Anger Over AIG Bonuses Misdirected?

Should House members demand names of AIG bonus recipients? Should they pass a bill imposing a 90% tax on those bonuses? As much as I'd like to say yes, the answer is probably not. Congress approved tax payer money to bail out insurance giant AIG, but left a loophole intact which allowed huge "retention" bonus payments.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) is asking for the new head of AIG to name names when it comes to who was paid millions in bonus cash. Congress is deflecting attention from their original oversight which allowed for this to happen in the first place.

In response to public outrage, the House passed overwhelmingly the 90% tax on the bonuses. There are some who say this is unconstitutional and Congress cannot pass legislation targeting individual groups, especially when the original bill allowed for these bonuses in the first place. I'm inclined to agree, and take Rep. Ron Paul's (R-TX) position that congress is acting in an emotional, reactionary way - much like when the Patriot Act was passed in the wake of 9/11. ..It's irrational.

A good counter argument is that 80% of AIG is now owned by taxpayers, i.e. - Congress... The money being used to pay these bonuses is not AIG's money, it's our money. What's wrong with Congress making demands on how that money is used, even after it was approved?

This is a conundrum. Ultimately (regardless of the implications), passing a bill reigning in these outrageous bonuses is a winner with the American people. Congress wouldn't have made such a bold move if public anger hadn't boiled over the way it did. We shouldn't allow our emotions to override the process of how our system works. However, taking a stand that says "enough is enough" sends a strong message to the future. The silver lining is that people are now paying attention to their government, focusing on the actions and words of both parties. In the end, that can only be a good thing!