CNN: House OKs bill taxing bailed-out firms' bonuses. — Page 3

I was referring to AIG, domestic automakers, domestic passenger airlines and former independent investment banks like Bear Sterns.

I just hate to see the insurance, investment banking and automobile industries go the way of Amtrak which many historians claim was the lesser of two evils. The other being a collapse of the entire railroad industry.

This just in--

"Connecticut and New York were the first states to request A.I.G.’s accounting of its bonuses, and now 19 states and their attorneys general have formed a coalition also seeking information from A.I.G."

The state AG's are on the march!


CT AG peeping at AIG bonuses

---

Updated On: 3/21/09 at 09:46 PM

I'm no attorney but it seems clear to me the difference between one of AIG's bad acting divisions and a wholly-owned Wachovia subsidiary covered by a national charter referenced in the Watter vs Wachovia case cited by yawper. It's sad that some hard working and honest folks in AIG's other divisions could potentially have to pay for the handiwork of the FPD.

Some southern Libertarian attorney friends of mine suggest that both the National Banking Act and the Federal Reserve Act should be repealed with power returned the states to regulate all banking business within their realm. And they hate the Federal Reserve. I suppose they want their own currency still as well. I can't go down that line with them though.

It does appear that Wall Street, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve seem to have an incestuous love triangle going on.

---

Relatively few state chartered banks (which number far more than nationally chartered ones) have failed during this whole mortgage mess because they are almost all overseen by the FDIC and various state agencies. Had the states been able to reign in the rampant national mortgage writers like they tried to this wouldn't be the mess it is.

National banks are overseen by the OCC - a Presidential appointment position i.e. politics - that's part of why all this crap occurred.

There should be no economy of scale involved in the banking sector. It's not required for cost purposes (banks work on a percentage of their transactions) and it allows too few people to be involved making more fraudulent manipulation possible.

Federal regulation of insurance would be as much a nightmare and it has been with banking. Universal health care should not be run as an insurance model.

"I was suggesting Federal Regulation with State Enforcement."

I think you need to learn more about government.

i think he's gonna get crucified for it - and i'm sure his motivations are less than pure - but john kyl seems to be the adult in the room.
just wait a f****** minute here

---

eh, ywiw, ya make me wanna smash things on a regular basis, but you do have more sense than many of the folks around here so despite my coarse ways, i need to stay reasonably on your good side if for no other reason than to have someone with a few wits about them to argue with.

don't kid yerself though, they're doing this to try to drag the democrats across the coals and it's going to turn into "the gop wants to preserve the fat cats' bonuses and the democrats want to take back those millions for the little guy!"

---

mb, i really believe that a lot of the democrats see this as a means to get at the rest of the bonuses too. i'm telling ya, if it passes the next step will be the gov't deciding what bonuses are and taxing everyone's bonuses. because this will have worked out so well.

---

Tribe has looked more closely at the proposal, and is now questioning with it is constitutional. This should give the Adults the room to veto this and everyone a chance to take a breath:

"Tribe had previously said that he thought the measure ? which would slap a 90% tax on bonuses for executives whose family incomes exceed $250,000 ? would pass constitutional muster. But now, after taking a closer look, he?s not so sure.

Tribe says the problem with the bill is that the Constitution forbids Congress from enacting a ?bill of attainder,? which would essentially ?legislate punishment of an identifiable class,? as he put it. Tribe noted that the Supreme Court had used that clause to slap down other laws.

Tribe says the main problem is that it?s hard to make the case that the law isn?t ?punitive.?

?Its punitive intent is increasingly transparent,? Tribe says. ?when you have Chuck Grassley calling on [executives] to commit suicide, and people responding to pitch fork sentiment, it?s hard to argue that this isn?t an attempt to punish an identifiable set of individuals who are the subject of understandable outrage.?

The whole point of opposing bills of attainder, Tribe says, is to prevent what some have called ?trial by legislature.? Tribe concludes: ?That?s the primary vulnerability.?

Tribe Says No Deal

Well, if I am betting, I am going with the guy who wrote my conlaw text book.

Tribe did say that there could be a construct that might be constitutional, but when he looked at the provisions of the bill, he felt it may not pass constitutional challenge.

But then again, all he did was write the text book, so what does he know.

Updated On: 3/23/09 at 03:58 PM

Then what does crim law sound like?

We did share a shiv with crib notes on it during study sessions if that counts for anything.

Actually papa, during my last year of law school, we had Cardozarama - which was our version of a talent show.

We had our on version of a fashion show. Someone did a little skit with:

The civil suit,
The class action suit,
the slip and fall suit...

It ended with a non suit.

*legal rimshots*

Yawper - I think there is evidence to support the motive behind the bill is to punish - especially if you look at the legislative history and commentary associated with its passage in the house. I understand his concern. It is a tax being used to punish certain specific behavior, i.e., bonuses being paid to those who work for firms who received federal assistance. That can be distinguished from the graduated tax rate which applies to everyone in the specific tax bracket, regardless of circumstances, as well as excise and luxury taxes, which do not look to the circumstances of the purchaser when being assessed. It is behavioral neutral. This proposal is not.

But, I honestly have no idea what will happen. I merely provided a clarification because Tribe seemed to step back from his first assessment upon a closer reading of the bill.

I am not a ConLaw scholar. I only got a B (or a B+ I am not sure anymore) in it in law school - and most of that can be credited to an essay questions on the commerce clause and the first amendment. My current practice has nothing to do with this specific issue.

Updated On: 3/23/09 at 09:29 PM