Even More on the AIG Bonuses

Well, the House of Representatives has voted to impose a retroactive 90% tax on bonuses that it explicitly voted to allow only a month ago. Our congressmen could argue that they didn't know this provision was in the legislation when they passed it. And that is almost certainly the truth. However, parking cop might say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." If congress didn't know what was in the bill, perhaps they should not have voted on it until they knew what they were voting on. I can feel no sympathy for a group of people that behaves this way.

Perhaps a better phrasing more in line with today's events would be, "The law is no defense."

Earlier, I compared our political system to that in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. However, I think an even better comparison. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. The US is on track to become the new Venezuela.

Perhaps it is time to stop blogging before the thugs come to visit me at my home.

On a more practical note. I assume these taxes must also pass the Senate and perhaps the world's greatest deliberative body will actually stop to deliberate and think about the matter. But, assuming the taxes do become law, is there grounds for the bonus recipients to sue on constitutional grounds? I don't know the answer, but the whole idea of retroactively taxing a selected minority seems opposed to the principles behind the constitution if it is not actually unconstitutional.

The precendent is also a very, very bad one. If bankers become politically popular someday and unions are not, what is to stop a pro-union congress from retroactively taxing unions on supposed moral grounds? Could a liberal leaning state legislature (perhaps like that in California) vote to impose taxes on the LDS church in retaliation for the money spent by its members on the Proposition 8 vote? To me the principle seems the same.