Atlantic Business Channel

« What's the point of a "nation of laws"? | Main | Massachusetts' medical meltdown? »

Mar 16 2009, 5:49 pm by Conor Clarke

"No Bill of Attainder...shall be passed"

Representative Carolyn Maloney is considering introducing a bill that taxes back 100% of the AIG bonuses. Representative Maloney might also want to introduce herself to the US Constitution.

:: Comments (6) :: Share This

Comments (6)

Dr. Manhattan

Why start now?

martin peretz dispenser (Replying to: Dr. Manhattan)

the truth about the law is that when the facts are on your side, but the law is against you, judges/juries will often find a way to do the right thing.

~told to me by a litigator at a top-flight law firm.

Elise

Perhaps the Constitution is too advanced for Maloney. How about if we just start her off with the Stimulus Bill:

TITLE VII--LIMITS ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
SEC. 111. (b) (3)(D)(i) A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding, [snip]

(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

In other words, Representative Maloney - and the 245 other Representatives who also voted “Yea”on the stimulus - specifically and explicitly okayed retention bonuses contracted before the bill was approved. I suggest that if all these people were so terribly upset about these kinds of bonuses they should have brought the issue up then and made sure such bonuses could be renegotiated before they started throwing more money around.

You know what? I bet 99 and 44/100% of the people who are weeping and wailing over this issue - including Frank and Obama - couldn’t define “retention bonus” if their lives depended on it. I also bet that if AIG had avoided the word “bonus” and called the payments “deferred salary” instead, we would never have heard a peep out of anyone.

If I were Liddy, I’d quit. And I’d advise every one of those AIGFP employees that everybody says don’t need to be retained to quit, too. We can just let Frank, Summers, and Obama unwind all those deals. How hard could it be?

Alfonso

I don't believe AIG has not been receiving money from the TARP, so the terms of TARP do not apply.

Attainder probably does not apply either, since taxation is not considered a punitive action, and attainder only applies to punitive actions. Further, since the tax applies to filings that have yet to be submitted, this should not really be considered a retroactive law.

That being said, I prefer Congressman Peters' bill, which enacts a 60% surtax on bonuses over $10k to employees of any firm that the US owns more than 79% of.

Alfonso (Replying to: Alfonso)

I probably should have read this before commenting. I see they did receive TARP funds.

jmar

Chief Justice John Marshall: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy". For anyone who believes in a nation of laws, we are seeing the men of government attempt a raw exercise of power. Sen. Schumer says "give the bonuses back or we will take them back" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUXx8nkgB7U). Sen. Dodd wants to tax the bonuses at 100% -- even though the stimulus bill just signed into law specifically allows bonuses prior to 2/11/09.