Thursday, March 19, 2009

House Passes Bill of Attainder

What. The. Hell?

Responding to public outrage over bonuses paid to American International Group Inc. executives, the U.S. House of Representatives slammed through a bill today that would impose a punitive 90-percent tax on bonuses paid by AIG and other financial companies that receive federal assistance.

The House vote was 328-93.

The bill would apply to bonuses of people receiving more than $250,000 per year. The bill would only apply to payments from companies receiving more than $5 billion from the federal government.
In all, 243 Democrats and 85 Republicans voted “yes” on the bill. The bill was opposed by six Democrats and 87 Republicans.

[...]

In the Wisconsin Congressional delegation, seven members voted for the bill: Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee); David Obey (D-Wausau); Tammy Baldwin (D-Madison); Ron Kind (D-La Crosse); Paul Ryan (R-Janesville); Thomas Petri (R-Fond du Lac); and Steve Kagen (R-Green Bay).

First Paul Ryan votes for the bailout.  Now he votes for this?  Not only is this clearly a Bill of Attainder (not to mention ex post facto) and unconstitutional, it is an utter attack on private property and business.  What the hell is Paul Ryan doing?

Thank you, Congressman Sensenbrenner, for voting correctly on this bill.

(12) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1905 hrs
Politics + Politics - General + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. This whole debacle is really not one of Congress’ finer moments.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 19, 2009 at 1931 hrs


  2. Chickens with their heads cut off would be a finer moment than this. Clearly just about everyone has gone insane in Congress. I think I would rather have them do nothing for the next few months.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2009 at 1941 hrs


  3. and Steve Kagen (R-Green Bay).

    It should be Steve Kagen (D-Green Bay).

    mad  about the whole thing.

    :zzdeadhorse:

    Posted by hsgbdmama on March 19, 2009 at 1941 hrs


  4. Disappointing from Paul looks like he went with the large majority of folks that are angry with this, instead of his ideology. Somewhat surprising from him but in the end this passes anyway. Interesting it is not on his website as ‘one of the top 5 issues’...

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2009 at 1947 hrs


  5. Ryan lost ALL credibility with his leadership on the first bailout bill.  And without THAT huge piece of crap, I don’t think Obama could have passed the same magnitude of stimulus bill.  Ryan’s bill set the standard for size.  I will NEVER vote for Ryan again, no matter who is running against him.  It somehow hurts more when the guy who you voter for keeps stabbing you in the back.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2009 at 2105 hrs


  6. I think what’s even more disappointing than the Democrats hastily shoving more ill-conceived legislation down people’s throats is the way so many Republicans sat in their chairs playing with themselves today and then decided in the middle of the vote to make sure it passed so the GOP couldn’t be blamed for blocking the bill.

    It’s a sad day when bad policy becomes good politics simply because most Americans are too damn stupid to understand any of what’s going on beyond what Jon Stewart tells them to think.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 19, 2009 at 2113 hrs


  7. Steve Kagen is a Dem.  This is a John Kerry moment for these dopes, they were for it before they were against it.  I think it was they were for it before it blew up in their face and now they have to be against it.  Just one more reason to grab your pitchforks and march!!!  It’s going to be a long 4 years folks.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2009 at 2315 hrs


  8. This bill and its rapid passage by such a large margin should send chills down the spine of any American.

    Where does this lead? Congress thinks you are making too much money - so we’ll just create a tax to take 100% of your income over the federally mandated limit of…  say $40,000.

    Scary stuff. I hope this gets challenged in court.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2009 at 0742 hrs


  9. This was done to appease the general public, however it is CLEARLY unconstitutional.  Once it’s challenged, those in DC will once again look like utter fools.  Incompetence reigns supreme these days *sigh*

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2009 at 0833 hrs


  10. It’s going to be a long 4 years folks.

    Three years and 10 months.  I’m counting.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on March 20, 2009 at 1538 hrs


  11. I think we should refrain from tarring and feathering Paul until we know his reasoning. I didn’t agree with his vote on the bailout, but after I heard his rationale I understood why he did what he did, and that he wasn’t any less conservative than I am b/c of that vote.  Paul is smarter than your average congressman, and I also know him to be a very principled economic conservative. Heck, this is a guy who gives out copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom to his interns—and he makes them read them too. I would like to hear him out.

    And, FWIW, Eric Cantor—another representative I’ve grown to trust as a smart, principled conservative on economic issues—also voted for the bill.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2009 at 1926 hrs


  12. I think we should refrain from tarring and feathering Paul until we know his reasoning.

    Agreed—I’d like all those who voted for this thing to explain their reasoning, including how they don’t think this violates the Constitution.

    Posted by hsgbdmama on March 20, 2009 at 2117 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.