![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mixed feelings.
Mar. 17th, 2009 12:25 pmCongress threatens to tax AIG executives' bonuses
Congressional Democrats vowed Tuesday to all but strip AIG executives of their $165 million in bonuses as expressions of outrage swelled in Congress over eye-catching extra income for employees of a firm that has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
On a personal, schadenfreudilicious sense, I can't help but like this. After all, these are the greedy idiots who put short-term profit in front of long term stability, knowing that their house of cards was going to fall eventually, confident that they themselves would still get theirs, and for a while, it seemed they were right. Now, their ill(but-legally)-gotten gains are gonna evaporate. How can you not quiver with glee?
On the other hand, I don't think this sets a good precedent. For the government to step in and retroactively change the rules like this, EVEN IF the original rules were badly broken, can't help but hurt confidence in the government's consistency, which is the very basis of that whole "rule-of-law" mindset thingy, that allegedly separates us from places like Zimbabwe. Or something, I'm tired, I'll write more coherently later.
Congressional Democrats vowed Tuesday to all but strip AIG executives of their $165 million in bonuses as expressions of outrage swelled in Congress over eye-catching extra income for employees of a firm that has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.
On a personal, schadenfreudilicious sense, I can't help but like this. After all, these are the greedy idiots who put short-term profit in front of long term stability, knowing that their house of cards was going to fall eventually, confident that they themselves would still get theirs, and for a while, it seemed they were right. Now, their ill(but-legally)-gotten gains are gonna evaporate. How can you not quiver with glee?
On the other hand, I don't think this sets a good precedent. For the government to step in and retroactively change the rules like this, EVEN IF the original rules were badly broken, can't help but hurt confidence in the government's consistency, which is the very basis of that whole "rule-of-law" mindset thingy, that allegedly separates us from places like Zimbabwe. Or something, I'm tired, I'll write more coherently later.