[BaalChatzaf]

The current media event is excoriating AIG for the bonuses to their incompetent executives who got them into Crap City in the first place. This is scapegoating pure and simple. It was government policy along with corporate misfeasance that has created the current economic problems. Suddenly dumping on AIG is a diversion. It give Barney Fwank* a chance to whine over the matter. It gives the other congress critters a chance to pose as righteous protectors of the commonwealth. Bullshit I say to it all.

Ba'al Chatazaf

*Barney Fwank (D. Mass) is the most intelligent member of the House and one of the most despicable.

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 18 March 2009 - 07:46 PM

[jordanz]

Agreed.

Coincidentally, I'm at this moment watching Fox Business where they're saying exactly the same thing. Pointing the finger (correctly) at Franklin Raines, et al.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree also.

They are throwing gas on 1% and torching it so nobody will look at the other 99%. (Actually, if taken within the context of the entire year's budget, I believe I saw 0.04% versus 99.94%.)

"They" means the mainstream media and blogosphere with the blessing of the liberal establishment, along with conservatives who are walking right into the trap and asking for more.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I am wondering if AIG is being used as a scapegoat after being set up by the Obama administration. Senators including Chris Dodd are saying the bill was changed by the Obama administration from refusing to allow bonuses.

It will be fun to see how it all plays out.

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Grieb, on Mar 19 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

I am wondering if AIG is being used as a scapegoat after being set up by the Obama administration. Senators including Chris Dodd are saying the bill was changed by the Obama administration from refusing to allow bonuses.

It will be fun to see how it all plays out.

A special category of corporate executive income will be established by Congress and it will be taxed at 99 percent.

This can be done legally. Any compensation whose magnitude is correlated with the value of stock will be targeted. Since anyone who gets such income will be so taxed regardless of the company they work for, such legislation will conform to the principle of equal protection of the law.

Just wait and see. That bastards in DC are at least going to try this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Christopher]

Have you read the latest news? No matter what you think about these bonuses, you can't respect the government's response action:

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.

link -> http://news.yahoo.co..._co/aig_outrage

Pray tell, if they can do this, is nothing private except by virtue of the fact that it hasn't yet been voted against and seized?

Christopher

[BaalChatzaf]

Christopher, on Mar 19 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

Pray tell, if they can do this, is nothing private except by virtue of the fact that it hasn't yet been voted against and seized?

Christopher

Under the 16th amendment they own your ass and your first born child.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Could these laws be challenged as a bill of attainder or ex post facto laws?

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Grieb, on Mar 19 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

Could these laws be challenged as a bill of attainder or ex post facto laws?

They would be Bills of Attainder if addressed to particular individuals. If they are formulated as class based laws they might stand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael E. Marotta]

Chris Grieb, on Mar 19 2009, 06:26 AM, said:

Senators including Chris Dodd are saying the bill was changed by the Obama administration from refusing to allow bonuses.

Sen. Chris Dodd said that the President's Administration changed the bill? Who did that? Valerie Jarrett? Mona Sutphen?
Did they use white-out, or just slip an extra page in?

I think that someone is dropping a context ... or maybe just ignorant of how a law is made ... Brings up the joke about giving Iraq our Constitution, as it worked pretty good for 200 years and we're not using it right now.

[galtgulch]

BaalChatzaf, on Mar 19 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

Just wait and see. That bastards in DC are at least going to try this.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Keep in mind that the bastards of which you speak were elected to represent the ones who voted them into office. My contention is that those are the real bastards in this melodrama. You know Lysander Spooner referred to them as a "secret band of robbers and murderers" because of the secret ballot. But we all know who they are. They are our neighbors who vote Democrat or Republican or Independent.

Then the question comes up as to where these bastards, your neighbors, got their ideas? So it goes back to their parents and teachers both in the public schools and the private schools as well as the colleges and universities, and ultimately to the intellectuals in the various fields of philosophy and the liberal arts. Beginning to remind me of Then Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff.

Rand and Branden made us aware of what some were already aware of, that human beings have a choice to think and that it takes an effort. Once these bastards have their minds made up, for a variety of reasons, they find it difficult to be open to changing or thinking about what they think.

That reminds me of Spencer Tracy playing Henry Drummond (Clarence Darrow) questioning Fredric March playing Matthew Harrison Brady (William Jennings Bryan) in the scene where Bryan says "I don't think about things I do not think about!" and Darrow asks, "Well, do you think about things you do think about?"

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

I imagine that you have all seen this movie. This clip is just 8 minutes long. Worth a peek! They don't make them like this anymore!

It makes a good argument for separation of Church and State. While watching it it occurred to me that God spoke to Bush and Bush spoke to the world!

gulch

[Michael E. Marotta]

BaalChatzaf, on Mar 18 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

... This is scapegoating pure and simple. It was government policy along with corporate misfeasance ...

AIG dispute dogging Dodd may bite at election time
In an example of Dodd's new uncomfortable political reality, what was supposed to be a media event to tout federal funding for emergency communications equipment for Enfield, Connecticut's police and fire departments turned into something very different.
When it came time for questions, the only questions reporters had for the Democratic senator concerned his role in the handing out of AIG bonuses.
http://www.cnn.com/2...dodd/index.html

This post has been edited by Michael E. Marotta: 21 March 2009 - 07:28 PM

[Christopher]

For those who get congress updates and write to your congressmen, this week's title is:

Should Congress Block Bonuses Like The Ones Awarded To Officials At AIG, The Insurance Giant?‏

Thought I'd post my response that I sent to my senators and representative:

Regardless of the ethics involved behind AIG bonuses, the government must maintain limits on power if it is to function according to the personal liberties of the people. A government that can take unrestrictive action, regardless of the cause, has the power to operate through any set of subjective ethics.

Ethics and values are the reasons used behind all government actions in all countries, whether Russia or England. These values will always remain subjective. The only security people truly have is protection from government action. To set a precedence that action is subservient to current values is to set no limits on government at all.

[Selene]

Chris Grieb, on Mar 19 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Could these laws be challenged as a bill of attainder or ex post facto laws?

Chris:

Ex Post Facto only applies for criminal issues not civil unfortunately. However, it would be a fascinating test case to get one of these folks to refuse to pay the 90% which would then subject him to the criminal penalty. The innovative argument would be that the originating "civil" legislation placed the individual into a criminal situation. Therefore, the argument would be that the legislative intent of Congress intended this to be a criminal statute cloaked in civil clothes in order to justify an unjust and unconstitutional "taking".

Additionally, as an unjust "taking" we can go all the way back to 1798 and the pivotal case of Calder v. Bull wherein Justice Iredell stated clearly and loudly that:

“...[t]he ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice."

As the Wikipedia page explains the case, the "...Connecticut legislature ordered a new trial in a court case about the contents of a will, overruling an earlier court ruling. In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the legislature's actions did not violate the ex post facto law in article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, which states:

“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. ”

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.[2] [3]

The holding in this case still remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases. [1]"

Judge Iredell noted that the Court was affirming "...the ability of the Supreme Court to review the legislature by writing:

'If any act of Congress, or of the Legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void...If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice...

There are then but two rights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act.'"

IF "... the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them...".

IF "...If they transgress boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...".

So when do we start the Judge Iredell scholarship fund for constitutional consistency?

I love this case, always have. Moreover, I believe it is the way, via writ of certiorari. I see no path to using a Mandamus to Compel.

Adam

This post has been edited by Selene: 24 March 2009 - 04:07 PM

[Michael E. Marotta]

Christopher, on Mar 24 2009, 03:25 PM, said:

Regardless of the ethics involved behind AIG bonuses ... To set a precedence that action is subservient to current values is to set no limits on government at all.

True though it may be that values are subjective^[1], the fact remains that the ethics behind the AIG bonuses are, indeed, the central issue. They were wrong on all accounts. It is wrong to reward people for failure. It is wrong to reward people with other people's money. It is wrong for Congress to set the standard for reward in the marketplace. It was wrong for this bill to be introduced and voted on without consideration. It was wrong for those nominally opposed to it to float along on the press of the crowd, rather than resisting with No votes -- at least until they (or, more correctly, their staff) read the bill. It was wrong for the President to sign it into law.

Therefore, it was right to fix the problem by rescinding the bonuses, via complete taxation on them, if need be.

(Adam Selene slipped in ahead of me as I was writing this. Despite the fact that we just discussed "bills of attainder" in another thread, I confess that I did not think of that for this. The grant of money came from Congress. Congress can rescind the grant. )

(Also interesting to consider is how this is civil not criminal. I suppose that the government can be a party in a suit. In fact, I prefer that status for them for all court processes. However, my anarchist preferences aside, how is a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, not a criminal matter?)

[1] As for whether values are subjective or not, that is a different matter. Of course, a rational person holds objective values. However, the advance in economics, generally, and Austrian economics in particular is the realization that as far as the external world is concerned, your values are subjective. You can pay a dollar for a quarter if you want -- and it might not be a sacrifice -- but the choice is yours, not mine, to make.

This post has been edited by Michael E. Marotta: 24 March 2009 - 04:57 PM

[Christopher]

Adam,

You wrote an interesting response to Chris' question, and I'd like to ask you more. Are you suggesting that if congress passes the tax bill, the scenarios could play out as follows:

1. The Federal bill would initially appear to be civil and therefore not challengeable by ex post factor; however, the case could be made in court that it indeed relates to criminal issues and should be dismissed?

2. Any action by state legislatures to tax would be null and void on the premises of Bill of Attainder and ex post facto laws, regardless of civil or criminal?

I'm not that familiar with law. I can see how a Mandamus to Compel could not be used by the Federal gov. to force State gov.s to tax the remaining 10% (if that's what you meant), but I'm just not sure the scenarios you were considering when discussing ex post facto and BofA (ironic acronym).

Christopher

Selene, on Mar 24 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

Chris Grieb, on Mar 19 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Could these laws be challenged as a bill of attainder or ex post facto laws?

Chris:

Ex Post Facto only applies for criminal issues not civil unfortunately. However, it would be a fascinating test case to get one of these folks to refuse to pay the 90% which would then subject him to the criminal penalty. The innovative argument would be that the originating "civil" legislation placed the individual into a criminal situation. Therefore, the argument would be that the legislative intent of Congress intended this to be a criminal statute cloaked in civil clothes in order to justify an unjust and unconstitutional "taking".

Additionally, as an unjust "taking" we can go all the way back to 1798 and the pivotal case of Calder v. Bull wherein Justice Iredell stated clearly and loudly that:

“...[t]he ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the Court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the Legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice."

As the Wikipedia page explains the case, the "...Connecticut legislature ordered a new trial in a court case about the contents of a will, overruling an earlier court ruling. In a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the legislature's actions did not violate the ex post facto law in article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, which states:

“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. ”

An ex post facto law or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.[2] [3]

The holding in this case still remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases. [1]"

Judge Iredell noted that the Court was affirming "...the ability of the Supreme Court to review the legislature by writing:

'If any act of Congress, or of the Legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void...If, on the other hand, the Legislature of the Union, or the Legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the Court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice...

There are then but two rights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act.'"

IF "... the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them...".

IF "...If they transgress boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...".

So when do we start the Judge Iredell scholarship fund for constitutional consistency?

I love this case, always have. Moreover, I believe it is the way, via writ of certiorari. I see no path to using a Mandamus to Compel.

Adam

[Michael E. Marotta]

Michael E. Marotta, on Mar 24 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

It is wrong to reward people for failure. It is wrong to reward people with other people's money. ...

I was wrong on several points. Read this NYT Op Ed from an AIG vice president.

http://www.nytimes.c...25desantis.html

Read here, also, from NYT Business on the moral values that come to realization if the bonuses are rescinded.
http://www.nytimes.c...s/17sorkin.html

This post has been edited by Michael E. Marotta: 26 March 2009 - 08:49 PM

[Selene]

Excellent choice of that article Michael.

I was also going to use it when I found the right thread. There are elements of Hank Rearden in the clarity of the moral outrage and the force of conviction in the words he chose.

"As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings."

"The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear."

Thank you Hank.

Adam

[Christopher]

Michael E. Marotta, on Mar 26 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

Michael E. Marotta, on Mar 24 2009, 06:36 PM, said:

It is wrong to reward people for failure. It is wrong to reward people with other people's money. ...

I was wrong on several points. Read this NYT Op Ed from an AIG vice president.

http://www.nytimes.c...25desantis.html

Read here, also, from NYT Business on the moral values that come to realization if the bonuses are rescinded.
http://www.nytimes.c...s/17sorkin.html

The argument in DeSantis' resignation letter is true enough. The issue is not that simple though. If there was no bailout there would be no AIG, no job for DeSantis, and therefore no bonus. I don't agree that the government should tax away bonuses, but I don't necessarily agree that bonuses should be given to employees who should not even have a job. It's rather complex, and once the government interferred with bailout, it created a situation in which there will be individual losers no matter what happens with the bonuses (either taxpayers lose or AIG employees lose).

We should think that at least AIG employees receive something through government interference (a job), while taxpayers receive nothing. If we're fair with ourselves (and if DeSantis was aware of the facts), he might realize that AIG the corporation is gone, liquidated, an illusion. Today, the cash DeSantis' received is forced from the mouths of unwilling taxpayers. True, he earned it - But his employer is the mob, and that cash is blood money.

Christopher

[Chris Grieb]

There is beginning to look like the AIG bonus bill is not going anywhere. We shall of course see and something as bad may come along but the Senate may not even take it up.