The idea that constitutional rights are only protected by the political sway of the affected group should send a cold chill up everyone’s back.

The risk of democracy is that any majority may use the force of government to oppress any minority. The constitution is necessary to prevent that from happening.

It helps to first demonize the group selected for opression – a time honored and effective approach. Certainly the pattern in this case. Depriving unpoular minorities of their constitutional rights is an easier sell.

“Isn’t it an ex post facto law?”

Just off the top of my fallible memory Red, I seem to recall there being an old S. Ct. case saying that retroactive tax laws don’t violate the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws so long as they are not considered punitive in nature. I.e., provided that there is some non-punitive intent behind them, with this being tested by the courts under very non-rigorous scrutiny that essentially gives the benefit of the doubt to the government. And since so many tax laws are ex post facto, I wonder whether the courts wouldn’t be worried about opening up a Pandora’s box of future claims against future taxes by prohibiting a tax on these bonuses on ex post facto grounds.

That said, like I sense is the case with you it don’t make me feel all that good seeing the tax law used this way. Maybe the still smelly but better way would be for Congress to do for these bailed out companies what it tried to do (and did I think) for the Telecom companies that went along with Bush wiretapping us, which was to give them immunity from suits for same. Thus, AIG could renege on the bonus contracts, the frustrated execs could sue, but the companies would be immune.

Like I say still smelly to me at least, but maybe a bit more justifiable in the sense that it can be argued that Congress has the right to not see the assets of these allegedly crucial companies and indeed the bailout monies that it has extended dissipated by these bonuses.

All in all though one thing that does seem to me to be a legitimate gripe that we are focusing too much on these Execs is that we ought to save a little anger at both the Bush and Obama people for not making sure those bonuses weren’t somehow scratched before they handed over the bailout dough in the first place. One way or another I think that could have been done. (Just as they should have required that any bailout recipients stop making any and all future political contributions whatsoever so long as they still owe any bailout money back, and maybe stop all lobbying efforts too.)

On the other hand what I *really* wish would have happened is none of these bailouts at all, at least in the form they took, because it seems to me once that initial plunge of corruption was taken it means that all kinds of other corruptions are going to have to be swallowed too. E.g., it’s like kissing a tar baby; first your lips get stuck, then your one hand gets stuck trying to get it off your lips, then your other hand gets stuck trying to free your first hand, and then…. (Or maybe like a Ponzi/pyramid scheme; at first it’s just a few investors you cheat, but then you gotta cheat more, and more….)

Cheers,

These bailouts clearly exist because they were bought and paid for by the people that matter (the big campaign donors) and reported on favorably by a news media that would be ruined without the huge chunk of ad dollars it receives from the financial sector.