The Federal and State governments have been singling out one specific group of individuals for years with a continual series of increased taxation:

Tobbacco users.

No other legally sold product has had its level of taxation rise so drastically.

Back on subject: Geithner and Paulson failed to represent the people or to even follow the instructions given by the White House and Congress (to set specific conditions for the use of the bailout funds). Why are we so surprised that they all ignored the contractual bonuses? The correct thing for AIG to do would have been to arrange for those bonuses to be paid once they were solvent again. Geithner and Paulson should have told AIG that if they wanted a bailout, they had to tighten belts and not blow money on bonuses and other extravagances. It is not just the Bonuses that have people pissed, it’s also all the other money AIG committed to fund spending unrelated to ending their crisis. For US citizens, the bonuses are simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.

For the politicians, this issue of the bonuses is partially a diversionary tactic. (While the press is focused on this, they are ignoring other very important reports.) More disturbing is that the legislation they passed today is yet another example of their failure to uphold their oaths of office to uphold and protect the Constitution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Doug:

You’re correct Doug.

I knew that the bill of attainder description applied here but was posting on the fly a bit.

Thanks for fleshing out the remainder of the issue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

More important, Aye Chihuahua, it’s a Bill Of Attainder. Such bills are specifically outlawed in the Constitution to prevent “trial by legislature” without the benefit of judicial review, targeting specific individuals. You know, part of that pesky “separation of powers” thing? Today’s Mad Dog Congress is doing just that. As if that’s stopped anyone lately…

I pulled this quote from a web site: In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.

If this does not describe the recipients of the AIG retention bonuses, I don’t know what does. Additionally, it IS ex post facto, much like Algore tried to pull off in the 2000 presidential election.

I’m astonished that this important constitutional term (Bill of Attainder) has not surfaced at all in the dialog lately. Let’s start talking it up, shall we?

“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.”
— James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Update: Ron Paul used the term on the floor of the House today.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

eaglewingz08, the time for bankruptcy would be *before* the US taxpayer became 80% owner….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I would like to see those contracts. Usually contracts have exculpatory clauses for acts of God, acts of government, bankruptcy, etc. which makes it impossible for the fulfillment or performance of the contracts as originally contemplated. AIG was insolvent, the fact that the government inserted money did not mean that AIG had a giant piggy bank that would allow it to claim it was fiscally sound. It had a loan. If AIG had progressed into bankruptcy, which looks more inviting every day, all those contracts would have been voided as they should have been. The bonuses for the half dozen or so former AIG employees who received retention bonuses but already left employment should have been negated. You were to get money to STAY, YOU LEFT, no BONUS, end of story.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ask and ye shall receive, Scott. Here’s the OpenSecrets records of top recipients.

Obama is first, Dodd second. Followed by McCain, then Hillary. But the contributions to the first two is about 1.75% more.

However AIG is like any heavy hitter lobby/contributor. They tend to throw the most money at the parties in power. For example, in 2004, they gave Bush over $160K, and Kerry about $56K.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hmmmmm, nice find Curt.
“Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and David Obey”
Tree absolute PILLARS of integrity [not]

Anyone got a list of AIG contributions to Dems? It’d be interesting to see if Rangel was on that list

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What’s the problem, Dave Noble…. Geithner *is* part of the Obama admin, and he did know. The headline is correct.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well, the way I see it, as many of you also point out, is that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to not only break binding contracts but also to tax any one specific group (even if they ARE crooks). This is all a “distracting dance” from the Dems, who knew full well what they were doing (money laundering)

After all, if there’s a very easy and LEGAL way to break contracts, LET THEM FAIL and go into bankruptcy.

Someone needs to start keeping track of all the “Constitutional Violations” of our congress. But then, I’m not sure it will matter, since truth itself doesn’t even seem to matter anymore.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

From The Corner:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) deepened the mystery of the AIG bonus clause this morning. In a press conference, she appeared to be claiming that no one from the House had been present at the House-Senate conference committee where AIG the provision was inserted:

“This is Senate-White House language…If you want to talk about what happened in the Senate, go to the Senate and talk to them…It was never brought to conference…This never came to the House side. You can talk to any of our conferees.”

(The Hill offers a more detailed write-up here.) Pelosi’s statement is at least inaccurate in that the bill came to the House side with the AIG provision, and passed on a roll call vote. But if the House Democrat conferees (Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, and David Obey) were not present for the House-Senate conference committee, where were they? Were they, like the Republican conferees, locked out of negotiations?

Like or Dislike: 0  0