Posted on 03/17/2009 3:49:35 PM PDT by rrdog
Senator Chuck Schumer today expressed a desire to target specifically the recipients of the AIG bailout with a targeted tax rate of 100% on their bonuses. This is clearly unconstitutional and Schumer is well aware of the illegality of his proposal. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the constitution provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
For those who may be unclear on exactly what this means we can refer to the Federalists papers and James Madison. He wrote the following, "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 bonuses of course were in poor taste, but the government owns 80% (and thus complete control) of AIG, and chose correctly to honor the original contracts. President Obama himself has argued that their is nothing legal that can be done.
(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...
No where did I say the government handled it right. Have you read my posts. They shouldn't have done it in the first place.
A company that fails is under no such obligation. That’s what failure means.
Well, we agree on that. I have been referring to that all along.
I have no problem with a man making a lot of money. Good for him, I say. But AIG at this point should be bankrupt because of bad business practices. Executives got big bonuses as they drove the company into the ground.
Now the company only exists because the government is propping it up. Are these executives currently getting bonuses based on business practices that are unsustainable?
I am no fan of Chuck Schumer. But to me this whole mess stinks.
Your point regarding bankruptcy is well taken. However, AIG was not allowed to die... It lives on under new majority ownership. That new ownership has not moved to amend anything of significance, generally, and so AIG should honor its agreements. There were no ‘strings’ attached to the bailout monies, which should never have been approved in the first place, IMO.
The outrage being voiced across a wide spectrum of the nation is ill placed, as far as I’m concerned. We should be marching on Washington to remove the legislative idiots who appropriated OUR money for the bailout shenanigans in the first place.
He'd sell his mother if he could. Guy is a total dirtbag.
Now, back to the Constitution ~ it's already suspended until the next election which we have to win. Else we'll be needing a new country.
That’s a good one too ... I still like the Barny “Elmer Fudd” Frank name ...
We should be doing both. Just because the government gives away my hard earned money doesn’t mean I’m going to roll over and expose my jugular. Rush is wrong and everyone else who supports, gave away, authorized, and allows the bonuses to happen. It just like giving congress a pay raise when the budget is in deficit.
Agreed.
Not nearly so foolish as you my child.
Schumer is a nitwit.
So you disagree with the acquisition. Your vote is noted however, the majority of the board to do it so your sol.
Try being a capitalist or conservative in California. We never get a vote.
Oceanside
I disagree with most of what the feds and the state does and have done so for quite awhile. When is it my turn? LOL!
That’s not too bad is it? Lots of military there. I live in Orange County,
*
Because I believe the bonuses were contracted at a time when the company was losing massive amounts of money. I own a business and would not give someone a bonus if we were swimming in red ink. I’m not sure about this, but I believe it is the case. If the bonuses were designed to retain top performers, then I would retrace my statement. If they were given only to employees who actually had profitable departments, then I would also retract. If they are broadbased attempts to curry favor among friends, they are in poor taste. In other words, if the bonuses were handed out by people who thought they were going to lose their jobs, and given to people they thought could help them down the road, that is in poor taste.
The government should never have bailed out the company in the first place. But when they did, they bought not only the company, but all of the contracts that went with it. You can’t just ignore contracts because the government owns the business.
ex post facto, perhaps. Bills of attainder, no. As the blog points out, Madison explained exactly what he meant by this article of the Constitution, and it was the preservation of contracts.
Thanks. This interests me, but I have to shut down for the night.
Will look into it tomorrow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.