H.R.1586 - Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act

To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. view all titles (10)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Education jobs and Medicaid funding bill as .
  • Official: To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients. as introduced.
  • Official: An act to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. as amended by senate.
  • Short: FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act as passed senate.
  • Short: FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act as passed house.
  • Short: Airport and Airway Trust Fund Financing Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Short: Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Short: Federal Aviation Research and Development Reauthorization Act of 2010 as passed house.
  • Popular: Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act as introduced.
  • Popular: Education jobs and Medicaid funding bill.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 33 total comments.

  • montymonty 03/20/2009 8:45am

    I believe that this bill undermines the Constitution and the very fundamental elements of our legal system because it is mob rule. Congress and it’s committees had plenty of time to research the contracts when they agreed to bailout AIG. There are 116,000 employees of this company most are hard-working honest people who had nothing to do with the Financial Products division. The insurance subsidaries are healthy companies for the moment but they won’t be for long. Does Congress get that they own the very company they are now distroying? The taxpayer will get nothing.

  • Comm_reply
    Michael1228279 03/21/2009 10:38pm

    I certainly agree montymonty. This flies directly in the face of the Constitution. If you haven’t recently, read Federalist Paper #44. Madison sure thought that ex post facto applied protection to civil matters.

    This all would have been solved if AIG was allowed to go into bankruptcy. But no…we have to be put on the hook for their inability to remain solvent. It is unconscionable for anyone to be getting rewarded with tax dollars for running their own business into the ground; but if Congress can do this to AIG, who can’t they do it to?

  • TerriLPN 03/20/2009 4:03pm

    I believe this is Unconstitutional, Maybe The Democrats will be more careful when they let “Special Interests” Slip past the American Public, and Fellow Senators and Representatives! Along with that maybe All members should “Read all the Bills” And Stop Pushing Bills through so that Transparency of Each and Every Bill Be Made for Our Examine proir to The Vote!!!

  • pdorsett 03/21/2009 3:56am

    If the House can make a law to tax these Americans they can do this to us too!!!! Unconstitutional. These Congressional Theives have created all of this CHOAS and they are robbing the Treasursy With Stimulus black hole DEBT!! You’re all FIRED we need new employees to work honest for us. WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE BOSS!!! And you bunch are not listening to the people but we are watching and taking note of all your horrible decisions and we will fire you and pink slip you out of Office soon!! And that goes for your LEADER too!!1

  • Comm_reply
    DMiller2911 03/21/2009 12:18pm

    I agree with you! Once again they are outraged at the bonuses being paid but the these are the same people who didnt read the darn bill before they voted on it! They are OUTRAGED! This is not right! Once again they do not listen to the PEOPLE! I believe WE THE PEOPLE know how to spend our money better then our so called representatives! Pitch fork and touches anyone!!!!

  • drthomasho 03/21/2009 4:58pm

    This bill likely violates Article I, section 9, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law.

  • oldlucky602 03/22/2009 5:31am

    It is typical government at work! They rush thru a bill with an ammendmet guaranteeing the bonuses, the public gets on their butts, they then claim they didn’t know about it. Dodd who “is” the sponsor of the ammendment claims someone stuck in that language to guarantee the bonuses. This was a contract between employee and employer. What’s next…………..

  • skzofrania 03/22/2009 1:21pm

    It bothers me that since they didn’t think they could “get the bonuses back” by bullying them in the press, they used their power of legislation and found a way to MAKE them give most of it back. Instead of taking responsibility for their part (or lack thereof), they pointed fingers at the poor slobs that got the bonuses so they can’t even come out of their houses for fear of mob rule. Bullies at their finest!

  • bear 03/22/2009 1:30pm

    Based on the “legal” precedent set by the 111th Congress, it is now appropriate to tax the congress for 90% of their income and retirement based on their gross negligence/incompetence in managing the business of the country.(As an aside, isn’t taking money from folks AFTER they have done their work for an agreed on payment simply called “stealing”?) If I’m not mistaken, theft would count as one of those “impeachable” offenses. If the US folks can’t get behind blatant disregard for the law, I’m not sure what our opinions are actually worth.

  • BrendaMannina 03/23/2009 5:16am

    This bill violates our Constitution. Without it, we have nothing as a free people.
    All political representatives must make a vow to protect the Constitution before being sworn into office – but now a majority are having a change of heart and are breaking that vow! Hard as this bonus mess is to swallow, you cannot place a price on the freedom of an American, not for $165 million, or anything else! If this bill passes the Senate, our future is very dismal.

  • LederSko 03/23/2009 9:40am

    Government created this problem for itself, now it is grandstanding by taxing these bonuses. The root fear here however is what precedent this sets for contract law in the U.S. If the government can pass this 90% tax on them what does that say for what they can do to everyone else?

  • Smongold 03/23/2009 11:14am

    I agree that this bill violates Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3. This is a gross misuse of congressional power.

  • 1MidMan 03/24/2009 6:11am

    Where will it stop if this is adopted ? This is flat wrong!

  • msouthard 03/24/2009 8:56am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    This bill does not violate the Constitution, as it falls under the 16th Amendment. These bonuses are a type of income, and the 16th Amendment (being an amendment), overrules the original constitution.

    Besides the fact that this is taxpayer money we’re talking about anyway…

  • Comm_reply
    MatadorBID 03/24/2009 1:48pm

    You’re so wrong it’s terrifying. A bill cannot become law unless it abides by what is already set by the Constitution. The only way to “override” anything in the Constitution is by repealing it first. You’re basically saying that Congress can override Freedom of Religion by simply passing a law that contradicts it.

  • Comm_reply
    rizon72 03/26/2009 12:58pm

    It is terrorifying in the fact that if Congress does this now, what’s to stop them from doing it again on a company that doesn’t get bailout money. What if you worked hard, got a bonus, then congress came along and thought your company made too much and decided to tax your bomus at 90%. We the people need to step up now and say we’re taking this and that the real power isn’t in congress, but with the people.

  • Comm_reply
    bmwtriton 03/30/2009 5:20am

    It is still unconstitutional to target a specific institution in this way. If they are going to tax AIG bonuses at 90%, then they must do it to all bonuses. Congress still is prohibited from passing a Bill of Attainder, whether it is through taxes or otherwise.

  • Comm_reply
    bdougherty 04/03/2009 11:03am

    You could argue that this is an ex post facto law as well, since it is acting on something that has already happened.

  • Comm_reply
    DianaAmerican 04/08/2009 4:18pm

    Even if the 16th Ammendment was in fact Ratified, which has been questioned, since cases decided by the United States Supreme Court decide what is, you should look at:

    U.S. Supreme Court BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)it states that: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. ….. and it goes on

  • Comm_reply
    DianaAmerican 04/08/2009 4:24pm

    U.S. Supreme Court BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
    cont’d.. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes ‘from whatever source derived,’ the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. © As the right to tax ‘incomes from whatever source derived’ for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment.

  • Comm_reply
    pramsey 08/22/2009 12:09pm

    This has nothing to do with 16th ammendment which allows the Congess to levy taxes. This is a very bad way of gettng our (tax payers) money back from a select few who probably didn’t deserve it in the first place. This is basicaly a punishment tax.

  • DJSforUSA 03/24/2009 3:46pm

    This bill is against the U.S. Constitution. Those who think it is good, just wait till they are taxing you this amount or more! You may not like it then?

    Apparently those in the House & Senate think they are ABOVE, We The People! They themselves passed the bill giving the money (Taxpayers Money, by the Way!) to these people! Hm’m, now THEY are going to take Back the money (Tax Payers Money), and they are going to do What with it? Is this sometimes called money laundering?

    “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for”. – Thomas Jefferson

    “Experience [has] shown that, even under the best forms [of government], those entrusted with power have, in time and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”. – Thomas Jefferson 1779

  • jazz836062 03/25/2009 8:41am

    This sets an awful precedent. What is to stop congress form taxing John Doe just because he is a part of a “Anti-government” group(Anti-government being defined as a group who is not happy and wants to non-violently change the current government to better suit the needs of the people). The government does not have the right to individually tax persons because of: who they work for, where their income comes from, what groups they are associated with, ect…

    Taxation is SLAVERY – Thomas Jefferson

  • wilderness140 03/25/2009 7:58pm

    I agree with jazz836062 that this is the first step to a downward spiral, the government is overstepping their boundaries and nothing will change until the people take a stand and contact their representatives; let them know how we feel!!

  • slimgpd 04/01/2009 3:55am

    All these idiots are doing is backpedaling and trying to make up for their mistakes. The bonuses were given under a legal contract and this is unconstitutional. Instead of worring about what corporations make why don’t we look at what members in Congress make. They receive full pay for working less than half a year. That’s outrageous.

  • snydes45 04/03/2009 8:43am

    The part that is wrong is providing government aid in the first place. Hopefully Congress will realize their unintended consequence and think things through next time (both Dem/Reps).

  • Comm_reply
    bdougherty 04/03/2009 11:05am

    I couldn’t agree more, but we still have to ensure that the government is obeying the Constitution.

  • mrlargo 04/04/2009 11:20pm

    This is a violation of the United States Constitution under Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3. If they would have allowed AIG and other companies to go bankrupt this would not even be an issue.

  • mazdastuff 08/10/2009 1:18pm

    Thomas Jefferson…a government strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take it away…<——in case you have not noticed, this is the taking away part that is going on right now. FWIW, stop re-electing incumbents, no matter how well they serve. We need to start sending the message that Politics is no longer a Career but an Honor to Serve the People. Remember, they have their “own” health care and retirement. And they get automatic raises because they wanted that also.

  • Betonavette 10/28/2009 11:29am

    Since Rangel is the sponsor of this bill, he needs to pay his taxes first before demanding everyone else comes clean. What a pure hypocrit this guy is.


Vote on This Bill

26% Users Support Bill

122 in favor / 351 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments