Friday, March 20th, 2009...11:51 am
Failing to See the Beam in One’s Own Eye Department
Jump to Comments
I heard some audio from the debate over taxing bonuses paid out by companies that recieved TARP money. Dan Lungren of California made the argument that the tax amounted to a “Bill of Attainder,” which would be unconstitutional. Lungren spoke passionately about not enacting laws just designed to go after one group of people just because someone doesn’t like what they do or they are unpopular.
So, one question Dan: why did you support Proposition 8 then?
11 Comments
March 20th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Thank you.
March 20th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
It’s not a bill of attainder and it’s not unconstitutional. Obviously, I need to go over to the Diva lair and blog about it at some point. One good point that was made in the blogosphere today concerned the hypocrisy of whining about “unfair, targetted” bonus taxes when corporations have lobbied, often successfully, for tax loopholes for years. Hey, if a targetted tax is wrong then so is a targetted tax break. Sauce for the gander and all.
Okay, I need to go do a blog post.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
This isnt even close to what a Bill of Attainder means!!! Total Dork.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:34 am
While that is not what Bill of Attainder means, this was a tax clearly designed to punish and I agree with Rep. Mitchell about it on it being both of dubious constitutionality and the wrong way about getting the money back.
But was it satisfying? Yes.
Now we can call Republicans tax and spenders! (Instead of just borrowers and spenders.)
March 21st, 2009 at 11:42 am
You can object to the tax because of the “punitive” impression it leaves but it is NOT un-constitutional, unless the SCOTUS reverses it’s precedent in U.S. v Carlson. Making claims like “constitutionaly dubious” to imply that it is a violation serves only to muddy the issue and confuse an already far-too-ignorant public. The tax might not be a great idea but argue the issue on the merits, not an invented ambiguous constitutional problem.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
i agree with Rep. Mitchell, these are “knee-jerk” reactions and don’t do much to resolve the real problem, a rush to pass legislation. I’m not sure about it’s constitutional merit (I don’t know which “US v Carlson” Donna is talking about, there’s a few) but I don’t like the precedent. It is nice to stick it to the scotch drinking, cigar smoking fat cats but to do things in such a rush seems unwise.
Just look at the ARRA and mess that awaits us because things were so rushed. Congresses rushed the bill and it still sat there for three days before anyone signed it! Unfortunately, Clyburn’s amendment has been deemed “ambiguous,” what’s more the whole bill may not have contained a “severability clause.”
What’s an extra two weeks? A few days? What’s the rush?
r!
March 21st, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Donna, you will have to clarify on the name of the case. I looked up US v Carlson and only found two cases-neither of which apply here since 1. they were Court of Appeals and 2. one involved punishment guidelines and the other involved a right to not self-incriminate.
Did you mean “Nixon vs. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425 (1977)?” While that is not tax-related, it is the one that decides if it fails the test for a Bill of Attainder (thank you wiki!)
Which is one reason why some of us think it is of dubious constitutionality (I think it is because the power to tax is clearly not intended to punish anyone when one reads “The Congress shall have power to *lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises*, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all *duties, imposts and excises* shall be uniform throughout the United States;” in the Constitution, as well as that last bit.)
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Appleblossom, I read an article yesterday (maybe on Bloomberg) that stated that the bonus tax was not a “bill of Attainder” because it states that should the corporations that have received bailout money payback some of the money they owe, below $5,000,000,000, their bonuses will longer be subject to the tax.
Either way, I don’t like the constitutional fuzziness.
r!
March 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I have to disagree with he-who-looks-like-me on this one and agree with Mitchell. Potential constitutional issues notwithstanding, this measure displays the kind of silly knee-jerk pettiness and grandstanding that we would expect out of the Arizona House during the Weiers-Robson regime rather than from an ostensibly mature body like the U.S. Congress. This is a disapointment to those of us who had hoped to see our leaders in Washington actually work to deal with our problems in this time of crisis.
To his credit, the President, while not openly critical of this thing, is about as close to saying, “okay guys, I let you have your fun, now, lets start taking this issue seriously” as he can be without disturbing the thin skins of the notoriously easily offended legislative branch. He seems content to let the Senate do the actual spanking for him.
This being said, Dan “Dolph” Lundgren is still a hypocrite. Tedski is right on that count.
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Andrew Cuomo just announced that most of the larger bonuses have already been given back, which may render moot the legislation and its attendant constitutional issues (which are non-existent and I don’t care if Laurence Tribe backpedaled today about it, he was right the other day). The law may not have got to them but public pressure did.
A lot of people, me included, are in NO mood to be patronizingly told they are being petty or overreacting to the knowledge that greedy scumwads are helping themselves to fat bonuses with bailout money. And no, the fact that it’s a small portion of the TARP funds doesn’t mitigate it. This is very different from the GOP’s bogus focus on earmarks, BTW. Undeserved enrichment is a feature, not a bug, of the upper echelons of the financial world. It saddens me to see so many Democrats forgetting this and acting like George freakin’ Will with his shorts in a bunch over scary populism whenever these situations arise.
Stop feeding the right wing memes!
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Appleblossom it’s US v Carlton, 1994. Sorry for the typo! SCOTUS held that retroactive taxes could be imposed without violating ex post facto law. Not that the bonus tax would be strictly post facto anyway since it would apply to all future bonuses.