Dems try to tie AIG bonuses to Bachmann, Kline, Paulsen
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 at 6:09 pm
- 6 Comments
Bachmann, Kline, Paulsen
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee went after Reps. Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Erik Paulsen on Wednesday for their votes last year against taxing bonuses of bank executives who received TARP funds from the federal government. The DCCC jumped on news today that AIG leaders will be getting $100 million in bonuses this year.
The bill the Republican trio opposed would have taxed TARP employee bonuses at 90 percent. While the bill passed the House last spring, it has yet to become law.
The DCCC released three statements today that were identical, except for specific references to Bachmann, Kline and Paulsen.
“This morning, Americans heard that AIG executives are getting $100 million in bonuses despite still owing taxpayers more than $100 billion,” said Ryan Rudominer, National Press Secretary of the DCCC. “While Representative Paulsen protects these outrageous Wall Street bonuses paid for by President Bush’s bailout, Paulsen does nothing to help hardworking families. Clearly, Representative Paulsen is more concerned about Wall Street, than Main Street.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann explained her opposition to the bill last year:
“Folks, two wrongs don’t make a right. Without the wrong-headed $700-billion bailout, the taxpayers would never have been put in the position of their dollars being doled out for executive bonuses in the first place… The bill on the House floor today, while not mentioning AIG by name, is clearly meant to punish a specific group of individuals in response to public outrage over the bonuses. The author of the bill, Rep. Rangel, explains his motivation for the bill by saying that he “had an obligation to respond to the fears and anger of the people.” Given this motivation, a legislative action aimed at punishing individuals, no matter how loathed or despised they may be, is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter6 Comments
Comment posted February 4, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
I wrote here why the DCCC’s whining statement won’t play against Michele Bachmann:
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=6957
Unless the DCCC changes its communications strategy dramatically, they’ll hurt their candidates in 2010. It’s that simple.
Comment posted February 4, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Think about the area Mr. Paulsen represents. There is more money tied to the wall street types than you could believe. Of course he isn’t going to do anything against that. He is protecting their money as well. They voted him in so they got what they voted for. Someone that protected the wealthy. I don’t think their taxes are too high but they should not be raised either. Keep status quo. But those that took these outlandished bonuses should be taxed on them heavily. They should have to pay that back before anyone gets a bonus.
Comment posted February 5, 2010 @ 10:51 am
You know, if M. Bachmann keeps this up, she may have to spend her time ice fishing for food herself. I hope she knows that people get a little mean on the ice when it comes to invading their terrority. When food is scarse, so is that MN nice.
Comment posted February 6, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Don’t click on the link in the first comment, it’s a trojan virus.
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 8:35 am
You guys are ridiculous. In Bachmans response, she clearly explains
“…a legislative action aimed at punishing individuals, no matter how loathed or despised they may be, is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.”
Meaning, she is following the rules set by the constitution, though she does recognize how “loathed and despised” the bankers who are taking these bonusus are. So leave your little snide “ice fishing”, and “MN Nice” bu*lsh*t at the door.
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:10 pm
If you read the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, it prohibits congress from passing “bills of attainder” (declaring someone guilty of a crime) and “ex post facto laws” (a retroactive law).
The bill in question was from last spring, and it established a tax on future government-funded bonuses. It had nothing to do with establishing legal guilt or punishment, nor was it retroactive.
If Bachmann used that constitutional argument against this bill in a court of law, her case would be dismissed. It sounds like she was the “bu*lsh*tter” here.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
