The brilliant men and women who make up the United State House of Representatives, never at a loss when it comes to sensing a foul public mood and a desire to ferret out some scapegoats, have passed a bill that would retroactively tax any bonuses received by employees at firms which have accepted $5 billion or more in taxpayer bailout money, so long as the employee's total taxable income exceeds $250,000 for the year. The tax, which would need to pass the United States Senate and be signed by the President to become law, would apply only to bonuses awarded this calendar year. The bill is, of course, an effort to "do something" about the bonuses awarded to employees of A.I.G., at least some of whom were responsible for getting the company into it's dire condition, and many of whom are no longer even with the company. Members of Congress do know, however, that you can't pass a tax bill just aimed at employees of one company, which is why it is directed at employees of any company that has taken bailout money. This is all very good politics, but lousy public policy, as Charles Krauthammer explains in this piece.



The public outcry against the A.I.G. bonuses has led to serious security concerns for A.I.G. management, who now find themselves and their fellow employees as targets for the wrath and scorn of a public genuinely suffering from the economic downturn, and little disposed to have much sympathy for wealthy people who are perceived to be the cause of the problem. I am reminded of the Kulaks, a land-owning set of peasants who were made out as scapegoats by the Bolsheviks in Russia during and after the Russian Revolution. They were treated rather harshly, as I recall.

Michael Gerson and Michael Kinsley each have thoughts about the bonuses, and the response to them.

Terence Cochrane, though, gets more to the point. Do the political shenanigans of our ruling class really mean the end of America, at least as we know it?

Peggy Noonan also wonders about President Obama. Is he a hedgehog, a fox, or neither?