy the company…but we have to protect our interests as much as makes sense” and we went to the table many, many times.

      I think with cool heads, staying upwind and being adult about everything, it can work out. This is why I have little sympathy for the big three. Their line is that both management and unions have collectively worked to undermine a good thing. The union demanded everything and managmment let them have it.

      I operate under the premise that the goal of every company is to make money. But, I praise the company that values its employees and recognizes talent. I abhore the employee who figures he can never get fired because he’s union. But also, when an employee gets singled out unfairly, the union can do much to protect that person.

      So I categorize it in the “necessary evil” file. I have also worked at the exact same job for a different company without a union. I never for a minute felt I was in any danger. Management treated me very well. I, in turn, offered managment the respect I felt was in order. And it was a great place to work.

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that if the democrats think that unionizing employees is the answer, they are fairly wrong. The basic premise is flawed because, well, first of all this isn’t 1925. Second, most employees now realize that in stiff competitive times for employment, if you have the attitude of shutting down your place of employment, then you DESERVE to be unemployed.

      Personally, where I work now, I fear that without a union, the maangement would, as it historically did in the past, run roughshod over each work group and put us all in a very bad mood. By the same token, the climate here is slowly changing and though I don’t think the union will ever go away, it may have to be much less active.

  12. Curmudgeon says:

    I remember learning in “skool” about the French Revolution and how many of the ringleaders that were considered pretty far-left at the beginning were soon out-lefted and beheaded for various reasons… I remember feeling very sorry for many of them at the time for having their just cause hijacked when their motivations had been so pure. I outgrew the sympathy. Right now, I’d like to man a guillotine.

  13. VMAN says:

    Well it’s done deal in the house. Hopefully the senate will bog down and maybe kill this atrocity. God help us all if it actually goes through. 90% tax and retroactive? So if any of us inherited a nice tidy sum and these thugs didn’t like it they just pass a law and steal it. Or if one of our small businesses comes into a nice lucrative contract and they think we’re making too much profit just pass a law and steal it. Why is it that the government is constantly allowed to do things private citizens would be put in jail for. Take someones hard earned money at gun point and get put in jail yet the government does it every day through taxation (in case you hadn’t noticed they have BIG guns). Turn your garage into an off track betting establishment and go to jail but yet the government has OTB and the lottery. Start a Ponzi scheme and go to jail yet that is nothing more than what we call the social security administration. Lie, cheat, steal and kill is all in a days work for our wonderful government no matter whether it’s federal, state or local they’re all crooks.

  14. yellarcan says:

    Put it in, take it out. Put it in, take it out. I didn’t do it, I did do it. I didn’t do it, I did do it. I paid my taxes, I didn’t pay my taxes. Are we sure that flip-flopping John Kerry isn’t really in charge?

  15. BillK says:

    Of course this is going to end up like any number of other violations of the Constitution that have come up lately.

    The courts will rule that no one has “standing” to question the law and that “Americans were not hurt” and thus it will never be heard.

    That’s ignoring the fact that regular courts will never hear this, but it will instead be shuffled off to the IRS’ “tax court” instead.

  16. proreason says:

    This one is beginning to gnaw more than the others.

    When Congress deliberately and explicitly violates the Constitution, what is left of the basis for our country?

    We may and often do disagree (even on S&L) about principles, politics and policy, but certainly we can at least agree that the Constitution is the foundation that makes all of our freedoms possible. It’s the most basic principle of all. At least, that’s the way I see it.

    http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

    “Bill of Attainder

    Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

    The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

    “The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature>/b>.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

    “These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

    Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

    Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

    Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
    Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
    U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
    Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
    Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984). ”

    In a just world, every congress person who votes to impose the 90% tax Bill of Attainder would be impeached for committing a high crime.

    Since the guilty parties will never inforce the Constitution on themselves, we the people are going to have to do it.

    Tell your congressional representatives that you will vote them out of office if they violate the Constitution. Period.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »