I'm more curious about all that bailout money that was funneled overseas. I've seen only one or two stories on it.

Yes. The contracts that AIG paid out 100% on transactions that were underwater. Amusing.

Bonus-gate was merely a distraction. The REAL looters (politicians) are trying to project some faux populist angst against the traders over at AIG for bonuses that, as James noted, are a minimal portion of the total bonus money they've received.

Amazing how these things turn out.

Great!

When?

When I reach the point (whenever that is) :)

So, do you think having an empty chair might be the best solution? Seems like you'd agree, so I'm curious.

It wouldn't be the best solution for the country, but it would probably be the best solution for any potential treasury secretary candidates.

I'm not sure those are the most relevant parts of the constitution here, though there is the case to be made that Congress can't add new taxes to incomes received under the old tax code, but I'm not sure about the precedent on that.

Perhaps not directly to your point, but to the situation, this grab by Congress would certainly qualify as ex post facto law.

I was more thinking about how specifically targeted this tax is to a group of people, simply for being politically out of favor. It will make for a very interesting SCOTUS case, if they want to push it that far.

I suppose interesting is one word for it. Terrifying is another. Think about it, your preferred party isn't always going to be in power. And using these kinds of punitive taxes is a great way to such up the opposition. No longer will it just be the IRS auditing you, now you'll also get your own special "pain in the ass" tax.

But what the Hell people are pissed so lets just stone a few people to death in the public square to appease the angry God of the Economy.

Article 1 Section 9
...
Article 1 Section 10

I'm not sure those are the most relevant parts of the constitution here, though there is the case to be made that Congress can't add new taxes to incomes received under the old tax code, but I'm not sure about the precedent on that.

I was more thinking about how specifically targeted this tax is to a group of people, simply for being politically out of favor. It will make for a very interesting SCOTUS case, if they want to push it that far.

And, it turns out, Treasury knew about the AIG bonuses days earlier than we’d been led to believe (albeit not nearly as long as the Fed knew.

The idea that he was caught flat footed on this strains credulity to the breaking point

Well, we now know that Dodd was pressured into adding this amendment by the Treasury (says Dodd...today...as well as an un-named "source") so isn't it conclusive Geithner knew???....or at least someone high-up at the treasury knew???. I mean, why put that in with that date if you didn't know bonuses were coming down the pike???.

I'm more curious about all that bailout money that was funneled overseas. I've seen only one or two stories on it.

I surely will agree with you.

Great!

When?

I'm past that point; your tolerance levels may differ, but surely you can agree that you will reach it eventually if this continues?

I surely will agree with you.

Is singling out a specific group of people for additional taxation even legal?

Article 1 Section 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Article 1 Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Guess the answer is 'no'.

One question I increasingly find myself is why anyone in their right mind would want to be Treasury Secretary.

I'm wondering why Edward Liddy would want to come out of retirement to work for an annual salary of $1 to get heckled by self-righteous demagogues.

Getting rather crowded under that bus, ain't it?

Obama came up through Illinois politics which is known for this kind of thing. Not surprising really. What I find amazing is how so many people can still act like sycophantic lickspittles for President Obama.

I'd think his willingness to jettison such people, and absorb the criticism and move on, would count as a plus.

Except for the fact that President Obama keeps picking these people.

Obama is stuck. Who do they have that could take over? It's not like they've filled the lower Treasury positions. Can the economy survive with Treasury in perpetual limbo like Commerce?

It might actually be an improvement. Everytime Geithner shows any part of his anatomy in public the stock market drops like a rock. Usually it is to explain yet another boner. Maybe just parking an empty chair in the Treasury would make things better not worse.

My suggestion would be Rahm Emanuel. He's got the experience, e.g. his time at Wasserstein Perella and his stint on the board of Freddie Mac.

Oh yeah, that last one is a huge plus. Much better than Golden Geithner. Please.

Is singling out a specific group of people for additional taxation even legal? I mean, presumably it wouldn't be legal to create a 90% tax on bonuses to black people.

Might be after Congress and Obama get done with this. But hey, he's the Obamassiah, no need to worry.

This cycle would repeat until their reputation had been completely destroyed at which point they'd be thrown out and a new chump would be chosen.

So, do you think having an empty chair might be the best solution? Seems like you'd agree, so I'm curious.