Thursday, March 19th, 2009...1:45 pm
Not So Wild About Harry Today
I went over the roll call vote on the bill to impose a 90% tax on bonuses employees of companies taking stimulus money. It goes without saying that this was in reaction to the huge bonuses being given to the employees of AIG Financial Products, who, if anything, should be giving back their bonuses, business school diplomas and ought to be consulting their local priest and beg for absolution.
I was going to write a snarky piece skewering Arizona’s three Republicans (Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg) for voting against this thing…but a funny thing happened as I looked over the list of “Nays.”
Harry Mitchell was on it.
Harry? Come the heck on! I know that you often have to split the difference if you hope to be re-elected in your very Republican district. But, geez. Polling is showing that three-quarters of the American people want this money given back. That’s gotta cross party lines in a big, big way. This seems to be a poor vote to give away to boost your “centrist” bona fides. When you look around and even Eric Cantor is like, God, no way am I going there, that may be a time to vote with the Democrats. The closest thing to support for your position among the citizenry (even Republican citizens), Harry, are Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Is that the company you want to keep?
To sum up: very, very disappointed.
Oh, and don’t think that the next Republican opponent you have will not think to use this as a populist cudgel against you.
8 Comments
March 19th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Does Franks ever have an original vote/thought in his head??
Kyl was defending the bonuses, so I am not surprised that his House-mates followed along.
Harry blew this one, thankfully he has a year to make amends. It will be interesting to see how his opponent will dance around attacking Mitchell for this vote while accepting endorsements from Flake et al who voted against it also.
March 19th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Sadly, polling in CD5 shows time and time again that taxes on the wealthy are anathema. Granted, it’s one of the wealthier districts in AZ (possibly the wealthiest) but it’s not like everyone here is rich. Still, the meme that taxes are bad, bad, bad persists and it’s why Harry has to do weird things like co-sponsor bills with Chris Shays to reduce capital gains and repeal the estate tax. I bet Mitchell’s people polled this and voting yes wasn’t playing well in Scottsdale.
azw88, I think you describe the conundrum accurately. I doubt Harry will be attacked by an opponent over this.
Speaking of this vote, some MSM blabsters are claiming that the bonus tax is unconstitutional because it’s an ex post facto law. My understanding is that the Supreme Court upheld retroactive taxes in 1994 (U.S. v Carlson). Yet Lawrence O’Donnell just claimed on Countdown that it’s unconstitutional. Anyone know?
March 19th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Well, taking out my handy pocket U.S. Constitution (yes, I usually carry it around with me because I am a nerd), this is the clause in Article I, Section 9:
“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Like everything else in the document, it’s clearly open to interpretation, but personally, even though I’m for the bill, it’s clearly unconstitutional. Besides, there’s no need to worry here anyway; the bill won’t pass the Senate. It may not even be introduced in the Senate. It was just clearly a way for the Democrats to call out the Republicans, and they were pretty successful.
March 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Bills of attainder refer to crimes and like I said, SCOTUS held that a retroactive tax didn’t violate ex post facto in 1994. Taxes aren’t punishment for a crime. They’re taxes.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Legal scholar Laurence Tribe’s opinion in the ABA Journal:
“One issue is whether such a bill violates the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder that punish a person or group without a trial. Tribe told the Wall Street Journal that Congress could avoid that constitutional problem with a broad bill that doesn’t target “a closed class of named executives.” Also blunting any Bill of Attainder challenge would be the fact that the aim of the tax is fiscal rather than punitive, and it would apply in the future as well as retroactively, Tribe wrote in a summary posted at the Atlantic.
Another issue is whether retroactive taxes violate the ex post facto clause. Actually, it’s a nonissue, Tribe says. “The ex post facto clause applies exclusively to criminal punishment and poses no difficulty here,” Tribe told the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
Tribe also addressed whether the law would violate the contracts clause, the takings clause and the due process clause in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog interview. He saw no problem. Many courts have ruled requirements for substantive due process are not violated if the legislation has a rational legislative purpose, “something nobody could deny in this instance,” according to Tribe.”
March 19th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Just this past Monday, Mitchell issued a press release saying he was ‘outraged’ at the AIG bonuses.
I guess not that outraged though.
However, here is a very good question: Will McCain vote for this?
If not, then somebody could really use it against him, given that he took $59,000 from AIG last year. Clearly if he votes against this then his vote represents a payback for their investment and it should be cast as such.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:30 am
The problem with Laurence Tribes article is where it says “Congress could avoid that constitutional problem with a broad bill that doesn’t target “a closed class of named executives.”
But it did target a closed class of exec, singling out specifically execs of companies who receive bailout money is unconstitutional.
The one issue I have with some peoples comments and especially some of the house GOP is you either believe in the constitution or you don’t. There are some including on this blog who said they support this even though it is unconstitutional that sounds like some of the republicans who said the wiretaps might be illegal but who cares…
At least the GOP who voted for this bill and the wiretaps are consistent they just don’t care about the constitution.
March 21st, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Sad…I recall walking in this district in 110 plus weather- not next time, I have others I will spend my time and gas on.
Since Nov.
1. Voted against bridge loan
2. Stimulus
3. This
Three strikes your out – I do hope he wins- just not writing a check or walking in 110 weather again.
Time, money, candidates- all mine are going to leg candidates