I would not be surprised if the Senate bill more closely resembles the eventual version that's sent to the President. The House passed a ridiculous bill that makes them feel better but is not realistic.

I'm concerned about applying a 90% tax to anything. Once you go there, it's way too easy to do it again, so the next unpopular group that upsets Congress will get punished with a heavy tax.

The confiscatory, tax bill is outrageous not the AIG "bonuses". Stop the congresspeople before they destroy any chance Obama has for saving this economy. A bunch of vengeful, petulant children is what congress (and the American people?) have become. Just pathetic. Who would do business with a capricious government like this? Abrogating contracts, changing rules in the middle of the game - almost no one showed up today to participate in the Fed's TALF program for fear of getting entangled with the US government. What a mess. Would you do business with a government like this which could turn on you and confiscate your income? (BTW, I lost my job already in this recession, I have no conflict of interest, no bonuses and no income to confiscate.Just trying to survive.)

Harry Reid could screw up a free lunch. The House bill is a Constitutional way (see Tribe) to recoup the taxpayers money. Put it on the calendar ASAP. Leaving it out there until April 6 means our idiot press (and Senate) will do little other than talk about AIG bonuses for the next few weeks.

The top tax rate for EVERYBODY was 90 percent as recently as 1960. The idea that this limited provision of the tax code is unconstitutional is ridiculous spin.

I just want to say a couple of things here on bonuses to the liberal thinking folks here:

1.) The government screwed this up -- royally.
AIG was given billions of dollars in an attempt to prop up the failing company because AIG's insurance wing is so vital. At that point, the government could have asserted -- to AIG -- that it opposed any bonuses to employees. Period. The government chose not to do this.
2.) On at least two other occasions, the government spend more money on AIG, as the company mounted billions of losses, all to prevent AIG from filing bankruptcy. At no point did the government assert that AIG shouldn't pay bonuses.
3.) Meanwhile, because the government wanted to "credit markets" to open, it sought safe banks in which to invest. The theory was that if it invested in these safe banks, these banks would soften underwriting standards and make loans to more consumers. Of course, the government got preferred shares, with a guaranteed rate of return of around 5% from most bank investments.
4.) While this took place, of course, the economy tanked and millions lost their jobs. So, the banks were in this difficult predicament: make loans to people they knew wouldn't repay or continue to sharpen underwriting standards so the banks would make loans to those who would pay. Surprisingly to Maxine Waters (whose husband sat on a failed bank board and asked for millions in TARP cash) and many other liberal representatives, the banks chose to sharpen underwriting standards.
5.) Finally, we learn that AIG went out and honored the bonuses they'd committed to provide their employees and executives. The government, in a populist flash not seen since, well, the Clinton impeachment saga, went nuts: "How can AIG execs get bonuses! This is crazy!"

Yes, there was some looting going on. AIG shouldn't have paid the bonuses, but to tax the recipients of the bonus after the fact is almost as absurd as treating Chase, Wells, Zions and USB the same way as AIG. And it's even more ridiculous for that idiot Barney Frank to demand to know -- publicly -- the names of each of the bonus recipients.

This all could have been prevented by some reasonable government planning. Instead, we're all bickering over this instead of focusing on things like breaking up AIG, drafting legislation so we never allow "too big to fail," and improving the overall regulatory structure of the financial services industry.

As I've previously said, I vote straight ticket Democrat. I've voted Republican for mayor once in my life. But, this Congress' lack of curiosity and full-blown commitment to scapegoating is ruining my party. We used to analyze things and reach reasonable conclusions. Now, it's all about running to the cameras with ridiculous allegations. It's split our party. I won't give to Schumer or Frank or Pelosi or anyone at the national level -- again.

I think we have to take a look back at the fun of this week:
1. Grassley said "suck on the tit" into a live mike. Was that Cornyn standing uncomfortably Grassley in camera view?
2. Grassley called for AIG suicides.
3. Cantor babbles on the question of whether he would vote for a tax increase.
4. Half of the Republicans in the House voted for a 90% tax on Wall Street.
5. Wall Street is officially enemy number 1 to almost all Americans, who are now demanding re-regulation and nationalization of banks.
6. Limbaugh is sure this was an Obama plot. Maybe?
7. Palin is refusing money for Alaska, including money for special ed.
Did I miss anything? Oh yeah.
8. Joe the Plumber is horney.
What a week!

So we all spent some time voicing our indignation about the bonus payments and then all the congress came out to play and spewed a lot of rhetoric and then wrote and passed a new law in 1-2 days. So why do I think there is something wrong with this picture? I pulled out my copy of the TARP bill HR1424 and Sec 111 on executive compensation. The compensation limits are for "senior execs" which are defined as Top 5 highly paid executives of a public company. I realize there has been a re-write by the 111 Congress for the remaining TARP funds, but we do not have access to the AIG contracts, so we may be upset, but the Original TARP was written by the 110 Congress and if these bonuses were not to the TOP 5 at AIG, then how can they be clawed back?

We need some legal opinion here. Why is it that none of the MEDIA has bothered to ask any of their highly compensated lawyers for a legal opinion.

We may be seeing the first attempt of the tail to wag the dog. Congress has taken the bait, but will the Obama Administration?

As he clearly stated on Leno, there were all sorts of risky business going on...but it was all legal. So now who do we blame when everything was legal...you can't send someone to jail because you are angered by their greed? You shouldn't be blaming this administration for writing the TARP legislation...are you going to replace each member of congress because they got Played by Paulsen?

Of course the controversy will continue as long as the bankers continue to whine about FAIR, but as long as we are a country ruled by Law not public outrage, we need to get a grip, write your congressional representatives, etc. What we should not do is focus on this "bonus" event as the major catastrophy of the year / decade / century.

There is not a chance in hell that this bonus tax will ever be passed by the Senate. That is why the Obama response to the outrage over the Obama-Geithner policy green-lighting these bonuses, explicitly put in by Obama's team, if not approved by Obama himself, is so fundamentally dishonest. Instead of transparency and taking responsibility, all we get from the Obama economic team is double-talk and Bullshit.