...
We're going to levy a 90%-100% tax on these AIG bonuses. What got me thinking, though, is "is this even constitutional?" Leno asked Obama this question on his show and I feel as if Obama didn't truly answer the question, but rather skittered around it as most politicians do for touchy subjects. But while it clearly has a sense of justice/ethics/principal behind taxing these bonuses, I have to think "why are we allowed to do that"? In the grand scheme of things, 165 million isn't a gamebreaking amount of money. And besides, these bonuses had been promised to these AIG executives a year (or is it years?) ago, before we entered this recession. What ever gave us the right to say "oh we're pissed at you so we're going to take away your $1 million"? Where in the constitution does it say we can do that? But then again, does it say we can't?It feels like the right thing to do. But is it the right thing to do? This is, after all, such an insanely selective tax increase. I think this tax on AIG's bonuses is right from a moral standpoint, but where does Congress get the legal power to pull this off?
